If you are going to go down, there are times when it is better to go down fighting.

[Skinner]

Like most of you, I am deeply disappointed by the so-called "compromise" between Bush and Congress, which does virtually nothing to move us toward an end to this disastrous war, while continuing to fund it.

As you all should know by now, I am a loyal Democrat, because I know there are extremely important differences between the two parties, and even if not all elected Democrats are perfect, they are, on the whole, much better than the alternative. I am also very much of a pragmatist, because I believe that sometimes compromise is necessary and proper in order to advance the greater good.

But I see absolutely no upside to this compromise. This was, quite simply, a display of cowardice on the part of our elected officials.

Based on what I have read and heard in the media, it seems that the stated justification for this compromise is that we don't have the votes to override a veto by President Bush. Looking at the political reality in the Senate, I think it is almost certainly true that we don't have the votes. But I do not believe, either morally or politically, that in this case the inability to override a veto is a legitimate justification for utter capitulation.

It's clear what the motivating factor is here. Some Democrats believe that if they fail to fund the war, they might appear weak, and they will be accused of not supporting the troops. And on some level they are right -- they would undoubtedly be accused of not supporting the troops. Normally, I think it is a good thing for elected leaders to think a few steps ahead politically and anticipate the response from the opposition. On some level I suppose I appreciate that they are being careful. But as of now I think we have officially gotten to a point (indeed, gone way past the point) where our fear of our opponent's attacks is leading us to abandon our most important priorities. If we are unwilling to take a stand on this -- an issue where the vast majority of Americans agrees with us, and which contributed hugely to our victories in the last election -- then there is no point in having the majority at all.

Democratic leaders in Congress have sent the message to Bush, loud and clear, that they are afraid of a fight. The president smacked us down like a group of pathetic schoolchildren, and all we can say is, "Thank you sir, can I have another?" The media sees that we wimped out on this one. They aren't spinning this as Democrats supporting the troops -- they're spinning this as Democratic soiled-underpants capitulation. And they are right.

What some Democrats in Congress have forgotten is that sometimes you can advance your agenda, and even improve your chances in the next election, even when you are not successful in passing your bill. Disagreements like this one inevitably involve risk, but they are also hugely important opportunities to illustrate the difference between us and them. This is our chance to show the country where we stand. And it is our chance to show the country where our opponents stand. Remember: We are on the same side as the majority of the country on this one. Surely it makes sense to raise the profile and show the voters, in the starkest possible way, the difference between the two parties.

And it is well past time for us to publicly smack-down the ridiculous lie that opposing the war equals opposing the troops. By allowing ourselves to be so paralyzed by fear that we do nothing about this war, we are implicitly agreeing with that lie. We should welcome the opportunity, once an for all, to publicly and decisively tell the Republicans to take their faux love of the troops -- they love them so much that they insist on sending them to die in an open-ended, pointless war that even they know is already lost -- and cram it up their collective backside. It's time for a showdown. Let's settle this thing once and for all.

And while we're at it, let's call Lieberman's bluff. That guy knows that he only matters as long as he is caucusing with the Democrats. If he decides to bail and join the Republicans, then he's a nobody. Yes, it would tip control of the Senate to the Republicans, and that would be a bad thing. But if the Democrats grow some spine and show the country that we're serious about ending this war -- while showing over and over again that the Republicans support continuing it -- the 1-vote GOP majority in the Senate will be overcome in the next election. Until then, we can block their crap in the House.

At this point, nothing requires us to pass a bill that Bush will sign -- at least not yet. We can keep sending him legislation that we know he will veto, over and over again. Each time, it will show that we're on the right side, and they're on the wrong side. And it will show that we have guts. If anyone is genuinely concerned about Democrats appearing weak, our unwillingness to take a stand on anything is a much greater sign of weakness than our position on the war.

The time is now. Show this president that the Democrats are not to be fucked with.

[Phredicles]

1. Thank you - well said.

[roguevalley]

248. Emiliano Zappata: "I would rather die on my feet a free man than live

on my knees a slave." Been my motto for years and I agree with you, Skinner. I wish the old dem party would come back. SIGH!

[JDPriestly]

2. Excellent.

[mmonk]

3. Bravo. There is a time to fight even if for no other reason than

taking the moral high ground. A recommend.

[hayu_lol]

19. Very well said...If our founders had taken the same (gutless)position...

we would still be paying homage to King George--wait--we still are apparently.

Gotta give our wimps credit for one thing...they can do this and still be brave enough to pick up their paychecks.

grinch: a mod on another site

[Philosoraptor]

4. Exactly and precisely.

[lonestarnot]

5. Now you're talk'n!

:loveya: We are not to be fucked with, and somebody in Congress better get some damn backbone!

[Dhalgren]

6. Agreed. K&R!

[BobRossi]

7. Dems wend down alright...

Went down on shrub and came up smiling.

[Beelzebud]

8. From your lips to their ears... It's a little late for showing we have guts...

[Robbien]

9. Wow

Thanks.

You say it so well.

[atreides1]

10. Thank You

If only all the Democrats in Congress had the same kind of courage.

[Richard Steele]

11. Yes indeed, it's "a much greater sign of weakness than our position on the war". recommended.

[IChing]

12. Thanks for you input

I'm tired and have been ill lately and this latest hat trick
reminded me of bulwinkle



"must of brought the wrong hat"

[DemExpat]

13. I so agree here, Skinner! But this rally is too late, I'm afraid......

The time is now. Show this president that the Democrats are not to be fucked with.

They've already bent over in shame IMO.

DemEx

[Skinner]

20. Sadly, you are probably right.

The bills haven't been voted on yet, so there is a sliver of hope. But you are probably correct that this is a done deal.

Sure would have been nice, though.

[DemExpat]

31. Now would be the time for a massive march on Washington.

Like the secular Turks in Turkey.....

I'd fly over for this one - this capitulation leaves too little room for hope for other courses of action left to our chosen leaders, doesn't it?

DemEx

[DUyellow]

227. march this weekend

[tblue]

221. Did you send this to Congress? For whatever it's worth, they SHOULD see it.

This is too well written to only post on DU. Send it to newspapers and to Nancy & the Gang.

Thanks, Skinner, for saying everything I've been thinking much better than I ever could've said it.

[blm]

14. I agree - but don't believe Lieberman is acting alone here. He has staunch allies

among the Democratic elite who are the ones actually holding sway over the Dem leadership because too many Dems are convinced that only they have the political skills and acumen to lead the Dem party.

And we all know who the Dem powerbrokers are who quietly support the Lieberman approach on Iraq and terrorism.

[cascadiance]

237. And you KNOW why he's now supporting Susan Collins!

He's beating the Dems to the punch! He knows that she's up for re-election, may sense that as a moderate that she's vulnerable to losing then, and might have been considering moving over to the Dems (and would be given one of the committee chairs that Lieberman now holds!). I say we go in there and UP the ante! Get her to come over to the Dems and as soon as she does, tell Lieberman he can go take a hike!

[chimpymustgo]

15. Damn skippy. Thanks for spelling it out - no SPIN. Dems tucked tail and slunk away.

We have to show that we aren't afraid to fight. For what is RIGHT. For what "we the people" WANT.

And f*ck Lieberman. We'll still control committees, per agreement, and we'll reap huge gains on '08.

[DS1]

16. Awesome

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

17. It is time to cram it up the backsides...

Of a lot of people, from both sides of the aisle. There is a number of Dems who also need to get schooled, in stark and unmistakable terms. Any Dem that voted against or worked to weaken the bill needs to be deluged, dare I say, harassed to the point his office is rendered inoperable. Inculcated in the realities of what their votes and actions will mean, as regards grassroots MONEY in the next election cycle. Wavering repukes need a little TLC, perhaps even financial, especially those in safe districts and seats, which will require a lot of nose holding.

More than anything else, every move should be designed to incrementally erode the power of K Street. Especially those K Street concerns who work against ending the war.

Back to Dems: They must be reminded, in the starkest terms, that netroots power can turn against them as well, and how that will not be an enjoyable experience.

FInally: Beltway Dem consultants. They need to be drilled like a bad tooth, for verily, they are, as a group, the lowest of the low. They hold no real conviction except the continuance of their gravy train.

[nam78_two]

18. K&R

Totally agree.

[liberal N proud]

21. K&R- Well put Skinner

[Dinger]

22. Skinner, You Are Simoly The Best, Better Than All The Rest

Wow! You said Skinner!!!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[myrna minx]

23. Thank you Skinner. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

24. In that vein, where are you on impeachment?

[Skinner]

25. Still opposed. (nt)

[nashville_brook]

75. do you have a journal entry explaining your position?

just wondering b/c it's been a while since impeachment seemed controversial. would like to revisit the argument against.

[Skinner]

100. I don't have anything that is solely on this issue

But I explain my position in the 11th paragraph of this journal entry:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/141

My position on this hasn't changed since then.

[pat_k]

151. A few questions on the referenced paragraph

A few thoughts about the election and the future of this country.
Posted by Skinner
in General Discussion
Tue Nov 14th 2006

. . .
I know many progressives want to see Congress move quickly to impeach the president; I am not one of them. It is my opinion that doing so would be a political disaster for our party, but more importantly, moving quickly to impeach could do grave harm to our country. Believe me, I would personally love to see Bush get impeached. But doing so now would come at much too great a cost -- if it could be made to happen at all, which is doubtful. I believe that impeaching Bush -- coming so soon after Clinton was impeached -- could begin a cycle of recrimination that would be extremely difficult for our country to get out of. I suspect that the next Democratic president would likely find himself impeached as well. That is, if there were another Democratic president, which probably wouldn't happen in 2008 if we tried to impeach Bush. To be clear, I have not ruled out impeachment. I fully support aggressive oversight of the Bush Administration by the Congress, including investigations where they are appropriate. But we cannot possibly impeach based on what we have now. My view is very simple: Investigations first, then we can discuss impeachment. . .

A few questions about your thoughts on the future of this country

1. What makes you believe "we cannot possibly impeach based on what we have now"?
   
   Bush and Cheney waging war on the constitution in plain sight. For example, official edicts declaring Gitmo to be a Geneva-free zone, spying on Americans without warrant, and abusing signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress, including McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed the Senate 90-9), to name just a few.
   
   The public record holds everything needed to make a number of simple, clear, and compelling cases to impeach Bush and Cheney. Why "investigate first" when they can impeach AND investigate?
   
   If the House leadership refuses to impeach for known war crimes and illegal spying, what could an investigation possibly turn up that would move them to act?


2. What does the proximity to the impeachment of a popular President on a trivial matter have do with impeaching a pariah for crimes so grave that they are subject to the penalty of death under the law? Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min").
   
   Republicans are apparently perfectly happy to impeach for trivial matters and policy positions (some are already demanding Bush be impeached for his immigration policy). Why would impeaching or refusing to impeach Bush and Cheney on grave matters make Republicans any more or less likely to call for impeachment on trivial ones in the future?


3. What is accomplished by "aggressive oversight" of people who could care less if you expose them as long as the only force that could stop them is "off the table"? What is accomplished with "oversight" of a steamroller that just keeps steamrolling along?


4. How do you respond to the point that refusing to impeach makes Members of Congress complicit in the war crimes that Bush and Cheney are committing because they are giving the WH the cover of "Hey, if we were violating the constitution the Democratic congress would be impeaching. They not only aren't impeaching, they've ruled it out; taken it off the table."


5. If you would "personally love" to see Bush and Cheney impeached, what makes you believe that a vast majority of your fellow Americans don't fee the same? Particularly when we have proof that they DO feel the same way in the Jan 27, 2007 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2752103&mesg_id=2753090">Newsweek poll, which found that 58% "personally want GWB's presidency to be over."? (It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that as Bush's numbers have plummeted, this number has gone up.)


6. What "political disaster" is sure to come as a result of impeaching Bush and Cheney?


7. How do you respond the following argument that the political benefits of impeaching Bush and Cheney could outweigh the political risks they fear?
   
   
   . . .Democratic leaders are hanging themselves by exacerbating the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party when they could be solving them.
   
   The Democratic Party's Number 1 problem is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to pea-shooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.
   
   Their Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their violations in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" Those who do accuse, and then declare their intent to tolerate the intolerable by refusing to impeach sound like idiots.
   
   As long as they refuse to impeach, they trap themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.
   
   -- From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=929099&mesg_id=932483">May 21 post


8. How do you respond to the point that, if we learned anything from the vote on the Authorization to Use force (AUMP), we learned that standing and fighting for the principles we treasure, even if it turns out to be a "charge of the light brigade," ultimately benefits the politician who does so?
   
   We heard the same dire predictions on the AUMF as we hear on impeachment ("if we don't get behind the AUMFimpeachment, they'll call us names and the backlash beast will get us.") Unfortunately, we were unable to save them from themselves then. Who knows, if they fought the good fight, perhaps the nation would not be suffering the devastating consequences. But, even if they had lost the battle, we know that. . .
   
   
   . . .The Members who voted for the AUMF. . . have paid, and are continuing to pay a high political price. The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators who opposed the AUMF -- have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).
   
   -- From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=929099&mesg_id=932483">May 21 post


9. If the American people want the Democratic congress to refuse to impeach so they can focus on the policies they articulated during the campaign, why has approval for the Democratic congress taken a downturn in recent polls? If the public is so keen to see them focus on Democratic policies, why didn't they get a boost in the polls when Nancy finished her 100 hours bit?
   
   What are your thoughts on the evidence that they were elected, first and foremost, to oppose Bush? (See http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">Reasons for Democratic Success)
   
   And finally. . .


10. If we allow the horrors committed by Mr. Unitary Executivecy go unchallenged, what kind of future does this country have? How do we look our kids in the eye and say "Well, yeah, they committed war crimes and turned the USA into an international pariah, but we didn't impeach them because we were afraid of that Republicans would react badly and we didn't trust the American electorate."

[Pooka Fey]

168. Kicking your great post - thank you for writing this.

[file83]

205. This is what confuses me about Skinner's postition.

In that 11th paragraph you sited, Skinner basically says that we shouldn't push for impeachment because:

A) It probably wouldn't work anyways
B) It might be politically risky

But then he turns right around and says in the main post here (very popular) and says we should continue to try to set a deadline in the war spending bill, even though:

A) It probably wouldn't work anyways
B) It might be politically risky

Funny how someone can use the same set of reasoning to argue in two opposing directions.

He was saying something about showing signs of weakness...well, nothing weaker than arguing against yourself.

[Horse with no Name]

26. Thank you Skinner

I completely agree.

[RevCheesehead]

27. That's exactly what I thought about Habeus Corpus.

Sometimes you take a stand, even if you know you'll be defeated, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Oh, and Joe Lieberman? He's increasingly irrelevant.

[calimary]

249. Couldn't agree with you more, Rev!

Sometimes you just simply HAVE TO take a stand. Whether you think you have the votes or not.

Period.

[Blue_Roses]

28. well said!

Lieberman plays both sides and I agree, he needs to either shit or get off the pot. No more holding his manipulative hand. I have to say, when I heard this had happened, I thought, what good does having a majority do if they roll over for Bush every time he pouts when he can't have his way. Bush has been "enabled" long enough.

[bvar22]

K&R

Of course, this presumes that the Democratic Party leadership really wants to stop the WAR, AND the flood of taxpayer money into the pockets of the War Profiteers.

I'm not so sure anymore.

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. Very well said, and thank you for that Lieberman view

I'd said pretty much the same thing a few weeks ago and I wholeheartedly agree. Call his bluff!

[Double T]

30. Not only must 'WE' fight the rethugs, but now 'WE' must fight the Democrats.......

too. The Democratic Leadership is sowing the seeds of their own reelection destruction by being so damn gutless. 'WE' have no other choice at this time; suck it up and forge ahead with the agenda of the real majority of voters. Skinner, thanks for the visionary summation!!!

[youthere]

32. Bravo! My sentiments EXACTLY!

[info being]

33. That's exactly it. It isn't just "doing the right thing" anymore...

...its good politics to go along with *us*, the people who support them and the people who care. Even the other side seems that our points are valid, and find it so easy to criticize the Democrats for caving.

[bullwinkle428]

34. Thank you for confirming, "Are we allowed to say the Democrats caved on war funding?"

:applause: :yourock: :toast: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Explanation for the wording : at another board I frequent, posters sometime use the phrase "Are we allowed to say that ________? ", so it might be one of those "had to be there" kind of things...

[pwb]

35. republicans failed to join us

thats my take on it. what they call loyalty to bush i call fear. but what do i know?

[Cameron27]

36. Thanks Skinner

great post. I agree:-)

[deutsey]

37. "The idea that legislators get out ahead of public opinion,

that they should try to shape that opinion (as, say, did former Arkansas Democrat William Fulbright on the Vietnam War), sometimes risking their political careers by doing so, is essentially passe in American politics. Self-preservation, the need for money, and the advice of political consultants all discourage taking risks."

--Elizabeth Drew, New York Review of Books, May 10, 2007

:evilfrown:

Good post, though, Skinner. :thumbsup:

[Zenlitened]

45. That's a great quote by Elizabeth Drew.

Americans are just about starving for genuine leaders who will stand up and speak without fear: "Here's what I believe in, plain and simple. Here are the facts that support my position and the policies I plan. Are ya with me?"

That's Leadership, with a capital "L." And our history books are filled with men and women who personified the very definition of the word. Yet today, the very concept has been debased by the Bush-Cheney cabal into mere demagoguery, nothing more. And so many Democrats seem to have forgotten the concept entirely.

Thanks for sharing that quote, because it really gives an insight into what's causing our discontent today. It also explains a lot about the hope so many are investing in Al Gore. Because he seems to have learned -- the hard way, but sometimes that's how the lessons really stick -- the value of leading the nation in dialogue, challenging us to examine the facts, and laying out an honest vision of where we ought to be headed.

:hi:

Gonna go Google "Elizabeth Drew" now.

[Generator]

214. Yeah you quoted me that too

EXCEPT and it's a big darn except, the legislators are BEHIND public opinon, this war and this president do not have approval. They do not represent us. And yes that quote is correct it is passe, as is Democracy at this point, without representation.

[johnnie]

38. I agree, but how many times do we have to show them?

I will never go republican, but this is getting so frustrating. We *did* try to show the country and this president last November, and here we are today. I will keep supporting this party, but it is getting tiresome.

[bigtree]

39. you haven't addressed whether you think there is a need for funding

at all.

Do you think the soldiers already deployed need the funds provided in the bill. If so, shouldn't we find some way to get them the funding while Congress argues? Is there any point where you think they would need the money?

I don't think the issue is so much about guts. I think for many legislators, the notion that these funding shortfalls would negatively impact on the troops already deployed is more than enough for them to be concerned, well outside of any political considerations. It doesn't look like withholding money was moving Bush off of his occupation. Further, it appears that the main intention of withholding funds is to have the troops suffer some sort of shortfall to the degree that someone in the administration or in the Pentagon took notice enough to care and react. Who in the administration do we expect to care enough to end the occupation?

I think there has to be some way to get the soldiers in the field the resources, equipment, and supplies they need to keep them safe and secure (if you accept that they are experiencing life-threatening shortfalls). Capitulation on the funding was as inevitable as the pronouncement in the beginning of the debate that our majority would not cut off funds to the troops. I don't think it's fair at all to portray legislators as cowards for acting on their concerns that the soldiers get what they need to keep them safe and secure while they are victim to the political limbo in the U.S.

I think this effort has already demonstrated the lack of support in Congress for pressuring the administration by withholding funds that would go to Iraq and expecting Bush to then react and withdraw. How long are you willing to wait to provide the resources to the troops that have been well-documented as necessary to address the continuing shortages and disintegration of material and supplies?

[Skinner]

51. I believe that ultimately there will need to be some funding.

My view is that we have squandered an important opportunity by capitulating so early and so decisively. There is no guarantee that ultimately we would prevail on deadlines for troop withdrawl -- in fact I think in the end we probably would not. But in the meantime we had an opportunity to make our position clear to the American people, while tying this albatross around the Republican's neck and then clubbing them repeatedly over the head with it.

[bigtree]

69. It couldn't have played out any worse

I think it was inevitable that it would come to this - not because of some Democratic cravenness - but because of the contradiction in trying to help the troops by ending the occupation, and squeezing their budget hoping Bush would cry uncle as they suffer shortfalls. It wouldn't take much for the public to begin to blame Democrats in their opposition for any negative consequences for our soldiers resulting from any shortfall of resources or equipment.

Obviously there are political considerations in any thing we undertake. It's not necessarily cowardice to operate with those political considerations in mind as we seek broad support for our efforts.

All of that said, I too wonder at the timing of the compromise and wish they had taken *just a little more time off of the clock. But they made a decision to give up the money right now, instead of waiting. That decision has set the party on fire. They knew it would and acted anyway. That's just not my definition of political cowardice, if they are truly motivated by their concern for the safety and well-being of the troops already deployed, and for those on the way, while they argue back and forth.

Thanks for answering.

[mudesi]

68. The funding shortfall is because of the President, NOT congress

The Democrats already passed a bill that would have funded the troops. Bush Vetoed it. They could have passed another that would fund the troops. If Bush vetoed that one, they could pass another one that would fund the troops. The legislates did not withhold funding the troops.

Bush is stubbornly vetoing funding bills because he doesn't like certain provisions in those bills that would set a timetable for withdrawal. Bush is the one who is delaying the funding.

[bigtree]

74. yet, the funds are still effectively delayed

at some point it becomes irrelevant WHO is actually responsible, and it becomes a question of who is doing something to address it while the politicians squabble.

[mudesi]

81. So Congress should give in to Bush's demands?

By giving in to Mr. Bush's demands, more troops will die in the long run than if they explicitly were to cut off funding.

Who is responsible is absolutely relevant. If Congress was writing bills that explicitly cut off funding, that would be one thing. But it is the president's job to sign the bills that Congress passes. If Mr. Bush doesn't want to fund the troops, then it's time for Americans to take to the streets and demand impeachment.

[bigtree]

90. Who do we expect to get the troops already deployed the resources and equipment they need?

Is it really responsible to hold those resources hostage indefinitely to the acceptance of withdrawal language by Bush? Why do we assume he cares at all about the safety and well-being of the troops to notice their shortfalls and agree to end his occupation to get them those funds? He obviously cares more about continuing than getting them the resources. I don't know that street protests or even impeachment would guarantee that he'd bend.

At any rate, I think it's an irresponsible notion to expect Bush to react to troops suffering shortfalls they've been experiencing since 2003, enough to knock him off of his occupation. We tried to get the money to the troops with withdrawal language in legislation. That has failed so far. At some point those troops who have been left in Iraq because of that failure need funding. How long should they wait for those funds while we bicker back and forth?

And, the idea of using the impeachment process as a reaction to a presidential veto is absurd. Impeachment shouldn't be used as a substitute to legislating. It's a measure to remove the president from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, not a tool to shortcut the legislative process just because we can't manage enough votes.

[mike_c]

96. you should quit parroting republican talking points....

The troops in the field are funded by the regular defense appropriation-- that is more than sufficient for withdrawing them safely, for example. The supplemental appropriation is to pay the additional costs of waging war and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan-- the costs of committing crimes against humanity.

[bigtree]

105. You need to come off of that shit.

Since when is concern for the safety and well-being of our soldiers confined to republicans?

The point you are ignoring is that the withdrawal effort had clearly stalled before this compromise. You take no responsibility at all for the needs of the troops already deployed which have been outlined by our own party. It's not just republicans who are insisting our troops who are already deployed and those on the way need funds.

I'm just not going to turn my back in the interim that the politicians have deadlocked on the question of withdrawal and pretend like these concerns which have been outlined and advocated by responsible members of our party don't exist. It's too convenient to just claim that support for funding the troops already deployed is in opposition to withdrawal. That notion falls flat on it's face when confronted by staunch anti-occupation patriots like Murtha, Skelton, and others with the military experience to back up their concern for the troops as they advocate both a withdrawal and getting the soldiers who are already deployed the funding they need.

[truedelphi]

246. Some of us and Keith Olbermann is in this crowd

Very much feel that it is a Presidential fantasy that the funding is cut off if a new piece of funding legislation is cut off.
I sure liked it tonight when Keith mentioned that for that matter we could simply delay paying off the Halliburton contracts and fund the troops that way.

[pat_k]

268. Who said "impeach for veto"? Impeach for torture. or criminal spying, or. . .

. . . abusing signing statements to "interpret" the laws passed by Congress into oblivion (i.e., Our laws. We the People). Any one of the three will do.

Attempting to hit Bush with the Congressional purse was doomed to be an impotent gesture from the beginning.

How many times do Bush, Cheney, and the minions they have installed throughout the executive branch have to prove that the laws we pass mean NOTHING to them. When will the Democratic leadership finally get that the outlaws in the WH don't play by the rules. That they don't care about being "exposed" as long as they are not forced to stop.

The outcome of the funding "fight" was a matter of indifference to the Bush syndicate from the beginning. If the veto had been overturned, he would have nullified the bill with a signing statement or invoked the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power to raid whatever part of the budget he felt like raiding to do whatever he pleases. He'd probably even see it as a great chance to gut some government agency that actually serves the American people.

Whether or not articles of impeachment end up going down in the Senate (which is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=951592&mesg_id=959264">FAR from assured), impeachment is the ONLY fight worth fighting because it is the only fight that, if won, is capable of actually "making them" do something (i.e., resign and hand the keys to somebody like Danforth or be sent packing and hand the keys to Pelosi).

If they consider the law at all, Bush and Cheney view it as mere suggestions. Win or lose, with the exception of impeachment, there are no resolutions or bills that Bush and Cheney won't just steamroll over. And every single time the Congressional leadership gets "rolled" they look weaker. Unless the Democratic caucus enjoys being ridiculed and disdained, they had better kick Nancy's ass and get serious about impeachment.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

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

[bigtree]

212. wonderful. another person who can't make an argument without an insult

brilliant.

[Generator]

213. Why would that be insult when I'm sure you agree with many of

Mr. Ford's positions. It's not like he's Lieberman, for god's sake. LOL.

Oh wait-I know you aren't pro-war, just pro-troops.

[bigtree]

216. where in the world did you get all of that?

I really don't support the majority of positions Harold Ford took as a representative or as a candidate. I really don't like the crap he's been reported as saying recently, so . . . where the fuck are you coming from?

My views can't be reduced to a slogan. That's why I take so much time to spell them out here and elsewhere. Now, enough with the insults, right? We can debate issues and events without casting aspersions against folks we have no way in hell of knowing personally.

[babylonsister]

40. Thanks, Skinner. Any possibility of getting the activist group going?

I'm willing to do whatever it takes...

[Straight Shooter]

41. Once again, we are seeing headlines, "the most violent month in Iraq for U.S. soldiers."

Our troops are over there fighting and dying for what? Nothing! They are showing as much courage as possible under the worst of circumstances, for what? Nothing!

And yet so many of our Democratic politicians cannot even muster the courage to stand up to bush. Pathetic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Fear of political repercussions is a recipe for paralysis.

Which this congress has demonstrated again and again in their half-hearted dealings with the most important issue facing the country today.

It is not "one-issue" comparable to other issues. It is many issues involving everything from the morality of our country's dealing with other countries to the impact of "anti-terrorism" measures in the United States, to the crumbling of the infrastructure due to the initial and continuing costs of a failed "war" that was waged to give props to an incompetent and corrupt president.

But, the main reason that the Democratic "leaders" should be scorned is the continuing loss of lives that is being funded with their timid agreement.

Calling it a "victory" or "progress" flies in the face of the obvious is political posturing at it's most blatant and is downright insulting.

[Triana]

43. Democrats: If you don't STAND for SOMETHING...

...you'll fall for ANYTHING. And, apparently, they did.

See, THIS is why I refuse to register as a Dem anymore. It's shameful.

HOW CAN WE GET THIS LETTER to Democrats in DC? Should we email it en masse, fax it in, call and gripe, what?

Because, really, they don't seem to be listening anyway. We need a television ad, radio ad or billboard - and/or to do SOMETHING that embarasses "Our representatives" in DC - a sort of collective constituent smackdown - one they CANNOT IGNORE and one that hits the media, as well - think about it - I'm sure the Republican-loving lamestream media would eat that story up eh? I think they would.

What do we do? They are more worried about their candy a**es than the people who put them in the majority to end this war and they spit in our faces and on the graves of the fallen in order to continue it. THAT is the order of their priorities?

Despicable.

THEN there's the issue of impeachment. IF THIS DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WON'T EVEN STAND UP FOR OUR CONSTITUTION and the rule of law in this nation and the moral principles behind both - then WHAT are they up there for?

I'm totally, utterly DISGUSTED with them all.

[TheCowsCameHome]

44. I expect to get screwed by the Repubes, but not by our own.

This is disturbing.

[kowanda32]

173. YEP!

This is so sad!

[Individualist]

46. You summed it up perfectly: "Democratic leaders in Congress have sent the message to Bush,

loud and clear, that they are afraid of a fight."

This message was not only an approval for continuing the war, it was a message to the cabal to go ahead and do whatever you want; we won't oppose you. That's why I'm not only infuriated, but it scares the hell out of me to know that the cabal has been given the blessing of congressional democrats.

Gravel was so right when he said "You people scare me".

[truedelphi]

182. Do you ever get the feeling that any time the Dems have a chance to

Grab the ring from Mordor and put it squarely into the volvanic fire
That they are summoned into Karl Rove's office and there they are
made to sit down while a giant big screen descends and then they hear
the voice of Darth Vader speaking as a nesclip starts spinning and they get
to witness all the media spin that there has been manufactured about their
lives.

It's like the Powers that Be have something on everyone - who knows -
maybe things on Nacy Pelosi's little vineyard in California are not all as
legal as they shoul dbe and that alone could hang her out to dry. Or something even more sinister.

[Individualist]

193. IMO it's more a matter of complicity

(thanks to DLC influence) rather than blackmail. DLC wants the party to be a submissive branch of the republican party, and it looks as if they've succeeded.

[truedelphi]

203. Well I just saw Edwards being interviewed By Chris Matthews

And he is not DLC compliant.

He remains convicned that "Bush has to be stopped"

What is it about Clinton tht she can't say it?

is Bush her (Darth Vadian) father or something?

How does the DLC go about to get the compkliance they demand?

[barbtries]

262. i have wondered

something similar - not quite that imaginative, but yes. hell yes. what the hell has the administration have on every goddam politician in this country? i mean i know there are exceptions. but they are much too few and far between. and every fucking day, more people suffer premature death for the enrichment of the corporatocracy. it sucks.

[bonito]

47. Wow well said!

Failure doesn't mean losing, failure is giving up, and in this case people will die because of it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

Well stated.....

K&R

[CaliforniaPeggy]

48. Dupe, delete...nt

[lutefisk]

49. This cowardice hurts the Democratic Presidential candidate, too

I think that many voters will also see the 2008 Democratic candidate for President through the lens of "Democratic soiled-underpants capitulation" and feel disgusted enough to just go with a tough-talking, "better-than-Bush" Republican candidate.

I see this as another reason Gore is the best possible candidate in 2008. He is something of an outsider at this point, unsoiled by the subservient politics of many in his party. He hasn't wavered or backed down on anything.

And I agree completely about Lieberman - cut him loose. Better to go down fighting at this point! Get off your knees Democrats! At least we still have Feingold and a few others.

[NightWatcher]

50. Are you going to start Anarchist Underground?

Since it looks like the Dems are not going to do anything, is there a time when we need to replace the whole lot of them? If we need to replace the democrats who have not acted on our behalf as well as unseat the republicans because they are obviously acting against the good faith of the public and in many cases the Constitution and America as a living, political body, should there come a time when such a DRASTIC and SEVERE change is needed in order to maintain the rights and protections of the people, that we consider scraping the whole damn bunch of them and start over?

I know that we are not going to scrap the entire government, but why not consider dissolving the entire Congress and leadership in favor of new people from new parties who might not be owned and controlled wholesale by the evil corporations. I think that we seriously need to research a new party. Not a weak third party that will not show in the national elections, but a people-driven populist progressive (borderline- socialists but with different labels) party that represents ALL of the people and not just those who can afford to buy or rent a representative.

If Anarchist Underground is too severe, we could change the name to The Populist Underground.
:)

[Skinner]

56. Um, no.

Third parties are for splitting the vote and losing elections.

[NightWatcher]

57. then do you suggest that we purge the Democratic party

they continue to fail us by not acting on our behalf.

[Skinner]

64. Not with you there either.

I suggest that the Democrats in Congress wake up and start to realize that taking a stand is not the only approach that involves risk. There are also risks involved with excessive caution.

[AbbyR]

103. Y'know, I just don't think it's going to happen

I've been avoiding DU lately, mainly because I'm just sick of finding out everything MY party is doing that I'm opposed to. This is just another time when they have said "I don't care what the people think, I'm going to bow down and let Bush kick me."

There comes a time when they have to stand up to the bully, and I am losing hope that they will ever do it.

[Usrename]

109. In other words, we must show them that we can be fucked with.

Kind of weak response from you, after the OP you penned.

There won't be any adverse reaction to the party leadership to get the message across that we are not apreciative of their lack of resolve. So they should all be free to maintain their positions, even if we feel it is wrong.

Why should they ever be forced to change their behavior?

Somehow your postion does not make a lot of sense to me. Do nothing now, and hope that in the future things are different somehow, changed by some miracle or something.

[Skinner]

114. Sorry, but I'm never going to support any purge.

For better or worse, this country is a two-party democracy. The candidate that gets more votes wins. Deliberately purging anyone is a losing strategy. It might feel good to be the one doing the purging, but the purpose of political parties is not to make members feel good. The purpose is to win elections.

Whatever you want to do to move convince those in power to do the right thing -- That's cool. Try to change the party leadership if you think that'll make a difference. It may sound quaint, but I'm still a believer in the power of a well-stated argument -- and a primary challenge where appropriate and necessary.

But purges or third-party challenges are (in my humble opinion) counter-productive and self-defeating.

[Usrename]

157. A well-stated argument is the seed of any future progress.

I still don't see how winning elections helps, if the winners are not interested in the concerns of the people who elected them.

[file83]

208. Case in point: The Rupublicans did everything they could to get Bush elected.

They won that election.

But, look where that got them: The worst president in U.S. History is President George W. Bush, a Republican.

That's shouldn't help them win the next election.

[file83]

207. Just to make a point.

You said:

There are also risks involved with excessive caution.

You mean, like be cautious on impeachment?

[H2O Man]

70. Primaries

are good for challenging entrenched machine democrats.

[ulysses]

71. except when they run as independents,

win with Republican support, then hold hostage the party with whom they've promised to caucus.

[H2O Man]

72. Valid point.

But I still think it sent a message, showed the strength of the grass roots, and helped identify a neo-liberal as being more republican than he cared to admit.

[ulysses]

78. valid point in return.

Better to have run the challenge than not, by far. It's probably going to take quite a bit more than primary challenges, though, to really effect true change in the party.

[H2O Man]

83. Right.

I'm a democrat, and I'm always going to be a democrat. but I think that democrats at the grass roots need to re-think some of the political "truths" we've been handed down for generations.

I tend to think on a grass roots level. And here in rural upstate New York, one of the people I have enjoyed working with is not a democrat. He's a socialist. I've known and worked with him since he was with Legal Aid, decades ago. I have far more in common with him, than I do with some of the local party leaders, many of the state party leaders, and most of the national party leaders. And I have numerous friends in the Green Party, who I have a lot in common with, as well. And I have lots of friends who are independent.

They aren't able to vote in democratic primaries, but we can still coordinate efforts on campaigns on the local and regional level. And that gets people's attention. It makes people re-think old ideas, and think about some new ones, as well.

I am convinced that the chances of inspired leadership from the "leaders" in Washington is -- at very best -- a bit less than zero. I don't think that many have the ability, even if they had the desire. The change can only come from grass roots people organizing and putting pressure on the weakest links such as Lieberman.

[ulysses]

87. I'd like to hear more about that coordination and how it's worked.

It'd probably be substantially different than how it might work here in Georgia, but we need to start somewhere. I've thought for years that the great unrealized potential of DU is in organization at the local level.

I am convinced that the chances of inspired leadership from the "leaders" in Washington is -- at very best -- a bit less than zero.

No shit.

[H2O Man]

101. A couple of

quick examples before I have to head out for the afternoon:

{1} School board elections -- though they sound small-time and dull to many, they are an important building block in a community. Over the years, we have been able to get a number of progressive people on school boards in the area. It's not a one-time thing, of course. Some of the people we helped elect in 1983 would become unresponsive to the grass roots by 2003.

{2} Public meetings -- if an environmental group is planning to address a town/city/county board, it helps to have as large an audience as possible. The news media will respond to a public hearing with 200 people in a very different way than a one attended by 12 people.

{3} Anti-war rallies -- it's good to have a wide variety of people at rallies, so that they are not so easily dismissed as "those silly radicals."

{4} Access -- politics involves access. When a group organizes on the local level, attends public meetings, learns to use the local media to their advantage, and gets out the vote, people in the offices at the state level take notice. I'm old, retired, and feeble now, but in my day, I could spend the morning in a low-income neighborhood, the afternoon meeting with local officials, and be in a state office in the evening. And it wasn't because I am anything special -- quite the opposite. But I did understand how to organize on the local level, how to coordinate with others on a regional level, and how to speak to elected officials in a manner that they understood.

[Usrename]

110. The most important reason for an impeachment movement.

To identify all of the turncoats and loyal Bushies within our own party.

[pat_k]

267. It certainly tells us who is, and who is not,. . .

. . . capable of pulling their heads out of the beltway sphincter of group think, delusion, rationalization, and denial.

So far, the answer on the U.S. House and Senate is "None of 'em."

Although Kucinich and anyone who co-sponsors his resolution to impeach Cheney have yanked their heads far enough out to get a glimse of reality, they are still submitting to Nancy "off the table" Pelosi's edict on the Pariah in Chief. They have not escaped. If they had, they would recognize that the horror of our national predicament demands emergency action that trumps all other concerns.

For the most part, Kucinich is continuing "politics as usual." And like his fellow members, he fails to see that there are simpler, and far more powerful cases to impeach than "lying us into war." Sure, we know they terrorized us into war with threats of mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes, but that accusation doesn't get to the heart of the war on the Constitution that Bush and Cheney are waging.

The simplest and most powerful cases are based on the willful and public acts for which the WH invokes the fascist fantasy that Bush, as unitary authoritarian executive, can break the law at will if claims he is doing it to "protect us." With that claim, Bush and Cheney are literally DARING Congress to stop them. As long as Congress refuses to impeach, the outlaws in the WH can say "See, we do have the 'right' to spy on you. We do have the 'right' to turn Americans into torturers. We do have the 'right' to overrule Congress and interpret the laws you pass into oblivion with our signing statements."

[FatDave]

155. Let them run as independents

At least democrat will mean something again.

[Imperialism Inc.]

86. No. He is suggesting doing nothing and crying about it when they

keep doing the same old crap. Standard DU MO. "You guys better start doing the right thing or I'll... I'll... I'll keep voting for you. Chew on that!"

[mzmolly]

143. I think we can support Democrats without abandoning the Party.

As others have noted Ned Lamont did just that. Had Lamont not centralized his position close to the general, he'd probably be in the Senate today?

[endarkenment]

63. I remain convinced that we need to work within the party.

There is no historical precedence in the last 140 years for successful third party efforts in this country, there are several precedents for political factions within the de facto institutionalized parties wresting control of their party from the nominal leadership. We need a revolution but we need it inside the Democratic Party.

[ulysses]

67. how do we achieve that?

We need a revolution but we need it inside the Democratic Party.

What would it take to make it happen? What tactics are available to us, and who, exactly, are we rebelling against?

[endarkenment]

77. Oddly enough we need only look at what the R's did after

the Goldwater debacle. The right dug in and fought a long war to take control of the Republican Party. They won that war. Our Goldwater was McGovern. After the McGovern debacle the left went home, disco-danced, smoked pot, bought houses and cars and let the corporate clowns take back control and push the Democratic Party ever-rightward and increasingly irrelevant.

[ulysses]

79. fair enough.

A battle of decades, then.

[ChiciB1]

136. For The Past Two Years Or So I've Been Saying It's Time!!

TIME FOR REVOLUTION! If WE want to remain THE Democratic Party then WE will have to REVOLT!

Must have been about the 200th time I've posted this very same thing. That's why I felt it "might" push less active people to get out and say "enough is enough!" That was my feeling last night and this morning, but in my heart of hearts I guess I was just "wanting" REVOLUTION all along.

We are in the cat bird seat, watching the real "Screwing Of America" and we keep taking it over and over and over!! Many here say "NO" to more Demonstrations, but I don't know what else will do it. Electing local officials will take much too long to have any real effect, and for those of us in "super" Red counties it's almost FUTILE!

We MUST ACT NOW!!

Just MY OPINION, one more time!

[Cobalt-60]

241. Count me in

I'm seeing more of an exact replay of the Viet Nam war than I'd like.
Right down to the reluctance or War Profiteering Democrats to bring it to a close.
I've expanded on this in my own journal, but there are few other explanations possible for this behavior.
We need to turn them all out during the next primaries if they don't get on the stick, right now.

[TrogL]

52. You should have heard the CBC this morning

8 a.m. news announcer was absolutely scathing about Reid (sp?) and Pelosi (sp?) caving in on troop withdrawal dates.

[yurbud]

53. yep--and no one has threatened to filibuster yet

[Annces]

54. I agree

We need to fight.

[dogday]

55. Let us send the message loud and clear

Stand up and fight these crooks......

[tavalon]

58. I don't often see you taking a specific angle

but today you spoke eloquently of exactly what I'm thinking. And you have also proven Bill Hicks wrong - people don't automatically become goobers when they become dads.

[truebrit71]

59. Cowardice on a global scale.

It is being shown around the world, not just here in the United States, but all around the world as a backing down by the MAJORITY party in Congress. After all of the bluster, and the tough talk, and the mention of "accountability" and "no blank checks", at the end of the day, when the chips were down, when it REALLY mattered, they caved. They put their tails between their legs and did as they were told.

Which leads me to this question.

If the failed republican agenda still prevails in the face of an allegedly Democratic-Led Congress then just what is the point?

What was the point of donating all of that time and money and effort to get these Democrats elected to office if they end up voting like republicans?

I remember in the run-up to the last election some folks here told the more liberal of us to bide our time and to accept the DLC'ers and the 'Blue Dog' Dems. We were assured that all that mattered was that after all was said and done we would have the majority, and we would control the agenda, and we would FINALLY be able to hold the giggling murderer in the WH accountable for his actions. Instead, what have we seen? Well, to be honest, not much. Pork continues to flow out of Congress like some foul and putrid river, and legislation of little consequence has been passed to much fanfare, but what REALLY matters, what the vote last year was REALLY about, has seen, in the end, no action at all.

These Democrats were elected as much on their promises for change (what a novel campaign slogan) as much as for their tough talk on accountability and bringing an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq. Instead, what we see is a pResident with almost historically low approval ratings, stamping his feet like a petulant child, kicking up a fuss and demanding that congress do things HIS way...and when he throws his pResidential veto toy out of the pram, the Congress, instead of chiding him and telling him to knock it off, pick up the toy and soothe him so that he won't throw the veto out again.

Accountability? Don't make me laugh. Responsibility? To whom? The voters? You must be joking.

This is the most back-breaking and spirit-crushing act of cowardice that I have seen in recent political memory. With the backing of over 70% of the electorate to bring an end this brutal, savage and totally unnecessary war, the newly-elected majority party has signalled, in no uncertain terms, that there is no fight too tough for them to back away from.

This one act alone will do more to empower and embolden these evil men than any other single act in the last six and a half years. Their greatest fear was realized when their party was kicked to the kerb last November, and for one brief second a slight shiver of panic might have run down their collective spines at the thought of Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Patrick Leahy wielding committee gavels and subpoena power. But instead of a mass panic and a desperate run to the exits, the shredders got fired up, e-mail servers got wiped clean and a firm, pudgy Rovian middle finger was raised to anyone that so much as uttered the word 'subpoena'. In other words, business as usual. Only this time it's worse, it's much, much worse, because now the republicans KNOW that the Democrats are wimps, and that even when they have their backs against the wall, all they have to do is roll their All-Hat-No-Cattle Connecticut Cowboy out in front of a crowd of military families, and say "BOO!" and the Democrats will cave.

My Dad has a saying for people like that, he says they're "All mouth and no trousers". Loosely translated into American-English it means 'talk the talk, but can't walk the walk'.

That is the perfect description of the current crop of Democrats in Congress.

All mouth, no trousers.

[ulysses]

60. THANK YOU

If we're paralyzed by the fear of a Lieberman switch, then there's no point in having the Senate majority. Very, very well said, David.

[endarkenment]

61. I have a suggestion regarding this matter and DU.

I think we need to take a stand here regarding the war: that support for the war, for continuing the war, for funding the war are contrary the values and sensibilites of the Democratic Underground. Is that too much to ask?

[NightWatcher]

65. I agree 100%

Per Henry David Thoreau, If we allow something to happen, we passively endorse it. Even if we are against the war, or anything that the government does, we are supporting it. When we pay taxes, we are giving money to the government to buy bullets and bombs to drop on women and children- and innocent men for that case. Our taxes bought the lightsticks that were shoved up the asses of detainees in Iraq and Guantanimo Bay. By standing by, we passively endorse this war. If we want to stop it, we need to stop it.

The "Not In Our Name" petitions are a start, but we need to do more.

[nashville_brook]

82. has DU as a whole ever taken a unified stand -- is there a mechanism to do so?

This kinda goes to the heart of what DU is. Is this a virtual forum where people come to dialogue, or are we a political entity?

Lately, there's been an enormous amount of frustration at our perceived powerlessness. Lots of things are happening very fast, and we're not happy about the lion's share of it.

Our frustration with the political environment is compounded with our frustration at our powerlessness. We come here and post and post and post. Sometimes we even start threads. And nothing seems to change.

What's the next step? the Activist Forum, while an obvious necessity, has proven to be less than spectacular in its ability to simply *make things happen.* People have no reason to go to the Activist Forum -- we seem to come here to talk to the largest number of people with the most expertise in an area of interest. In this way, the General Discussion Forum has the most political power on DU.

The OP asks if we could state a platform vis a vis the war in Iraq. This seems to be quite a reasonable suggestion for a political entity. Isn't that what political groups do? Issue position statements? Think tanks -- don't they do exactly what we do and then issue reports?

How might DU as a whole, political entity, move toward producing political thought, instead of just consuming it? This is quite a decent question.

[endarkenment]

118. We do have rules about what is permissible.

I'll be the first to admit that what I am asking for is a bit over the top, but only a bit. This war is a hideous horrible crime and our general reaction to each new setback is basically 'oh well, back to work', and I am suggesting that perhaps it is because we just shrug, accept defeat, and do nothing different that it continues. So the solution appears to be approached from not continuing our normal activities: to change what we are doing because what we are doing is not working.

So why isn't support for this war here on DU as unacceptable as overt racism?

[Skinner]

121. This is a completely unnecessary rule.

Look around you. Who on Democratic Underground still supports this war? Nobody, that's who. The only difference of opinion you see here in regards to the war is how best to end it.

[truedelphi]

247. Here! Hear!

The war is completely unacceptable and ANY PARTY accepting it should
get their collective nose re-aligned.

Actaully as I posted above, Sen Edwards is still saying Bush needs to be stopped. SO it is only the DLC wannabe leaders that are supporting the latest round of cowardly legislation.

[Broken Top]

250. Has the DU as a Whole Ever Taken a Stand

You make a good point and I've often thought how all this complaining back and forth gives us a chance to vent and that's about it. We desperately need a third party in this country and that takes a leader and where is one? After this disgraceful capitulation by Reid and Pelosi, I cannot abide the thought that a party as cowardly and wimpy as the Democrats are the only option to the hated Fascist Party of America a.k.a Republicans. If this is the case, then all is lost and we can vent to our heart's content fruitlessly. Somewhere, somehow we must take positive action and soon. Another four years of this and we will not be able to post these messages. The internet will be closed by Bush's successor.

[nashville_brook]

263. Can DU develop beyond passive disscussion? -- Port Huron Statement

times have changed since this was penned -- but this document framed ideological discussion taking place (largely on American college campuses) in the 1960s. Written in 1962, this paper had a tremendous impact on the social transformation that occurred later in the decade because it EMPOWERED people, and FOCUSED attention for that power.

What happens on DU is a dissolution of power and a blurring of attention. It would be great if we perceived the large forums as "brainstorming" areas, and encouraged focused attention in other, action-oriented areas. The election reform forum/movement has actually provided a great example of this. In this way, you might see TIA's writings as having a similar effect as a 60s-era "manifesto," in that his work galvanized and empowered a specific group of people.

Just for grins -- here's the Port Huron Statement.





Port Huron Statement
Introduction: Agenda for a Generation

We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.

When we were kids the United States was the wealthiest and strongest country in the world; the only one with the atom bomb, the least scarred by modern war, an initiator of the United Nations that we thought would distribute Western influence throughout the world. Freedom and equality for each individual, government of, by, and for the people--these American values we found god, principles by which we could live as men. Many of us began maturing in complacency.

As we grew, however, our comfort was penetrated by events too troubling to dismiss. First, the permeating and victimizing fact of human degradation, symbolized by the Southern struggle against racial bigotry, compelled most of us from silence to activism. Second, the enclosing fact of the Cold War, symbolized by the presence of the Bomb, brought awareness that we ourselves, and our friends, and millions of abstract "others" we knew more directly because of our common peril, might die at any time. We might deliberately ignore, or avoid, or fail to feel all other human problems, but not these two, for these were too immediate and crushing in their impact, too challenging in the demand that we as individuals take the responsibility for encounter and resolution.

While these and other problems either directly oppressed us or rankled our consciences and became our own subjective concerns, we began to see complicated and disturbing paradoxes in our surrounding America. The declaration "all men are created equal..." rang hollow before the facts of Negro life in the South and the big cities of the North. The proclaimed peaceful intentions of the United States contradicted its economic and military investments in the Cold War status quo.

We witnessed, and continue to witness, other paradoxes. With nuclear energy whole cities can easily be powered, yet the dominant nation-states seem more likely to unleash destruction greater than that incurred in all wars of human history. Although our own technology is destroying old and creating new forms of social organization, men still tolerate meaningless work and idleness. While two-thirds of mankind suffers under nourishment, our own upper classes revel amidst superfluous abundance. Although world population is expected to double in forty years, the nations still tolerate anarchy as a major principle of international conduct and uncontrolled exploitation governs the sapping of the earth's physical resources. Although mankind desperately needs revolutionary leadership, America rests in national stalemate, its goals ambiguous and tradition-bound instead of informed and clear, its democratic system apathetic and manipulated rather than "of, by, and for the people."

Not only did tarnish appear on our image of American virtue, not only did disillusion occur when the hypocrisy of American ideals was discovered, but we began to sense that what we had originally seen as the American Golden Age was actually the decline of an era. The worldwide outbreak of revolution against colonialism and imperialism, the entrenchment of totalitarian states, the menace of war, overpopulation, international disorder, supertechnology--these trends were testing the tenacity of our own commitment to democracy and freedom and our abilities to visualize their application to a world in upheaval.

Our work is guided by the sense that we may be the last generation in the experiment with living. But we are a minority--the vast majority of our people regard the temporary equilibriums of our society and world as eternally functional parts. In this is perhaps the outstanding paradox; we ourselves are imbued with urgency, yet the message of our society is that there is no viable alternative to the present. Beneath the reassuring tones of the politicians, beneath the common opinion that America will "muddle through," beneath the stagnation of those who have closed their minds to the future, is the pervading feeling that there simply are no alternatives, that our times have witnessed the exhaustion not only of Utopias, but of any new departures as well. Feeling the press of complexity upon the emptiness of life, people are fearful of the thought that at any moment things might be thrust out of control. They fear change itself, since change might smash whatever invisible framework seems to hold back chaos for them now. For most Americans, all crusades are suspect, threatening. The fact that each individual sees apathy in his fellows perpetuates the common reluctance to organize for change. The dominant institutions are complex enough to blunt the minds of their potential critics, and entrenched enough to swiftly dissipate or entirely repel the energies of protest and reform, thus limiting human expectancies. Then, too, we are a materially improved society, and by our own improvements we seem to have weakened the case for further change.

Some would have us believe that Americans feel contentment amidst prosperity--but might it not better be called a glaze above deeply felt anxieties about their role in the new world? And if these anxieties produce a developed indifference to human affairs, do they not as well produce a yearning to believe that there is an alternative to the present, that something can be done to change circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies, the government? It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark and engine of change, that we direct our present appeal. The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present, and a commitment to social experimentation with them, is a worthy and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us and, we hope, others today. On such a basis do we offer this document of our convictions and analysis: as an effort in understanding and changing the conditions of humanity in the late twentieth century, an effort rooted in the ancient, still unfulfilled conception of man attaining determining influence over his circumstances of life.
Values

Making values explicit--an initial task in establishing alternatives--is an activity that has been devalued and corrupted. The conventional moral terms of the age, the politician moralities--"free world," "people's democracies"--reflect realities poorly, if at all, and seem to function more as ruling myths than as descriptive principles. But neither has our experience in the universities brought us moral enlightenment. Our professors and administrators sacrifice controversy to public relations; their curriculums change more slowly than the living events of the world; their skills and silence are purchased by investors in the arms race; passion is called unscholastic. The questions we might want raised--what is really important? can we live in a different and better way? if we wanted to change society, how would we do it?--are not thought to be questions of a "fruitful, empirical nature," and thus are brushed aside.

Unlike youth in other countries we are used to moral leadership being exercised and moral dimensions being clarified by our elders. But today, for us, not even the liberal and socialist preachments of the past seem adequate to the forms of the present. Consider the old slogans: Capitalism Cannot Reform Itself, United Front Against Fascism, General Strike, All Out on May Day. Or, more recently, No Cooperation with Commies and Fellow Travelers, Ideologies Are Exhausted, Bipartisanship, No Utopias. These are incomplete, and there are few new prophets. It has been said that our liberal and socialist predecessors were plagued by vision without program, while our own generation is plagued by program without vision. All around us there is astute grasp of method, technique--the committee, the ad hoc group, the lobbyist, the hard and soft sell, the make, the projected image--but, if pressed critically, such expertise in incompetent to explain its implicit ideals. It is highly fashionable to identify oneself by old categories, or by naming a respected political figure, or by explaining "how we would vote" on various issues.

Theoretic chaos has replaced the idealistic thinking of old--and, unable to reconstitute theoretic order, men have condemned idealism itself. Doubt has replaced hopefulness--and men act out a defeatism that is labeled realistic. The decline of utopia and hope is in fact one of the defining features of social life today. The reasons are various: the dreams of the older left were perverted by Stalinism and never re-created; the congressional stalemate makes men narrow their view of the possible; the specialization of human activity leaves little room for sweeping thought; the horrors of the twentieth century symbolized in the gas ovens and concentration camps and atom bombs, have blasted hopefulness. To be idealistic is to be considered apocalyptic, deluded. To have no serious aspirations, on the contrary, is to be "tough-minded."

In suggesting social goals and values, therefore, we are aware of entering a sphere of some disrepute. Perhaps matured by the past, we have no formulas, no closed theories--but that does not mean values are beyond discussion and tentative determination. A first task of any social movement is to convince people that the search for orienting theories and the creation of human values is complex but worthwhile. We are aware that to avoid platitudes we must analyze the concrete conditions of social order. But to direct such an analysis we must use the guideposts of basic principles. Our own social values involve conceptions of human beings, human relationships, and social systems.

We regard men as infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom, and love. In affirming these principles we are aware of countering perhaps the dominant conceptions of man in the twentieth century: that he is a thing to be manipulated, and that he is inherently incapable of directing his own affairs. We oppose the depersonalization that reduces human being to the status of things--if anything, the brutalities of the twentieth century teach that means and ends are intimately related, that vague appeals to "posterity" cannot justify the mutilations of the present. We oppose, too, the doctrine of human incompetence because it rests essentially on the modern fact that men have been "competently" manipulated into incompetence--we see little reason why men cannot meet with increasing the skill the complexities and responsibilities of their situation, if society is organized not for minority, but for majority, participation in decision-making.

Men have unrealized potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and creativity. It is this potential that we regard as crucial and to which we appeal, not to the human potentiality for violence, unreason, and submission to authority. The goal of man and society should be human independence: a concern not with image of popularity but with finding a meaning in life that is personally authentic; a quality of mind not compulsively driven by a sense of powerlessness, nor one which unthinkingly adopts status values, nor one which represses all threats to its habits, but one which has full, spontaneous access to present and past experiences, one which easily unites the fragmented parts of personal history, one which openly faces problems which are troubling and unresolved; one with an intuitive awareness of possibilities, an active sense of curiosity, an ability and willingness to learn.

This kind of independence does not mean egotistic individualism--the object is not to have one's way so much as it is to have a way that is one's own. Nor do we deify man--we merely have faith in his potential.

Human relationships should involve fraternity and honesty. Human interdependence is contemporary fact; human brotherhood must be willed, however, as a condition of future survival and as the most appropriate form of social relations. Personal links between man and man are needed, especially to go beyond the partial and fragmentary bonds of function that bind men only as worker to worker, employer to employee, teacher to student, American to Russian.

Loneliness, estrangement, isolation describe the vast distance between man and man today. These dominant tendencies cannot be overcome by better personnel management, nor by improved gadgets, but only when a love of man overcomes the idolatrous worship of things by man. As the individualism we affirm is not egoism, the selflessness we affirm is not self-elimination. On the contrary, we believe in generosity of a kind that imprints one's unique individual qualities in the relation to other men, and to all human activity. Further, to dislike isolation is not to favor the abolition of privacy; the latter differs from isolation in that it occurs or is abolished according to individual will.

We would replace power rooted in possession, privilege, or circumstance by power and uniqueness rooted in love, reflectiveness, reason, and creativity. As a social system we seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation, governed by two central aims: that the individual share in those social decisions determining the quality and direction of his life; that society be organized to encourage independence in men and provide the media for their common participation.

In a participatory democracy, the political life would be based in several root principles: that decision-making of basic social consequence be carried on by public groupings;

that politics be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations;

that politics has the function of bringing people out of isolation and into community, thus being a necessary, though not sufficient, means of finding meaning in personal life;

that the political order should serve to clarify problems in a way instrumental to their solution; it should provide outlets for the expression of personal grievance and aspiration; opposing views should be organized so as to illuminate choices and facilitate the attainment of goals; channels should be commonly available to relate men to knowledge and to power so that private problems--from bad recreation facilities to personal alienation--are formulated as general issues.

The economic sphere would have as its basis the principles:

that work should involve incentives worthier than money or survival. It should be educative, not stultifying; creative, not mechanical; self-directed, not manipulated, encouraging independence, a respect for others, a sense of dignity, and a willingness to accept social responsibility, since it is this experience that has crucial influence on habits, perceptions and individual ethics;

that the economic experience is so personally decisive that the individual must share in its full determination;

that the economy itself is of such social importance that its major resources and means of production should be open to democratic participation and subject to democratic social regulation.

Like the political and economic ones, major social institutions--cultural, educational, rehabilitative, and others--should be generally organized with the well-being and dignity of man as the essential measure of success.

In social change or interchange, we find violence to be abhorrent because it requires generally the transformation of the target, be it a human being or a community of people, into a depersonalized object of hate. It is imperative that the means of violence be abolished and the institutions--local, national, international--that encourage non-violence as a condition of conflict be developed.

These are our central values, in skeletal form. It remains vital to understand their denial or attainment in the context of the modern world.
The Students

In the last few years, thousands of American students demonstrated that they at least felt the urgency of the times. They moved actively and directly against racial injustices, the threat of war, violations of individual rights of conscience, and, less frequently, against economic manipulation. They succeeded in restoring a small measure of controversy to the campuses after the stillness of the McCarthy period. They succeeded, too, in gaining some concessions from the people and institutions they opposed, especially in the fight against racial bigotry.

The significance of these scattered movements lies not in their success or failure in gaining objectives--at least, not yet. Nor does the significance lie in the intellectual "competence" or "maturity" of the students involved--as some pedantic elders allege. The significance is in the fact that students are breaking the crust of apathy and overcoming the inner alienation that remain the defining characteristics of American college life.

If student movements for change are still rarities on the campus scene, what is commonplace there? The real campus, the familiar campus, is a place of private people, engaged in their notorious "inner emigration." It is a place of commitment to business-as-usual, getting ahead, playing it cool. It is a place of mass affirmation of the Twist, but mass reluctance toward the controversial public stance. Rules are accepted as "inevitable," bureaucracy as "just circumstances," irrelevance as "scholarship," selflessness as "martyrdom," politics as "just another way to make people, and an unprofitable one, too."

Almost no students value activity as citizens. Passive in public, they are hardly more idealistic in arranging their private lives: Gallup concludes they will settle for "low success, and won't risk high failure." There is not much willingness to take risks (not even in business), no setting of dangerous goals, no real conception of personal identity except one manufactured in the image of others, no real urge for personal fulfillment except to be almost as successful as the very successful people. Attention is being paid to social status (the quality of shirt collars, meeting people, getting wives or husbands, making solid contacts for later on); much, too, is paid to academic status (grades, honors, the med school rat race). But neglected generally is real intellectual status, the personal cultivation of the mind.

"Students don't even give a damn abut the apathy," one has said. Apathy toward apathy begets a privately constructed universe, a place of systematic study schedules, two nights each week for beer, a girl or two, and early marriage; a framework infused with personality, warmth, and under control, no matter how unsatisfying otherwise.

Under these conditions university life loses all relevance to some. Four hundred thousand of our classmates leave college every year.

The accompanying "let's pretend" theory of student extracurricular affairs validates student government as a training center for those who want to live their lives in political pretense, and discourages initiative from the more articulate, honest, and sensitive students. The bounds and style of controversy are delimited before controversy begins. The university "prepares" the student for "citizenship" through perpetual rehearsals and, usually, through emasculation of what creative spirit there is in the individual.

The academic life contains reinforcing counterparts to the way in which extracurricular life is organized. The academic world is founded on a teacher-student relations analogous to the parent-child relation which characterizes in loco parentis. Further, academia includes a radical separation of the student from the material of study. That which is studies, the social reality, is "objectified" to sterility, dividing the student from life--just as he is restrained in active involvement by the deans controlling student government. The specialization of function and knowledge, admittedly necessary to our complex technological and social structure, has produced an exaggerated compartmentalization of study and understanding. This has contributed to an overly parochial view, by faculty, of the role of its research and scholarship; to a discontinuous and truncated understanding, by students, of the surrounding social order; and to a loss of personal attachment, by nearly all, to the worth of study as a humanistic enterprise.

There is, finally, the cumbersome academic bureaucracy extending throughout the academic as well as the extracurricular structures, contributing to the sense of outer complexity and inner powerlessness that transforms the honest searching of many students to a ratification of convention and, worse, to a numbness to present and future catastrophes. The size and financing systems of the university enhance the permanent trusteeship of the administrative bureaucracy, their power leading to a shift within the university toward the value standards of business and the administrative mentality. Huge foundations and other private financial interests shape the under financed colleges and universities, making them not only more commercial, but less disposed to diagnose society critically, less open to dissent. Many social and physical scientists, neglecting the liberating heritage of higher learning, develop "human relations" or "morale-producing" techniques for the corporate economy, while others exercise their intellectual skills to accelerate the arms race.

Tragically, the university could serve as a significant source of social criticism and an initiator of new modes and molders of attitudes. But the actual intellectual effect of the college experience is hardly distinguishable from that of any other communications channel--say, a television set--passing on the stock truths of the day. Students leave college somewhat more "tolerant" than when they arrived, but basically unchallenged in their values and political orientations. With administrators ordering the institution, and faculty the curriculum, the student learns by his isolation to accept elite rule within the university, which prepares him to accept later forms of minority control. The real function of the educational system--as opposed to its more rhetorical function of "searching for truth"--is to impart the key information and styles that will help the student get by, modestly but comfortably, in the big society beyond.
The Society Beyond

Look beyond the campus, to America itself. That student life is more intellectual, and perhaps more comfortable, does not obscure the fact that the fundamental qualities of life on the campus reflect the habits of society at large. The fraternity president is seen at the junior manager levels; the sorority queen has gone to Grosse Pointe; the serious poet burns for a place, any place, to work; the once-serious and never-serious poets work at the advertising agencies. The desperation of people threatened by forces about which they know little and of which they can say less; the cheerful emptiness of people "giving up" all hope of changing things; the faceless ones polled by Gallup who listed "international affairs" fourteenth on their list of "problems" but who also expected thermonuclear war in the next few years; in these and other forms, Americans are in withdrawal from public life, from any collective effort at directing their own affairs.

Some regard these national doldrums as a sign of healthy approval of the established order--but is it approval by consent or manipulated acquiescence? Others declare that the people are withdrawn because compelling issues are fast disappearing--perhaps there are fewer bread lines in America, but is Jim Crow gone, is there enough work and work more fulfilling, is world war a diminishing threat, and what of the revolutionary new peoples? Still others think the national quietude is a necessary consequence of the need for elites to resolve complex and specialized problems of modern industrial society--but then, why should business elites help decide foreign policy, and who controls the elites anyway, and are they solving mankind's problems? Others, finally, shrug knowingly and announce that full democracy never worked anywhere in the past--but why lump qualitatively different civilizations together, and how can a social order work well if its best thinkers are skeptics, and is man really doomed forever to the domination of today?

There are now convincing apologies for the contemporary malaise. While the world tumbles toward the final war, while men in other nations are trying desperately to alter events, while the very future qua future is uncertain--America is without community impulse, without the inner momentum necessary for an age when societies cannot successfully perpetuate themselves by their military weapons, when democracy must be viable because of its quality of life, not its quantity of rockets.

The apathy here is, first, subjective--the felt powerlessness of ordinary people, the resignation before the enormity of events. But subjective apathy is encouraged by the objective American situation--the actual structural separation of people from power, from relevant knowledge, from pinnacles of decision-making. Just as the university influences the student way of life, so do major social institutions create the circumstances in which the isolated citizen will try hopelessly to understand his world and himself.

The very isolation of the individual--from power and community and ability to aspire--means the rise of a democracy without publics. With the great mass of people structurally remote and psychologically hesitant with respect to democratic institutions, those institutions themselves attenuate and become, in the fashion of the vicious circle, progressively less accessible to those few who aspire to serious participation in social affairs. The vital democratic connection between community and leadership, between the mass and the several elites, has been so wrenched and perverted that disastrous policies go unchallenged time and again....
The University and Social Change

There is perhaps little reason to be optimistic about the above analysis. True, the Dixiecrat-GOP coalition is the weakest point in the dominating complex of corporate, military, and political power. But the civil rights, peace, and student movements are too poor and socially slighted, and the labor movement too quiescent, to be counted with enthusiasm. From where else can power and vision be summoned? We believe that the universities are an overlooked seat of influence.

First, the university is located in a permanent position of social influence. It's educational function makes it indispensable and automatically makes it a crucial institution in the formation of social attitudes. Second, in an unbelievably complicated world, it is the central institution for organizing, evaluating and transmitting knowledge. Third, the extent to which academic resources presently are used to buttress immoral social practice is revealed, first, by the extent to which defense contracts make the universities engineers of the arms race. Too, the use of modern social science as a manipulative tool reveals itself in the "human relations" consultants to the modern corporations, who introduce trivial sops to give laborers feelings of "participation" or "belonging," while actually deluding them in order to further exploit their labor. And, of course, the use of motivational research is already infamous as a manipulative aspect of American politics. But these social uses of the universities' resources also demonstrate the unchangeable reliance by men of power on the men and storehouses of knowledge: this makes the university functionally tied to society in new ways, revealing new potentialities, new levers for change. Fourth, the university is the only mainstream institution that is open to participation by individuals of nearly any viewpoint.

These, at least, are facts, no matter how dull the teaching, how paternalistic the rules, how irrelevant the research that goes on. Social relevance, the accessibility to knowledge, and internal openness--these together make the university a potential base and agency in a movement of social change.

1.

Any new left in America must be, in large measure, a left with real intellectual skills, committed to deliberativeness, honesty, reflection as working tools. The university permits the political life to be an adjunct to the academic one, and action to be informed by reason.
2.

A new left must be distributed in significant social roles throughout the country. The universities are distributed in such a manner.
3.

A new left must consist of younger people who matured in the postwar world, and partially be directed to the recruitment of younger people. The university is an obvious beginning point.
4.

A new left must include liberals and socialists, the former for their relevance, the latter for their sense of thoroughgoing reforms in the system. The university is a more sensible place than a political party for these two traditions to begin to discuss their differences and look for political synthesis.
5.

A new left must start controversy across the land, if national policies and national apathy are to be reversed. The ideal university is a community of controversy, within itself and in its effects on communities beyond.
6.

A new left must transform modern complexity into issues that can be understood and felt close up by every human being. It must give form to the feelings of helplessness and indifference, so that people may see the political, social, and economic sources of their private troubles, and organize to change society. In a time of supposed prosperity, moral complacency, and political manipulation, a new left cannot rely on only aching stomachs to be the engine force of social reform. The case for change, for alternatives that will involve uncomfortable personal efforts, must be argued as never before. The university is a relevant place for all of these activities.

But we need not indulge in illusions: the university system cannot complete a movement of ordinary people making demands for a better life. From its schools and colleges across the nation, a militant left might awaken its allies, and by beginning the process towards peace, civil rights, and labor struggles, reinsert theory and idealism where too often reign confusion and political barter. The power of students and faculty united is not only potential; it has shown its actuality in the South, and in the reform movements of the North.

The bridge to political power, though, will be build through genuine cooperation, locally, nationally, and internationally, between a new left of young people and an awakening community of allies. In each community we must look within the university and act with confidence that we can be powerful, but we must look outwards to the less exotic but more lasting struggles for justice.

To turn these mythic possibilities into realities will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty. They must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy. They must make fraternal and functional contact with allies in labor, civil rights, and other liberal forces outside the campus. They must import major public issues into the curriculum--research and teaching on problems of war and peace is an outstanding example. They must make debate and controversy, not dull pedantic cant, the common style for educational life. They must consciously build a base for their assault upon the loci of power.

As students for a democratic society, we are committed to stimulating this kind of social movement, this kind of vision and program in campus and community across the country. If we appear to seek the unattainable, as it has been said, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable.

[LeftHander]

62. Spot on Skin....

There is no reason to give Bush a blank check to fund this un-just war. If Bush keeps vetoing funding bills so be it.

Ultimately it will be HIS FAULT...nothing he can do will change that.

If the people who want this war to continue with no end in sight then let them open thier pockets and dump some money into it.

I am sure Bush Pioneers will want to help...

[Zenlitened]

66. I couldn't agree more:

"... sometimes you can advance your agenda, and even improve your chances in the next election, even when you are not successful in passing your bill. Disagreements like this one inevitably involve risk, but they are also hugely important opportunities to illustrate the difference between us and them. This is our chance to show the country where we stand. And it is our chance to show the country where our opponents stand. Remember: We are on the same side as the majority of the country on this one. Surely it makes sense to raise the profile and show the voters, in the starkest possible way, the difference between the two parties."

It is the only way our party is going to start winning elections on a regular basis. Show the voters where you stand. Inspire them with your ideas. If you speak a plain and honest truth, share a vision that makes genuine sense, the votes will come. And the whole game of triangulating in search of the ever-shifting, quasi-mythological "swing vote" -- of pandering to the politically passive -- just becomes irrelevant.

[Irishonly]

73. Skinner, Spot On

I agree with everything you have said. Let Lieberman go, he is no democrat. I am bitterly disappointed in the democrats caving. I wish they would stop letting the repugnicans define them. Repugnicans put party before all else. They protect their own and do not care about the people of this country. I am writing again. I wish I knew what to do to light a fire under their behinds.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

76. The people spoke out against Bush's war in November 2006

What this says to me, and many of those voters, is that no one was listening. Why cave in on this issue so quickly? As you said the majority of Americans are with us on this one. So why cave in? The Democrats have an excellent chance to use this war against the Republicans that insist on supporting it at all cost, doing so has the potential to cause great harm to the Republicans in 2008. Yet for reasons unknown the Democrats are about to turn their back on that chance. I cannot see how this makes good political sense.

Now is the time to show this president that the Democrats are a force to be reckoned with.

Now is not the time to tuck their tails between their legs and meekly say, "we don't have the votes." There's more to be gained in this instance by taking a stand than there is to be lost. Which is a rare occurrence.

You said it much more eloquently than I could have, however I do agree with you on this issue.

[RiverStone]

80. Ok, so our next step is?

Thanks Skinner - K&R'd

You said:

This was, quite simply, a display of cowardice on the part of our elected officials.

Agreed!

And many of us have been venting our frustration to the winds, or at least the friendly winds on DU. Though I seek an organized and comprehensive step we can take collectively to pressure those DEMS we worked so hard for last Fall to NOT tale our votes for granted.

Who are these DEMS that caved in? I want names...

[WillyT]

84. Hell Skinner, Did You See Mitch McConnell Take To The Microphone Yesterday ???

On the Minimum Wage being included in the War funding bill:

"This needs to be the last time that these kinds of extraneous matters are parachuted into appropriation bills," Mr. McConnell said, acknowledging that the bill probably will pass.

And they way he delivered that line, as if a stern warnig to Democrtaic usurpers, made it seem that HE was in charge of things. And ya know what, it's starting to feel that way.

:banghead:

[NashVegas]

85. The Only Way Dems Can Get a "Win" Is By Shutting Down Congress

Do you remember when Newt Gingrich and his Republicans did that in the 1990s?

The public was overwhelmingly behind Bill Clinton when that went down.

While I think the overall public would be more sympathetic to congress this time, I don't think the numbers would be quite as huge.

I also think Bush and Rover would be belligerent enough to slam their great big balls on the table and jeopardize the troops if it gave them something they could try to pin on Dems.

[ecstatic]

88. That's exactly what I'm thinking! nt

[bluescribbler]

89. What the Dems should do

They should send back the original bill, amended with a binding schedule for withdrawal. And tell B*sh that if he wants money for his dirty little war, he will have to sign that bill, because that's the only bill he's going to get. Put up or shut up.

[YOY]

91. Thank you Skinner

Dead on.

[Beam Me Up]

92. Expose 9/11.

It is the key. It didn't happen the way they've told us and it is the fulcrum upon which everything else is leveraged. Blow that deliberately created deception out of the water and you'll have what you want. The evidence is there. All it needs is exposure.

[mike_c]

93. thank you for so elequently saying what many of us have been...

...struggling to say through our shock and anger.

[ClayZ]

94. Whoo hoo, well said! K and R

[NotGivingUp]

95. pretending we have a democracy...dems - good cop, repukes - bad cop, all - screw the people. nt

[Cha]

97. I hope Harry Reid and

Nancy Pelosi read this, and all the other Democrats who are afraid to appear weak but are doing just that.

[RagingInMiami]

98. Unfortunately

One of the main differences between republicans and democrats is that generally speaking, republicans are fighters and democrats are not. It's been what has held democrats back this past decade.

[orleans]

99. k&r n/t

[droidamus2]

102. The problem

I think the big problem for the Democrats is they think the everyday Joe in the street understands the subtleties and nuances of the inside the beltway game. The 'we won because we got Bush to accept some more spending and an unenforced removal of rebuilding money' doesn't wash with us that think ending the war is the most important thing the Democrats can do right now. The fact is the Democrats have given lip service to making a stand over and over but when it comes down to it they always capitulate. If they aren't willing to make a stand on the big question of the day then at least get to work passing some legislation that will help the country (environment, economy, whatever...).

[Moochy]

104. Dems obviously "paralyzed by fear"

I really liked this sentence, it frames the democratic leaderships shameful actions well, it touches on one of my favorite topics, right wing framing:

"By allowing ourselves to be so paralyzed by fear that we do nothing about this war, we are implicitly agreeing with that lie."

It shows a real example of validating your opponent's frame, not just by language use, but by being obviously scared into inaction..

Now did anyone see Rahm Emmanuel's smiling face at that defeat press conference yesterday? Fighting very hard to repress his smirk.. I wonder what his position was... he *was* the only one willing to attempt an 'up' spin on yesterday's utter failure.

[underpants]

106. I heard a bit of this yesterday while I was home with our little girl

I thought-this can't be right I'll check into this tomorrow when I am on the computer.

Today I read this and I am shocked amazed but not really disappointed-they didn't even want to "push the war" for the election and Pelosi has been running away from it and impeachment like she has money in it.

This IS disgraceful. Completely disgraceful.

[madrchsod]

107. lincoln`s words still have meaning

to those who believe in our republic....

"....and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

i thought once that the "party" believed in these words but alas, there are just a few brave souls who still do...

[HamdenRice]

108. Nice analysis! nt

[wiggs]

111. I used to think that some of the capitulation we see from dc dems was

because there were behind the scenes negotiations going on that ensured the dems would get something else...that there was at least a give and take. I thought this when dems voted en masse to certify Ohio electoral votes...and when dems agreed not to fillibuster bad judicial nominess....and a dozen other times.

I no longer think this. I'm not sure they get anything out of this...certainly not something that's out in the open and I have no faith that they traded, say, stoppage of an illegal NSA program for no timeline. I believe many (not all) dems behave the way they do because they are on the same page with most republicans, especially when it comes to corporatism. Can't explain it any other way.

[Skinner]

120. My position is different from yours.

I still believe that the vast majority of Democrats in Washington want to do the right thing. But they are unable to do so because they are overly risk-averse. In other words: They're afraid.

They believe that caution is a much safer default approach. Nobody gets blamed if nobody takes any risks.

[wiggs]

191. I tend to give the dems and republicans more credit...I'm sure they are almost

all very smart, aggressive, amibitious, savy, powerful connected people with alpha personalities. I don't picture many of them as timid or afraid or risk averse.

[marlakay]

112. Well said, but what do we do now? nt

[MadHound]

113. Great post, thank you

Almost all of us are utterly frustrated by this latest move by the Democrats. Frankly it is my feeling that if the Dems continue down this path of enabling this war and this president, it will cost them big time in the next election. The anti war crowd and the leftists will either flee to the Greens or stay at home. The 'Pugs who crossed over last year to stop the war will go back to voting for 'Pugs. All that will be left is the center, and they cannot win the election by themselves. It will be a repeat of '68 all over again.

Perhaps if the Congressional Dems realize that their own political lives are on the line, then perhaps they will do the right thing. Lord knows, nothing else seems to be moving them in the right direction.

On a lighter note, how's the kiddo doing? Oh, and to go along with that, how's your sleep deprivation going?:evilgrin: Don't worry, you've only got another eighteen years left.

[Ms. Clio]

115. fantastic post n/t

[mzmolly]

116. I'm disapointed but I have hope that in July, with Murtha leading

we'll "change direction?" However, I agree there is no better time to fight.

[senseandsensibility]

117. Isn't it too late?

Needless to say, I agree with what you said. But they can't undo yesterday's actions. They have already shown themselves to be weak. They have played their hand, and it's over. That's why everyone is so angry.

[Skinner]

123. Indeed, it is probably too late this time.

That part was more wishful thinking about what could have been.

[senseandsensibility]

125. This time?

Well, they will probably get many more chances to show some courage. I suppose it's up to us to enourage them to learn something from this debacle. Perhaps an e-mail campaign orgazized through the DU activist corps?

[mzmolly]

139. Exactly.

It is up to US. They work for US. We need to organize an effort as you have stated. I think if would could channel our "grief" into action we can be productive instead of simply mourning?

[mzmolly]

134. I don't think it is.

I think they made a deal with other R's who said "we'll support you if the surge doesn't work?" I feel this is a temporary give until we can make the final take with "it didn't work, no more money."

[9thkvius]

119. Very well said

and I agree that Lieberman must go. He is no longer a viable member of our party. Waxman is doing investigations left and right on the House side, and I have yet to hear about a single thing that Lieberman is doing on the Senate side. I am so utterly disappointed in him, and in the people that are refusing to challenge him and his Republican friends.

While we are at it, let's go ahead and clean house in our party leadership too. I am not suggesting a "purge" as some people are doing, but I think we, the rank and file, are going to have to do more to show the party leadership that we are not happy with some of the things they are doing. If they can't or won't lead, then we must get someone else who can and will.

[Reader Rabbit]

122. I hope you sent a copy of this to your Senators and Rep

Along with a mention that you run a website with 80,000 members. Heh.

[hfojvt]

124. Democrats gave Bush and Congressional Republicans what they wanted

but I think that is a good thing. Their victory means it is their war, not the Democrats' war - its the Bush/Republican war. So however bad things are a year from now, it is THEY who have to take the blame. They cannot legitimately blame us, because they got what they wanted.

[blueworld]

126. Absolutely brilliant post

You can't see it, but I'm giving you a standing ovation. I consider myself an Independent, not a Democrat, but until 2002 I voted primarily for Democrats.

Who is fighting for American values? Not this group of politicians. They're afraid of perceptions, they're afraid of terrorists, they're motivated by fear. Don't they think our soldiers, their families and the Iraqi people, never mind the voters, deserve one lone voice to stand up for them & their fear?

Sincerely, before I die, I would love once more to be able to vote for a candidate that I love & believe in, instead of judging the lesser of evils. Thanks for the post.

[blueworld]

127. Addendum

I should clarify that I still prefer Democrats as the lesser of evils, but I no longer feel I'm voting for the Democratic Party of my youth. Silly point, I know.

[Joe Fields]

128. I can tear up my speech now, Skinner..You covered it well.

[puebloknot]

129. Impeachment, out in the open, would keep the crimes...

...of this administration ever before the eyes of the public until November 2008. "Win" or "lose," at least We the People would open the closet and let *all* the malfeasance in office see the light of day.

Dems have been too gullible, assuming that November 06 meant something. There comes a time when party loyalty must be questioned.

[ComerPerro]

130. It is important to recognize that for now all we can do is send bill after bill to be vetoed

[Time for change]

131. Excellent, I appreciate the clear expression of where we're at on this

I would add that I believe that virtually everything said here applies to impeachment as well. Someone could write an almost identical post, substituting "impeachment" for "ending the war", and it would be almost as valid.

Yes, some minor changes would have to be made. Most important, there is not (CURRENTLY) as much support for impeachment as there is for ending the war. But on the other hand, impeachment is more important than ending the war, as it probably subsumes ending the war and in fact may be a more effective path by which to end it. And there are many more good reasons for impeachment as well.

Something to think about anyhow.

[understandinglife]

132. "The time is now. Show this president that the Democrats are not to be f*%!^d with."

Indeed.

[ChiciB1]

133. Well Skinner... You Just Changed My Mind!! I Was Giving Them "More Time"

because I felt it would produce MORE ANGER with "We The People" but I AM mistaken!! I MADE A MISTAKE in thinking this would "rally" some of those people sitting on the fence ot "get up and fight!" I think now that if they haven't gotten up to fight by now, then perhaps they never will!

I'm not talking about Congress here, I'm talking about "Middle America" but from what you said, Middle America is just too complacent. I was thinking it would goad them into a Revolutionary mode, but I see we are just spitting in the wind if we have to wait for them!

So what shall "WE" do now?? Many Democrats quite obviously aren't listening either. Do we start a "new" Party? I need direction of some sort because calling them, or writing them or even sending petition after petition ain't getting it... so what now????

[EFerrari]

144. My vote would be to support candidates -- vocally -- who

share your view.

And possibly direct action in the form of vigils outside the offices of key Dem reps. (Today, I just feel tired and still a little shocky, so running out and starting a vigil seems like hard work.) But, what else can we do? Maybe they just need to see bodies outside their offices who aren't going away.

[ChiciB1]

150. My House Election Isn't Even Official Yet!! I Live In Cruella's Old

District! We have tried and worked so hard for change and we STILL get screwed. It's REVOLUTION for me, I'm sorry I see NOTHING else to do!

I AM OPEN to suggestions, but not in THIS county will anything change much!! I've been dealing with Election Fraud since 2000! I've HAD IT! I don't even want to work "within" the System anymore!

It DOESN'T WORK!!!

[EFerrari]

156. I'm so sorry. But I don't know which is worse, really.

To live in Cruella's district and be ripped off or to live in Pelosi's district and be ripped off in a 'whole different way.

:hug:

[ChiciB1]

170. I NEVER Thought Of It That Way!! YOU DO Have A Point!!

I KNOW I'm not going to get anywhere most of the time, you thought you had someone that was going to stick her neck out!

It's such a SAD, SICK SITUATION!!

John Lennon said it best... everybody's talking 'bout Revolution, Revolution!! How I miss THAT activism!!

[EFerrari]

177. It ain't over.

:hi:

[rasputin1952]

135. When one knows they are in the right, they never back down...

I will always fight the bushthink that has permeated this society.

FIGHT! Fight the good fight, make sure that the people of this nation KNOW they are being heard. I am truly disappointed in tis capitulation. Giving bush anything, (except a prison sentence), is not in the best interest of this nation or it's citizens.

[Madspirit]

137. Another k&r for The Boss...n/t

[mnhtnbb]

138. Well said. I would change one word in the entire post--

in your last line:

"Show this president that the people are not to be fucked with."

I do believe the people of this country want an end to this war, and that
includes Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters.

[Swamp Rat]

140. We need to call our reps NOW to remind them they are treading on thin ice... oh, and fuck Lieberman!

[RestoreGore]

141. We don't need to be sending him bills, we need to be impeaching them all!

THAT is standing up and regaining our soul as a nation. It is the ONLY way to do it now.

[ReadTomPaine]

142. Likely the best piece you've written.

I would like to see more of this from you.

[mzmolly]

145. What's "this"

disapointment? I'd like to see less of "that" personally. I'm all for expression, but I don't like being let down by our Reps, do you?

[ReadTomPaine]

152. There's nothing wrong with a principled stand taken forcefully

In fact that's precisely what's absent among the majority of elected beltway Democrats. David explains his points quite well and allows the spirit of what he's trying to say inhabit the structure of his writing. It was a refreshing, welcome dialog from that quarter and I would like to see more of it.

When voices such as these begin to reach a critical mass in terms of public support and frequency, we will find our representatives much more attentive to the will of majority under whom they serve. Correct behavior from our elected official should be rewarded, but poor performance should be just as assiduously punished.

Nothing should burn a sitting Democrat more than going against the will of the people who put them in office. Given the current stakes, that punishment should be severe and career effecting. It's up to us to make life more uncomfortable for them to remain passive then to vote as directed by their constituents and perform the duties of their office as outlined by law. That's not an expression of disappointment, it's a core civic responsibility.

[mzmolly]

154. Very well said.

I'm glad I asked.

[jmondine]

146. What Now

I think that the first thing we need is more information. I can hardly believe that a few bullying words from Bushco. and a couple of nervous rattlings from the DLC caused such a sudden turnaround.

Right now we are angry, not only because of the betraying action, but because it came so suddenly, so out of left field. Once we cool down, we need to start asking hard questions of our reps, to dig and find out what spooked them so badly. Only then can we know how to keep this from happening.

One thing to remember is that we are fighting against the powers that be. When we do that, we must expect them to fight back fiercely with every tool at their disposal in order to preserve their power.

Right now we feel helpless, caught in despair. And that's exactly where those in power want us. They are counting on many of us to give up. Remember, our powerlessness and their invulnerability are, and always have been, illusions created by smoke and mirrors. Don't buy into it.

[trashcanistanista]

172. Me too

I want to know what was said in those meetings with Bush. Pelosi and Reid need to reveal this to the public. I believe that they did intend to end this war and for whatever reason they have changed their minds. I want to know why. How is this game being played? America deserves to know. What did the DLC do? I am angry, shocked and sickened by this almost beyond repair, and so close to Memorial Day, no less, god damn shameful. The potential blow-back from this is enormous and it can and probably will effect our 2008 candidates. They have literally destroyed whatever faith and hope we had for ending this war now, any credibility of the Democratic party, and will take the good Dems down with them. All eyes were on the Dems. after the election. They presented themselves out to be the party of change, reason and competence. People who are just sick and tired of Iraq and want it ended bought into it. Now in the eyes of the country both parties are the same AT BEST. Any good will built up over the first five months is squandered. They have nothing to be proud of, at worst, perceived as ASS KISSING LIARS. What is it going to take?

Sorry, had to get it out. :mad:

[WI_DEM]

147. Well said, and I couldn't agree more on Lieberman.

[BrainGlutton]

148. But how are WE -- ordinary Dem voters -- supposed to "fight"?

We can pledge any Congresscritter who backs this "compromise" will not get our votes in 2008 -- but you know that's not a pledge we'll keep, because it always comes down to a Dem vs. a Pub. What can you do?

[WritersBlock]

149. Thank you for this, Skinner.

I firmly believe that if the Democrats grew a pair, we wouldn't have to worry about getting enough votes to override vetos *or* overcome a Lieberman-induced 1-seat GOP majority, because enough sane Republicans would very soon give their support to the end-the-war agenda. But they cannot be seen to do so UNTIL THE DEMOCRATS START THE BALL ROLLING. That is what makes me so sick, and so furious, about this capitulation.

[man4allcats]

153. Spoken like a

true Democrat, the kind that used to be representative of this party - not the crop we currently have in Congress. :thumbsup:

[Hamlette]

158. I think there could be another motivating reason

I think it is morally defensable to give Petraeus until September. I think when we leave there will be more violence and more innocent Iraqis will die. The increased violence will make me feel more helpless knowing we are responsible for it.

Petraeus is not Rumsfeld. Everything I've read is that he "gets it". If there are well defined benchmarks and we are only funding it until the end of September I think we owe it to the innocent Iraqis to give it this one last try.

I know I'm pretty much alone in this. I think the moral position is to fund the war through September with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in the meantime.

(I'm not a Pollyanna about this. I don't think it will work but I do not think it is irresponsible to hope/believe Petraeus is ethical based on what I have read about him. I also think if it does work fewer innocent people will die. I don't give a rats ass about which party gets credit for ending the war or how/if the dems appear weak or not up to a fight or if it makes Bush look/think he won one. War is too critical for those concerns.)

[BReisen]

159. Thank you for saying this so well

I've been so angry/disappointed/disillusioned that I can't even begin to tie anything resembling coherent thoughts together on the subject. You said it all, and reading it gave me almost the same sense of release that writing it out might have.

Thanks!!

[mhatrw]

160. Beautiful post! n/t

[humbled_opinion]

161. Something smells fishy

It seems that Bush recently released intel that supposedly Al-Qaeda is prepared to make Iraq into a training ground and launch platform for attacks on the U.S. if we leave.

How can the Democrats possibly push their point to ignorant Americans that we need to leave for this to end when Bush does this scare tactic. Democrats cannot stand against that.

Changing the direction is different from withdraw. I liked the redeployment phraseology... but getting our troops out of Iraq is never going to happen as long as the Admin is preaching the Al-Qaeda boggy-man.

In other words do you want to be the politician that successufly removes our troops only to create an environment controlled by Iran and Syria that you have no chance of launching successful future attacks against and that becomes a dominant training ground for terrorists? It is a lose-lose situation.

[Miss Chybil]

240. There are plenty of places on the planet for bin Laden to plan his next

attack on us. He doesn't need to do it in Iraq, as George Bush so foolishly suggests. It's all a joke. I'm afraid for us. One: our president is an idiot. And two: bin Laden is still out there. Bush is using him as a political prop. It's a dangerous game and I don't want to play.

[mdmc]

162. wow

thumbs up

[JVS]

163. yup

[AnneD]

164. ITA...

The DEM leadership is missing the point. And the same is true with the impeachment proceedings.

We have the dead body. His hands had gun residue on them, the bullet from his gun matched the one that killed the vic. His DNA was found under the vics nails and he had scratches to his face. What do you want....a confession? When you have a proponderance of evidence.

Like you I am a Dem But I am ready to wrestle control from our 'leaders' if they can't lead better than this.

[19jet54]

165. Pragmatist

There is an old saying; "Choose your battles well - not all battles are worth fighting if you loose the War overall"

When I first read your title, I thought you were a freeper defending the war - like you I am a democrat, but I am also a veteran of both the Army & Navy. I remember a time or two when funding meant I might not receive a paycheck, and with kids and a wife living on a shoestring, such actions meant not being able to feed my kids. I do not support Iraq, but starving kids or getting another service member killed by no funding is not the way to go, IMHO. Even though Bush would be the one doing it, he will blame congress and most people are sheep.

We tried to just stop funding and kill the Iraq conflict in congress and failed miserably. We tried to force the president to withdraw and he vetoed the bill. He said he was going to veto a 4 month funding bill, but now has agreed to sign it. I think the plan is to live to fight another day & gather support along the way so we can withdraw later. Sometimes, it is practical to just be pragmatic.

Compromise is (per star trek) "both sides coming to an agreement that neither is happy with", and the alternative is constant fighting with innocents being killed or hurt - Unacceptable in War or Politics - Be patient, our time will come!

[HardRocker05]

166. some of us have been saying this for a long time - since 2000 to be exact. nt

[onethatcares]

167. AMEN, I cannot agree with you more wholeheartedly.

I would rather see all or one of the Democratic Party Representatives standing on a soapbox and telling everyone why the people that elected him/her did so. It was to end the war. Thank you Skinner.

[SarahB]

169. If we stand for nothing and if we govern in the defensive,

our ideals, values, and goals are essentially meaningless.

We need to remain strong in our convictions.

K&R :thumbsup:

[ChiciB1]

171. The Old Saying... If You Stand For NOTHING... You'll FALL For ANYTHING!

Now, The Idiot is talking about Viet Nam and using IT as a talking point!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :banghead:

[19jet54]

180. "If we do not learn from history"...

... "we are bound to repeat it's mistakes" - I assume Bush is the idiot you speak of :) Me, I trust Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi to win the fight this fall, with more GOP support then; Something that IS actually win-able?

BTW - There have been may conflict funding issues between Congress & the President since Vietnam; Iran/Contra, Lebanon, Somalia, Kosovo, Panama, Grenada, Iraq 1, Balanced Budget, Gore "rightsizing Government" and just the normal DOD funding issue period.

[ChiciB1]

218. Of Course Bush Is The Idiot... It's The NICEST Term I Can Use!

I have many names for him, but I'm already on a list some where I'm sure!

:grr:

[19jet54]

244. Me too...

... I haven't flown since 9/11, and I worked for the government - The Bushies threw my ass out, and did all the damage they could - Talk about disgruntled?

But we fight back with words, not bombs! O8)

[graywarrior]

174. Excellent post. Thanks, Skinner. I've been so pissed off about this, I haven't been posting here.

[Deep13]

175. Fuckin' ay, Bubba!

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

176. This is a very difficult time for progressives, let alone Democrats.

We're going to have to try to hold our coalition together despite acrimony and frustration and even downright exhaustion.

We are going to seem at odds even though we are on the same team, as Lynne reminded me the other day.

We are going to get reactive and demanding and many expletives will have to be deleted one way or another.

But, I really hope that we remember how high the stakes are and I really hope that we can put our own BS aside when we recognize it to forward the larger effort.

Please let's try to stick together. I may be terminally naive but I believe that as a community, we make a difference. That we can come up with strategies and actions that will make a dent or two or more. If DU wasn't a force to be reckoned with no one would waste time trying to disrupt or undermine this community.

Go, DU.

(Oh, and fuck Lieberman first.)

[Morgana LaFey]

178. I agree entirely. Good analysis.`

I particularly like the idea, and rationale for, calling Liebermann's bluff, the ass.

So, know anyone in Congress??? :evilgrin:

[Divine Discontent]

179. well....

we're just gonna have to "impeach" the congress (most of em) for not getting impeaching them for spying on citizens w/o right, invading on lies, etc, that's what they should be doing repeatedly and sending bills up for, not just the invasion.... there's so many angry people (take Joy Behar for example) who have had enough they are screaming about Bush wherever they go! My mom does it, this f&ckwad has crippled this country - if we were a "person" we'd have went from a 3 1/2 hour marathon runner to a quadriplegic with Bush in power!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[Coexist]

181. Beyond calling our elected officials

what do we do?

[FogerRox]

183. Dont fuck with us...

[file83]

209. ....if you do fuck with us, we won't do anything to you.

The threat is only as good as the follow up. So far, Bush has NOTHING to fear from the Dems.

Nothing.

[FogerRox]

264. Thats what I voted for in NOV, to get fucked.

[Jacobin]

184. I think its worse than your stated concerns

I'm afraid that a significant number in our party owe their allegiance to those making financial contributions who benefit from continued military spending, or who still believe, beyond all reality, that the neo-con efforts to re-make the middle east must continue.

There is an underlying stench to all of this that it is mere theater. A 'show' of 'opposition' as a nod to those who voted them into office, but also a careful calculation not to change the course by congress as a whole as it relates to Iraq.

I think the best case scenario (that which you described as the leadership being cowards), is not the reality of what is happening in Washington. But then, I'm probably too cynical.

[Individualist]

196. Ditto

That underlying stench reeks of DLC.

[Major Hogwash]

185. No sense in beating a dead horse. We can't override Bush's veto.

So, there's no sense in passing another bill that Bush had promised to veto anyway.

This way, they won't be able to talk about Democrats not willing to support our troops all summer long.

It just plays into the hands of the neocons to continue to argue with Bush.
He's not going to change his mind one little bit.
We are smarter than that!

Until the American people living in Republican controlled areas start putting pressure on their representatives to end the war in Iraq, nothing will change.

No one predicted that the Democrats would win control of the Senate last year.
Only a few political pundits even thought that the Democrats would take control of the House, let alone the Senate.

So, the war in Iraq will drag on for 2 more years until the Republicans either come to grips with ending the war in Iraq or are elected out of office so that an overwhelming, veto-proof Democratic Congress is a reality.

[Coexist]

187. so we can't overrifde the veto? so what?

how is it that we don't get that Bush will look as bad by continuing to Veto, as we do be presenting what the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT???

[Miss Chybil]

186. I really had my hopes up. Now they are dashed. K & R. nt

[Redstone]

188. Yes, time to show everyone that liberals are not weenies. Yes, indeed.

Redstone

[Coexist]

189. but by doing what? what can we do now?

I have sent the obligatory emails - they never seem to matter.

Is it time to reactivate the Activist Corps?

[Redstone]

210. Vote the the cringing, cowardly assholes OUT next time. I figure that's all we can do.

Redstone

[PuraVidaDreamin]

190. I'm disappointed and Sad

It really does appear that they are all
one and the same.

[immoderate]

192. After reading this, I emailed a few of your ideas to my Rep.

I told her to do the right thing.

--IMM

[porphyrian]

194. Don't hold your breath. - n/t

[AuntPatsy]

195. Your post inspired me to donate again this month but what I honestly

did it for was for "we" the people, we need to be heard, I just have a hard time trusting most politicians these days be they repub or dem and I honestly find this site to be a valuable avenue that keeps the peoples voice heard...I think without this site I would be incredibly stupid concering todays' political spectrum and for the very reason I will be not be so remiss in helping to keep this site up and operating while we still have the freedom to question our government in an open setting....

[Danger Mouse]

197. Never give up, never surrender!

It's what THEY would want.

The dems are refusing to show spine or leadership, so it's up to remind them that it US that put them there to fight for US, not their political careers.
Fucking cowards.

[David Zephyr]

198. Skinner, where was your anger at Gephardt and Daschle who gave Bush his war?

Like you I am disappointed in how this last bill went down. But they did pass a bill with a time-line and restrictions which was vetoed and they did try to override his veto.

The hostility at Nancy Pelosi is simply outrageous, especially from many here at the DU were silent when Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle handed Bush this war on a silver platter --- a war, by the way, that Pelosi voted against in the first place. If this is now 'Nancy Pelosi's war' as many here at the DU have suggested, then how in the hell do they square that with their support of John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton? Talk about double standards and hypocrisy!

I have read with great disgust here at the DU posts that call Nancy Pelosi essentially a murderer of our troops. Indeed, I have received just the same from a lot of self-righteous posters who were absent and notably quiet during the build up to and the initial invasion. No one opposed this war more than me and certainly blaming Nancy Pelosi for the deaths of our soldiers and Marines is sickening. Hell, I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, too.

The hard and ugly truth is that there is not a good solution to Bush's great fuck-up. It will now take money and time to pull the troops out and to do so without causing a bloodbath that will make the current mess in Iraq look tame. Congressman Murtha has it right about deploying and I am following his lead. I think (I hope) that most everyone will admit that Murtha and Pelosi are have a very close relationship. Anyone who doesn't is simply out of touch.

I have spent my entire life since I was 17 in progressive causes. I am a socialist and a homosexual who was kicked out of college for organizing against the war in Vietnam and have paid a great price for my activism all these many decades now. Attacking the Democrats now may make one feel just swell about themselves, but this Democratic Party under the stewardship of Howard Dean (who I supported with my bankbook and sweat) and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is one million times better than the Bush lackeys named Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt.

The American people clearly saw in the last few weeks what transpired and how the Democrats were shot down after the veto by the Republican Party. Our troops in Iraq and those about to be sent back there know that the Democrats are the ones who will bring them home now.

Yes, we lost a battle, but they did fight that battle. And it's not over! They did not "cave" and saying so is a really cheap shot. Calling Pelosi and people like me murderers is simply pathetic. Do people here actually think that Pelosi and Reid are not going to keep coming back at Bush on this war? Are there people here that honestly think that this was all there was? Does anyone really think that Nancy Pelosi isn't sick about every death in Iraq?! Give me a break!

Acting like Ralph Nader will not bring one soldier home. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face will not save one Iraqi child. And letting the Senate revert back to GOP control when this nation is teetering on fascism is childish, immature and insane.

Some people need to snap out of their smug keyboard radicalism, grow up and, yes continue to prod the Democrats to do the right thing and...help them back up on their feet after they have fought and lost a battle to do battle again against the real enemy.

[G_j]

199. well said, I am heartbroken over this

WE the people have been working in the trenches for years trying to end this nightmare.

[TankLV]

200. I couldnt agree more. Stand up and fight and be willing to LOSE for DOING WHAT IS RIGHT!

I have nothing more to add to your statement.

[MADem]

201. Hmmm. Well. I'm looking at the points you made.

....the stated justification for this compromise is that we don't have the votes to override a veto by President Bush. Looking at the political reality in the Senate, I think it is almost certainly true that we don't have the votes.

...Some Democrats believe that if they fail to fund the war, they might appear weak, and they will be accused of not supporting the troops. And on some level they are right -- they would undoubtedly be accused of not supporting the troops.


But the thing that really drives the nail home is the LIEBERMAN thing.

We're hanging on by our fingernails. If one Democrat dies from a state with a strong GOP machine, we could have serious trouble. Example: Who the hell ever thought that asswipe Coleman could swipe PAUL WELLSTONE's seat, after all?

And if we DO call Lieberman's bluff, I think we'd have some serious trouble. Lieberman could actually get all offended and start negotiating seriously with the other team. In fact, I'd bet on it--that guy is an attention-seeking shitheel. I think the GOP would actually hold their noses and give Lieberman ANYTHING he wanted, if they thought the guy was being pushed and was actually willing to caucus with them--after all, absent a total fuckup by the Dems, we'll get a more comfortable majority in 08, so they'd only have to give him a choice chairmanship or three for a two year period, just long enough to be able to do some blocking for the Monkey. Hell, look at Jumping Jim Jeffords. All he wanted was a piece of the doggone EDUCATION pie; he left the GOP because he was insulted, grievously, by the Monkey, who left him off a bill signing invitation--he really wasn't overwhemingly hubris-laden (which is something one cannot say about old Joe).

The GOP know they can't win it all back; they've screwed up too badly. But they can, with Senate control, HALT EVERYTHING. So that's why Lieberman is the big, whiney, 'borderline personality disordered' Senator in the damned room.

Maybe we'd be better off trying to get, say, Snow or Collins, or any Senator who LOVES their seat but sees the handwriting on the wall, to flip. Give one of them, or as many as we can persuade, a choice plum.

And THEN, maybe, tell Lieberman to go stuff it. But we need a little bit of a margin, there, to be safe.

It would be nice if we had veto-proof majorities. We don't though. We've got to horsetrade and pussy foot at times, even when we don't want to. And while we're doing that, try like hell to get those votes, even if we have to pork up some bills in obscene fashion to make GOP bacon-bringers look good.

[ReadTomPaine]

219. No question, it's time to twist the screws on Joe.

I've felt that way for a long time, as well.

"I've mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating here. First we need to take away his bargaining power by getting a moderate GOP senator like Snowe to make a quiet agreement to switch parties should Lieberman jump ship. There are several I'm sure who would love to be in the majority, calling the shots, again..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3054459#3054502

[MADem]

238. It will only work if we first flip that Republican or three. Then we can tell him to go

caucus with his own asshole for all we care.

I'd love to see it happen.

[leftofthedial]

202. excellent

:thumbsup:

[RoadRunner]

204. Well done, Skinner!

:toast:

[BootinUp]

206. an unpopular opinion follows

Nice post as always Skinner.

I'm not long winded in my posts so here goes...


Question, do we really think the country doesn't know where we stand on the war? I think they damn well do know, and they know about needing to have enough votes to win the political battle. This is not about showing anyone anything its about winning in the end and as soon as is possible.

To win as soon as possible, its necessary to build a voting bloc. One key ingredient is working with other more conservative Dems and the more moderate republicans to gain their support.

There is no question in my mind that Rove and Bush brilliantly delayed any revolt by moderate republicans by rolling out Petraeus and the surge plan.

There are several signs that the strategy to win is making headway, this thing is coming to a head this year and a little more patience for our representatives and Senators while they work through this would not be unrealistic imho. I don't really want to make this post longer by citing the various signs of headway, but I would be glad to elaborate if any questions are put to me in a serious way on that.

cheers,

To ignore future posts by me I think you click one of the little icons above my post. ;) Hey stop that!

[sellitman]

215. Time to show LIEberman the door.

If we cannot do better than this what does a majority mean? Sending to message to Joe is long over due.

Signed a Connecticut Jew.

[BrklynLiberal]

217. What HE said!!!!

:thumbsup: :yourock: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[frogcycle]

220. roger that

While capitulating may have been inevitable, it should have been at least taken further. Make him veto twice. Send him something equally unpalatable as the first, but different. They started out well, and ran out of gas too soon. All I can say is I don't actually think they are as inept as this looks, so I hope they are holding a hole card or two we don't know about.

[flyarm]

222. absolutely!!..and as a mother i can think of nothing that will exonerate the dems for this choice

they made..although my child is not in Iraq..i feel each and every soldier over there is a part my child..and each and every death , ours and iraqi civilians is a death of a piece of me..

how does *hes stubborn greedy selfishness mean he supports anything but himself???????

and now with our dems capitulating to the greedy mtf in this white house ..what does that make all of us??

i keep saying ..not in my name..but there has always been a "D" behind my name..so even if I say.not in my name..it is in my name..it is in all americans names..we are all cloaked in the blood of innocent lives..and for that i hurt deeply inside..

I can not stand another death..of our bravest..our kids..all our kids..

now i will stand against my own beloved democrats..each and every one of them that supports this..i see no other choice..it would be gutless of me to stand beside any democrat who supports one more death of our soldiers..when they could have stood to stop this war of lies.

I raised my children to tell the truth..no matter how hard that might be at times..i said truth will always prevail...now i wonder what my grown kids think...it seems truth is for sale.. if you want to keep your seat in congress ..so bad.. you would be willing to wear the blood of the innocent and look away ...for your own best interests, at the cost of human life..

my heart breaks..but worse ..today and tommorrow and the next day..a soldier will die for no god damned reason..and an iraqi civilian will die and children will suffer for no damn reason but greed..and self serving american politicians.


fly

[lilypad_567]

223. how to end it

i think they should try to end the invasion by using former senator mike gravel plans, make the invasion a war crime, and if the repug fallibuster it, than held a coulture vote to pervent the fallibuster, and if bush veto it, than they, should try to override it, and they should do it everyday, seven day a week, no vacation, no nothing until it get override.

[orleans]

224. k&r n/t

[Laurab]

225. Very well said - I see I'm not the only one

who hasn't even wanted to come on DU because I was so disappointed and angry. I really, truly expected more.

You put exactly how I feel into words very nicely!

[bdamomma]

226. thanks Skinner very well said.

not related but it took one woman who said she will not give up her seat to start the Civil Rights movement to make a change, we need a Rosa Parks woman or man to say she/he will not give up her/his seat to get the ball rolling.

[Canuckistanian]

228. Very true

Because if you don't stand up at some point, you might as well go home and cower in the corner.

The net result will be the same.

[symbolman]

229. Another way to look at this

and this is NOT excusing Democrats for this boondoggle, is to FRAME this debate, and let the American People know that it IS the REPUBLICANS who are FORCING the troops to STAY.

Think about those FEW Republicans who Keep Bush in Power. We need to keep hammering on how in Some ways the Democrats ARE SCREWED, they clearly DO NOT have a Majority as defined by the Rules.

They've been Kneecapped by those Virulant Right Wingers WHO REFUSE TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

This IS the Republican Rubber Stamp War.

They OWN IT. And in many ways the Democrats Have shown this to be a fact. Sometimes you ARE powerless, even if there's an illusion that you are in Charge.

But again, as Skinner reminds us, it's about time we brought a Damn GUN to the fight, instead of bringing a plastic Butter knife to a gunfight.

We're sick of Brains. We want GUTS.

Personally, I really think it all boils down into who is capable of knowing SHAME. The Republicans KNOW No Shame, the Dems are Humans, they FEEL, and it costs them every time.

We need a Party of ONE - ONE 800 LB GORILLA :)

[BootinUp]

230. throwing further caution to the wind

Lets be honest about this. DU'ers want the Democrats in Congress to prove something to you, to the left in other words.

Let me use a poker analogy. Bush and Cheney are the opposition player, you (meaning the average pissed off Du'er) hold the cards for the Democrats. The cards still suck. Everyone knows it but you. You wanna keep raising the pot, guess who collects it as the media and repukes turn your audacity into a joke.

I don't think many here would be happy if Pelosi and Reid walked off the floor and held a protest sign out front of the chambers.

Ok, I'm done with this.

[symbolman]

232. Well said

You have to know when to fold them. Of course if they're kicking you under the poker table as you play, there's nothing says you can't put your cigarette out on their legs.. :)

The Dems need to FRAME things more intelligently, start screaming about those Moderate Republicans who talk trash in the White House and then VOTE AGAINST Ending the war.

THOSE are the ones we need to focus on, we already KNOW who the rubber stampers are. Create a WANTED LIST. HAMMER ON IT.

Make THOSE Moderates in Danger of losing their election come 2008 PAY for their Loyalty to Bush, make THEM an example - THEY are prolonging the war while playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with Bush/Rove, etc.

Appreciate your posts, and Skinners.

This is a complex issue, but at the same time leaders DO need to stand up at this juncture and be COUNTED.

[ReadTomPaine]

251. In a rigged casino, the only way to win is not to play the game

Tossing in hand after hand just means you take longer to lose. As long as the Democratic party continues to play against a stacked deck, they will always fail, legitimizing the crooked game for every hand they stay in to play. The answer is not to play cards, it's to shut down the casino and take the owners out of the business. This may be harder for some to grasp than others, depending on how addicted they are to playing the game.

Your poker analogy does a better job of refuting your argument than supporting it. Confrontation, not capitulation, is the only way out of this mess now.

[BootinUp]

257. The game in my analogy

is not rigged, but it is beyond the losing players ability to see how to win.

edit: that was poorly expressed. First post this morning and not yet awake.

What I mean is the losing player does not know the cards are unable to win the hand. If he did know that he would fold and wait for a better hand. Or change the analogy, the player does know the cards can not win the hand but thinks he can bluff the other side to fold, alas, the other side has surmised what cards you have and cannot be bluffed.

[ReadTomPaine]

266. That is why your comparison is flawed. The game *is* rigged.

There is no way to win if you play. The reality is no matter what cards Democrats are dealt, the GOP will always have the upper hand as long as Dems sit at the table and play nice. Another approach is required, and it won't be on GOP terms and it won't be collegial if it's to have any success at all.

[BootinUp]

270. Gee, I've never heard that

Dems don't have a spine, they play nice thats why they lose, bla bla bla. I don't accept that meme my friend. I look at long term trends and factors that effect public opinion when trying to understand politics maybe you do too. But we come to very different conclusions.

The hand in this case consists of votes you probably understood that. The factors affecting future hands are not just directly equal to how loud a Democrat yells murder. Peoples opinions and their votes are harder to change/get than that. But you read blogs! You know that you could solve this problem if you were in Pelosi's or Reids place cause they are just dumb fucks, and chickenshits. /sarcasm

[ReadTomPaine]

271. It's going to take a lot more than passive aggressive sniffery to resolve this situation, Jim.

I don't believe a normal political channel exists to solve this problem anymore. It's going to take something outside the box, forceful and direct. We have few other options now that this government has gone feral. A new generation of Americans are relearning the hard lessons of the 60's and early 70's. Citizen involvement in governmental affairs is a messy, unpleasant business but it's the price of living in a free society.

Instead of playing the games as described I'd rather shut down the entire country & DC along with it via selective protests and national strikes that paralyze the industries most precious the GOP and cause the maximum discomfort and monetary loss possible to them. It will be ugly and force will be used against those protesting, striking or taking any other sort of useful action, but that's the only way we are going to see a meaningful rollback of the current status of affair in our lifetimes. I want the last decade of my life back and I don't intend to wait until I'm an old man for it to be returned to me. If necessary, I'll take it back myself.

And that is the heart of the matter here. If you want anything done properly in DC, you must take government by the scruff of the neck and force the issue, start to finish. The citizenry needs to put them in the chair, give them the legislation, hand them the pen and don't let them out of the box until that paper is signed. That's how lobbyists do it every day.

As I've written elsewhere on this issue, If government isn't taken in hand by the populace and shaped into the instrument we want it to be it takes a life of its own and shapes the populace instead. This is especially true of American politics where it's all about conflict and control.

By definition, politicians must be directed, like unruly children, to do the right thing. This isn't always a dignified process, indeed it's made difficult precisely because elected officials don't like to be told what to do, despite the nature of the profession centering around implementing the will of others and listening to a constituency.

Government must be tamed. One cannot sit and hope that elected officials will do what you want. They must be compelled to do as the electorate wishes. Until we step up and take on this responsibility as all free people must to retain their liberty, nothing is going to change.

[BootinUp]

273. Its a lonely road you want to travel

More power to you friend, I am afraid I cannot follow as I have too many challenges already in taking care of my responsibilities at home which I would be neglecting to take back something that is of a fleeting nature as a general rule. I try to participate in public affairs now to some minor extent and support those candidates who seem to represent my views. I actually believe in the system, yes it swings and sways off course before veering back years later, its still better than the picture you paint in my humble opinion. This country would not be where it is today without the system you want to bring to its knees.

The taming and design of Government is our duty no doubt, my feeling is that drastic corrections are not the answer cause yours and my side may be on receiving end the next time. I think our Government is still pretty tame, thats exactly why it is hard to change its course quickly, it also reflects the publics desires better than most inmho. It may seem otherwise because the force we can project around the world is devastating and quick indeed. There are certainly big problems that are not being addressed, education needs, lack of factual reporting by most all of the press in favor of sensationalism and other issues. But most of them are not new and public opinion will again build up to address them, our party will get more power in Washington if we keep the confidence of the majority of Americans. Thats a tough job.

The hard work to be continued by the Dems is continually compiling evidence to be used as scud missiles against the rights rhetoric, it is working, just not as fast as we would like. I am sure you have been reading the leaked stories of a possible change in course for the military mission. This is direct evidence that we are getting to them whether they are serious or not. It is an admission of failure slowly being revealed.

I do not want to belittle your efforts, to the contrary I applaud and encourage your continued participation.

[ReadTomPaine]

274. And I encourage & applaud your own actions as well...

I would dearly prefer to be wrong about this. Here's to hoping that I'm wrong and you're right.

[Rex]

231. I am seriously starting to wonder if there was an election back in Nov.

Come on Dems! Make George blink for once!

[buddysmellgood]

233. Wow. Very nice. Thank you.

[whirlygigspin]

234. and how many people will I see tomorrow...

actually going to their congresscritters offices and get in their face about this?

As FDR said, "make me do it"

I dare ya

[Whoa_Nelly]

235. Skinner!

Thank you!

[stillrockin]

236. Take your goddamn balls out of your purses, you cowards!!!

:mad:

[SeattleGirl]

239. Bravo, Skinner!

Very, VERY well said! :applause: :applause: :applause:

[steve2470]

242. Exactly the way I feel

Damn I'm disgusted and angry.

[IndianaGreen]

243. The Democratic nomination is going to be decided this week, not next year!

As Keith Olbermann said tonight, we will know who deserves a crack at the nomination by their stand on this issue.

[Jersey Devil]

245. I am so disgusted it is almost beyond words

I am hoping that places such as Democratic Underground can help them understand just how disappointed and disgusted we are with them as Democrats. No one who votes for this monstrosity of a bill will ever see a penny from me.

[autorank]

252. "Hey, is there someting I'm missing here. I thought we were in charge" DUers 5/22

Pre-cognitive

[Warren DeMontague]

253. I know. It's the same jaw-droppingly inane mentality that got us into this war to begin with.

I remember, back in early 2002, people saying "We're going to invade Iraq. Just watch." My thinking was, they'd never actually try to do that- after all, Iraq didn't attack us. And besides, the Democrats would never stand for it. To be fair, some of 'em didn't. But way too many did.

"Oh, we have to vote for it! We don't want to, but what choice do we have?"

Who is advising these clowns?

The American People are WAITING for someone to stand up on this war- and it may come as a surprise to certain would-be Democratic nominees, but smutty video games, the flag burning 'crisis' and even universal preschool are NOT going to be the deciding issues of the 2008 election.

It's Iraq, stupid. If not you, who? If not now, when?

[acmavm]

254. So true. Like the trite old saying goes, 'No guts, no glory.

If you're gonna take an ass-whupping the least you should do is get in a couple of good punches. Let the other guy know that you're not his punching bag.

[hisownpetard]

275. "No guts, no glory"?

With this congress, I think it's more like
"No nuts. No glory."

[Dr. Death]

255. Agree 100%

Why are we afraid of fighting the lies when WE are in the majority?

If Dems cut funding, undoubtedly the MSM will spew the "don't support the troops lie." But at this point the only people buying that are the dead-enders who will vote republican no matter what, so what have we lost?

Very nice essay.

[Yukari Yakumo]

256. Ohhh...?

And pray tell, what would have them do instead?

Bear in mind we have a slim majority in the House, and that majority goes bye-bye if you factor in the "Blue Dogs". And, of course, the Senate is effectively split evenly.

The only thing you seems to suggest is to stall. But what good would that have done us?

We already showed the country where we stand with the first bill that Bush vetoed and the defund bill that died a quick death. If we keep passing the same bill over and over again, it makes us look as stubborn as Bush. And what's the benefit of that?

[bread_and_roses]

258. Exactly. (n/t)

[Junkdrawer]

259. We don't have an opposition party...We have the APPEARANCE of an opposition party...

We don't have a democracy...We have the APPEARANCE of a democracy...

Too much wealth in too few hands.

Oh, there's considerable effort spent to put a democratic skin on this very undemocratic country, put the deception grows thin. And as time goes on, that will become more and more apparent.

And I'm sorry to say, at this point, blood will be shed before that changes.

How much blood? Who knows?

Will a more just nation come out of this bloodshed? Again, who knows?

When will this happen? When our economic house of cards collapses.

[RetroLounge]

260. as usual...

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. "

William Butler Yeats

RL

[bagrman]

261. It's not a War it's an occupation.

[Justitia]

265. Thank you & I agree. This time, there is absolutely no downside to opposing this crap.

Veto? So what? Don't even try?

I say, we make them WORK FOR THEIR WAR.

Make the republicans go ON RECORD over and over again to prove their pro-war, pro-death, pro-wasted billions convictions.

We have nothing to lose here, the support of the American people behind us and a principled stand.

Our dems completely caved for no good reason whatsoever. No, being fucking afraid of being called "unpatriotic" is not a good reason.

This shit absolutely sucks. And I am one, who before this, was a total pragmatist. This deal has no upside or redeeming quality whatsoever.

[NC_Nurse]

269. I completely agree.

I wish that political calculations were at the bottom of the priority list instead of the top.

I think they are dead wrong about how this will play. They just look like wimps and posers at this point.

Not a high point for the Dems, that's for sure.

[TwilightGardener]

272. Very well-said. Agree.

[NastyDiaper]

276. Reflecting back: Does Dodd deserve a Group? (nt)