I stand behind/with my Dem representatives. I am tired of the bashing here.

[live love laugh]

It is worse than what I see from the other side all the time. The only thing we have IS hope and the Iraq funding bill was not our ONLY hope. However, if we don't have the representatives that we have elected then what is left?

Nothing.

I refuse to believe that we have nothing left. The Democratic Party is bigger than one bill.

[William769]

1. Very true. I haven't given up hope, just lost it for a day.

But I am back up on the horse and ready to ride!

[TwilightGardener]

2. Yep--let's keep our eyes on the prize.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

3. Well it is the perfect position to be crapped on

You're welcomed to stand there all you want.

The dems deserve the bashing. If they aren't punished for this shit, they will keep doing it.

[krkaufman]

44. Yeah, except "The dems" hardly facilitates holding those responsible to account.

Rather, by broadly categorizing the recent bill as a failure of "Dems", instead of a problem with having too slim a majority of Dems and not enough liberals and/or progressives, the self-flagellists and the media are doing the work of the Right Wing.\

No one is saying the recent bill is to be celebrated. But its passing is not due to the Democrats, and it would be wise to remember that this sort of thinking helped germinate the "no difference" mantra of the 2000 campaign -- and I think it's unnecessary to detail the resulting pros & cons of how that election season ended.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

60. Wow, that's a line of reasoning worthy of Karl Rove

Sorry, but it is "the dems".
It is exactly because of the dems it passed. The fuckers voted YES.

Obama and Clinton only voted NO when it wouldn't matter. They would worse than coward. If they had showed an ounce of leadership they would have been the first to vote No, and done want they could before the vote to let us know they were fighting for that NO.


Not being able to sustain a veto didn't matter. If bush vetos the bill, than we had him where we wanted him. The troops were that much closer to coming home.


We send him the bill again. Fuck the pundits and the commericals.


And no one who votes Dem (dems and independent) listens to the crap on TV and radio.

All the dems had to do was make commericals like VoteVets does. Shove that rethugs crap down this wh's throat.




Btw, now bush knows he doesn't have to do ANY thing the dems want.

Emails? Documents? Testimony? Fuck it, the dems will never get anythins. Why? Because bushco now knows the dems will never do anything serious to get them now.

So fuck this shit about reasons and supposed cleverness. It was cowardness and letting more troops die for no reason.

[krkaufman]

90. Your response is ill-mannered, warranting and receiving no reply. n/t

[DURHAM D]

4. Agree.

I am finding the BLACK AND WHITE CLUB exhausting.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Oh Without A Doubt.

I'm sure there will be many more battles ahead and I can only hope that a large number of them will make us more proud. I've always had faith in my Dems and though I'm disappointed with this past effort, I'm stickin with 'em too.

[L. Coyote]

6. K&R Likewise. Here is my LIAR, LIAR rant to supply some perspective for the whiners.

"It it Still a Crime to Lie to Congress." Gonzales Delivers Indictment, Charges BUSH with LYING.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x975882

In a startling development, AG Gonzales delivered a sealed indictment to the White House early today, charging Bush with lying to Congress.

RIGHT! Okay, I lied!! But, is it still a crime to lie to Congress?

Researching Bush scandals, lying to start a war is certainly at the top of the list. ...........

Another: DU Dem Bashers are a Tribute to Falwell. Or, Yet Another Buffalo Jump?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x969589

First DU rants ad nauseum about how devisive Falwell was ......now the DU Dem devisiveness is overwhelming.
Go figure. It prompted yet another neologism:

Blemming, noun, a blog lemming, a nuisance person or thread calling attention to and enthusiastic about a distracting topic
Blemming, verb. to distract from an important issue with irrelevancies, to blemish or inundate a reasonable discussion with extraeous issues

Usage: Blemmings often lead the herd over a cliff to drown in a sea of irrelevancy.
Synonym: Online ratf*cker.

Gooooogling blemming: I was surprised to see a usage for "blemming" online. And one so suited to what I thought would be a truly fresh neologism. This from Jan 25, 2004. - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blemming

1. blemming
To be a nuisance to;
To call attention to;
To be enthusiastic about;
To bring on a trip .....

[Joe Fields]

13. A discussion board such as this one is the perfect place to rant.

Where else are you going to go? And what is wrong with expressing your feelings? We have a lot to whine about these days. It's healthy to get it out of our systems.

[L. Coyote]

16. Rant away, express away, but aim at the REAL problem when throwing stones.

[Joe Fields]

33. There are many parts to this problem. I won't turn a blind eye to the

complicity of spineless democrats who are only interested in future elections.

[INDIA]

7. Good post.

I am a PROUD Democrat. I trust that Nancy and Harry evaluated the situation reasonably, and took the best step possible. Some people here expect them to do the impossible, and then throw a hissy fit when they don't.

[StefanX]

8. Funny, I don't see your Dem representatives standing with YOU

I stand with the 70% of the people in this country who don't support this war -- whoever they may be.

I don't stand with people who don't stand with me.

[deutsey]

21. Touche

:thumbsup:

I reserve my right to criticize the Democrats anytime I believe they aren't living up to the values and principles that have made the Party (and America) great.

[krkaufman]

46. Sure you do. But does criticizing "the Democrats" do any real good ...?

... or would it be more productive to target specific Democrats (and Republicans, and "Independent Democrats"!) who refused to support the troops -- by getting them the hell out of hell?

[deutsey]

53. I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive n/t

[Marr]

27. Well said. n/t

[bigtree]

39. the majority of Democrats still stand in favor of ending the 'war'

the majority of them still will vote in favor of the timetables for withdrawal which failed to get a veto-proof margin of support when attached to the spending bill.

[krkaufman]

45. 60% of whom previously supported invading, so we're not talking about the brightest bulbs.

But that's a different issue.

What I find especially noteworthy is that the Congress passed this bill in the face of the 1.4 million people marching on the Washington Mall that very day, protesting the war and calling for the troops to come home. /sarcasm

In all honesty, is it reasonable to expect the war to be ended if the American public can't muster any significant protest to it? The Vietnam War didn't end until after massive, regular marches on Washington, and we're all too busy watching American Idol, Ultimate Fighting, or {fill in the blank}. /seriousness

[Onceuponalife]

9. Not a proud time for Democrats

Why do they seem to always surrender in the end? Why do they never stand and fight for what they SAY they believe in? Easy to talk the talk during an election but a little harder to walk the walk when the bill comes due. Kind of reminds me why I left and joined the Green Party.

[krkaufman]

47. "Kind of reminds me why I left and joined the Green Party."

Which, coincidentally, reminds me of one over-large contributing reason for why we're in this mess in the first place.

[MasonJar]

10. I totally agree. Read William Pitt's message called "Missing."

[brentspeak]

11. k & r

:kick:

[Joe Fields]

12. It is sympomatic of a much larger problem in Washington. And,

it is only a natural reaction to the disappointment that most of us feel right now. Like most things we get worked up about around here, it will die down to a dull roar.

[msongs]

14. yes let us pray that the occupation miraculously stops of its own accord nt

[Gman]

15. My rep voted FOR and I stand by him too

I defer to his judgement. My rep is as liberal as anybody in DC and I back him and his vote 100%.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. So you support continuing the war and the deaths

of more of our troops and many more innocent Iraqis?

[Gman]

52. I support raising the minimum wage

There is more than one issue. And the world is more than just black and white.

[snappyturtle]

75. I know that the minimum wage increase is VERY important

and too belated. However, I wish it had had it's own bill and done a whole lot more than it's going to do. If minimum wage had kept pace it should have been three times the new per hour rate and that won't be fully realized until 2009. To me, the increase is far too little and too late. I wouldn't have had any problem voting "NO" on the bill primarily to stop the war.

edit:wording

[Forkboy]

82. So does Ted Kennedy...he still voted NO.

[wtmusic]

17. Hope is the only thing we have, with spine absent.

Would it were only one bill...

What's labeled "bashing" is usually criticism that someone doesn't agree with. Get used to it, or feel free to try other websites.

[live love laugh]

18. Just as you choose to bash, I choose to speak out against it. Here. If you don't like it go. n/t

[Breeze54]

19. I stand by my reps in the Senate also!!!

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk
under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion (Motion to Concur in House Amdt. to Senate Amdt to H.R.2206 )

Vote Number: 181 Vote Date: May 24, 2007, 08:26 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 2206
(U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 )

Measure Title: Making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations
for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007,
and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:

YEAs 80

NAYs 14

Not Voting 6

-----------

NAYs ---14

Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

14. That's the number that get it. They seem to understand that to keep funding this illegal war is wrong.

I agree with them! And the rest can go pound sand.

[KoKo]

20. How long have you been "believing" in the "plan?" I need to ask

before I reply more fully.

[live love laugh]

22. I am not sure what plan you are referring to. All I know is that if we do not have

the reps, we have nothing. Do you believe we have nothing/nobody representing our interests?

If so, then what is the alternative?

[snappyturtle]

36. I'll answer in the simplistic manner by which you view this issue.

If our representatives do not represent us as they were elected to do then we get new ones in the next election. I just have a hard time waiting until election time when, today, there are lives in the balance.

[live love laugh]

41. You have a hard time waiting, so what will you do about it? What can you do?

Other than complain?

[snappyturtle]

57. I have every right to complain just as you have every right to

trust the representatives to take care of matters. I do not trust them; they have not done what they were elected to do, therefore I call and I write, everyday of the week. You see, I feel compelled to make my dissent known to those who have the power to change policy.

[elocs]

23. I am a Democrat and this is my party even if it does not meet my personal definition

of perfection and purity. Yep, it does not always do what I want it to do, but it is my party. Sometimes it does disappoint me, but I am not a fairweather Democratic Party member and I'll stick with it. I will not whine and cry and threaten to take my ball home and quit. My party is bigger than a single vote and it ain't over till it's over.

Hey, I gave rec #6, so it already had 5. Not everybody is ready to kiss off the Democrats. This is my party and I do not say love it or leave it, instead I say either stay and work to make it better or leave. Quitting is easy, working and having faith in the long run is harder.

[rateyes]

24. My Democratic Representative can

kiss my ass! He's NEVER voted Democratic on the war or much of anything else. He's a damned Republican masquerading as a Democrat. Jim Marshall will not get my support. He will, however, get my letters letting him know what a damned disappointment he is.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Same with mine

[Grandrose]

25. Agree!

:kick: and recommend.

[Marr]

26. The problem the right has is that they blindly support corrupt politicians, simply

because they have an "R" after their name. Saying you'll blindly back your team even when they sell you out is hardly a way to distinguish yourself from the right.

I do believe that the Democratic Party is our best tool for fighting right-wing authoritarianism right now, but that does not mean that I support it's members blindly, and I intend to help unseat as many of the sell-outs as possible.

[krkaufman]

48. I agree, with the caveat that "the team" hasn't sold anyone out ...

... if only a limited number of members of the team were in on the fix. Many Democrats deserve criticism, along with nearly all Republicans -- and one "Independent Democrat." My only complaint with the criticism/bashing/whatever is that it is mostly directed, broadly, at "the Democrats", rather than at all those politicians still rubber-stamping Bush's rogue policies.

[OzarkDem]

30. Its been hard, really hard

As I posted in another thread, I put up with harassment and threats from a stalker in defense of my Dem legislator. I would walk through fire for some of them. That makes this particular betrayal really hard to take.

Many of us will get over it, but we may never feel the same way, have the same trust, ever again.

Its going to take time. I have faith in my party as an institution and I'll work for it to go on. I'm a 5th generation Democrat and I know the party is a collection of ideals, members and voters. Its not politicians, its us. It will go on.

[snappyturtle]

31. "The Democratic Party is bigger than one bill. " Yeah, just one

piddly little bill that didn't quite go the way we wanted. Well, maybe next time it will go better. After all if we don't have our reps, what HAVE we got?

After yesterday, I don't have "hope".....you mean I gotta "hope" that Congress will get it right next time? "Hope" that my nephew is still alive when they "might" bring this disaster to an end? Next time I write to him I'll tell him we're hoping the next time he's out in the tank as an observer he survives. So, love laugh, if you can this BASHING then I'm glad I bashed.

[polichick]

32. I'm sorry your nephew is stuck in this mess. God bless him.

Speaking your mind about things is not bashing imo ~ I don't see bashers here, just very disappointed "troops" of a different sort who are sick and tired of being used and taken for granted.

[snappyturtle]

34. Thank you. I wrote this because it's true and because we

have to keep in mind these troops when Congress is acting on a bill that can effect them. After all, I think they're depending on US too.

[krkaufman]

50. Sorta rude to insert myself here, but thought I'd thrust by concept of "bashing" on you...

In this context, I view "bashing" as broadly railing on the entire Democratic Party as the cause for this bill passing, rather than focusing criticism on those politicians (Rep, Dem, Independent-Dem,??) who continue to rubber-stamp Bush's rogue policies. Pressure need be brought to bear on those politicians supporting the continued occupation of Iraq, and especially so those politicians up for re-election in 2008.

[OzarkDem]

35. Its also bigger than its elected leaders

The Democratic Party is controlled by its voters, its activists. While its been a big disappointment, we have to regroup and work harder to find new leaders. Quite frankly, I've lost faith in this bunch.

[krkaufman]

51. Your comment made me wonder if there aren't Senators and Congresscritters in Washington ...

... disappointed in their constituents for not mounting large-scale, continuous, vigorous protests against this war in Washington, and are losing faith that the public will ever free itself of its infotainment shackles and step-up to responsible citizenship.

[Breeze54]

42. ..............

:hug:

[snappyturtle]

77. Thank you......the hug feels good! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Both my "liberal" senators and my "liberal" rep voted for the bill.

I don't "stand behind" them. I live in a Blue State, very liberal, opposed to the war. They sold out.

[mmonk]

38. Let's see. They've funded an escalation of the war since they became majority.

They tried to trick their constituency with a hide the real vote tactic. They won't defend the constitution against sustained attacks and high crimes against it. Sorry but I'll damn well criticize all I want and will not stand for that kind of thing.

[bigtree]

40. they failed to get the necessary amount of support from the other side

the majority *of Democrats supported, voted for, and still support timetables for withdrawal.

They are still engaged in the process of holding the administration accountable even if they haven't raised their concerns to the level of impeachment.

Criticisms should reflect all of that.

[mmonk]

54. They are failing to get the necessary support

from our side to exercise their constitutional duties and power in congress.

[bigtree]

55. their 'constitutional duties' encompass more than just the extreme remedy of removing the president

There are several committees which are engaged in other levers of our democracy which the constitution also mandates and provides for legislators to hold the administration accountable. To assert they aren't following their constitutional responsibilities just because that oversight hasn't yet risen to embrace one of the most extreme remedies provided them ignores all of the other 'constitutional' efforts underway which may well rise to the extraordinary level of impeachment.

[krkaufman]

43. Yeah, so many in America seem to want the quick solution, the Grand Slam or Hail Mary ...

... that will instantly bring us victory.

The Democratic Party barely has a majority in Congress and we all know that the "liberal" or "progressive" political view is not in the majority in Congress -- there are still far too many Corporatists, Dixiecrats, etc, out there, and then there's the Republicans.

We're only one election into what we can hope to be the beginning of our country's turnaround, but very little has changed except control over the management of Congress. Most importantly, the news media has not changed at all. The Dems remain handicapped by a news media failing to step up to its responsibility to hold politicians to account, calling them on hypocrisy, inconsistencies, ignorance and lies. You don't need to scan too many political articles to find a statement the near-equivalent of "the President's Democratic critics complained, today, that the President's stipulation that the Earth is flat is not a view supported by every person in the country."

We need to renew the effort to replace Republicans with Dems (or Greens), replace Dem Corpos with those more in tune w/ the public, and start beating the Republicans, the media, and the public over their fricking heads with big, spiked bats of reason. (Oh, and quit doing the Right Wing's work for them and eating our own. Turning around an ocean liner takes time.)

[live love laugh]

59. Exactly. Six months with barely a majority won't fix six/seven years of hell. n/t

[krkaufman]

89. Precisely. 6 years of full-on hell, following 6 years of utter Congressional leadership negligence

... amid 26 years of backwards-assed 19th-century robber baron thuggery.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. You do understand the word accountability right

[leftofthedial]

56. hope?

yeah, right.

it's not one bill. It is 25 years of playing the fool. At some point even you must realize they aren't playing.

[Polemicist]

58. We can't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good"...

The Democratic efforts to end the war, wasn't "perfect" to most of us. We failed to end the war. It's frustrating and lord knows we have suffered a lot of political frustration over the last 7 years. But there is still much good to be achieved and we can' let falling short of perfection in this effort to end our pursuit of other very good goals.

The debate over the last 4 months wasn't a waste of time. It takes repeated efforts, repeated pounding of the subject, to solidify public opinion behind ending a war. Ending a war short of total victory is likely the most difficult political goal to obtain in a modern democracy. Especially in America. Americans hate to admit error or defeat.

I support the Democratic Party and it's leadership in it's efforts to end this war. And I'm willing to put my shoulder back into the task, right now. That's the way to channel the anger productively.

And I have no problem with people bashing Democrats, if they wish. I think it is counterproductive and will hurt us in the effort to end the war in the long run. But I respect their right to speak their minds. I think most of us will calm down and realize over time that the Democratic leadership chose the right course for this particular moment in time. We want to end the war, and raise the minimum wage, and establish political reform, and increase labor rights, and institute fair trade, and universal health insurance, and fight global warming, and promote alternative clean energy. And many, many other very important and good goals.

[live love laugh]

61. "The Democratic efforts to end the war, wasn't "perfect" to most of us."

The question I have is WHY the Democrats are being held responsible for ending a war that they were not responsible for starting.

The vitriol needs to be redirected.

[Polemicist]

93. I think much of the anger is due to high hopes...

Being suddenly dashed. And embarrassment at the weakness and ineffectiveness of a political majority party, that can't use it's majority to end a war.

I personally took the leadership at their word that they wouldn't give Bush a blank check. Then they gave Bush a blank check. I was angry, frustrated, and embarrassed. As are many here. But after a few days of consideration, I see that we had to move past this first effort to end the war, and I realize that reality isn't what I thought it was.

Unfortunately, there isn't a majority of either house of Congress that wants to immediately end the war. Republicans, DLC Democrats, and Blue Dog Democrats together have the majority. That's a fact and there is nothing Pelosi and Reid can do about it at present. So we get what we can and move on.

This supplemental funding will expire in September. Our only chance to end this war during Bush's term, is to gain a lot more support in Congress for the idea. History shows us that as a war continues protractedly, the public loses faith in victory and tires of unnecessary and wasted effort. And Congress will always be behind the people on such an issue. So we the people have to push hard.

If you are mad at Democrats and want to push them, then do it. If you are mad at Republicans or Bush, then push them. Push everybody and don't stop. We didn't win this round, but it's time for the bell to start the next round. Don't give up.

[Robbien]

62. Many spouses who are battered by their mates also cling to their batterers

In my mind people who are spamming DU with threads saying be nice to the Democrats who just knifed us in the back are equal to those battered spouses. These DUers who have just been kicked to the curb but are setting up threads screaming "These are our Democrats and we should support them no matter what. We should give them all our money, all our support and all our votes."

Wake up, these DC Democrats are not your friends.

And I see you are also spreading that DLC/Blue Dog meme "bigger than one bill" nonsense.

Either you are delusional or a DLC/Blue Dog shill.

[live love laugh]

63. I agree with your analogy but the batterers are Republican not Democrats. n/t

[Robbien]

64. The people who just took your money and your support just peed on you

but I see you are continuing your shouting to the world that you love being peed on and will vote for them again because you don't believe they will continue to use you as their toilet.

Stock up on the toilet paper.

[live love laugh]

65. I find your post offensive not because of the points you are TRYING to make...

I find it offensive because you are using hyperbole and personal attacks and getting away from the issue at hand.

I have not been "shouting" anything to anybody.
I haven't been "peed" on.
I am not delusional.
I am not a Blue Dog/Shill (whatever that is).

See where I am going with this?


Name calling does not a point make. If you have a point, please try making it without the personal attacks.

[Robbien]

66. If you want to follow the DLC/Blue Dogs and their support for Iraq carnage

then you are free to do so. And you may do so without anyone else saying a word about it.

But you set up a thread which says don't look at how bad we are being treated. You say just make sure everyone here at DU keeps supporting our abusers. Since you invite others to comment on your opinion by setting up a thread, then you need to accept what others think of your belief.

And I am glad you find my statements offensive, because I believe your position is offensive. Keep following the Democratic party no matter what you say. That statement is very offensive.

[live love laugh]

67. I didn't set up a thread that says "don't look at how bad we are being treated."

You continue to exaggerate. I didn't say "just make sure everyone at DU keeps supporting our abusers."

You are commenting on opinions that you seem to have but which are not what I have said.

As for "Keep following the Democratic party no matter what you say" being offensive. I did not say that either.

Are you reading another post and then posting in my thread? :shrug:

[Robbien]

69. Your statement: I stand behind/with my Dem representatives. I am tired of the bashing here

Your Dems just voted to keep killing. You say you stand with them and their support for war carnage and you are tired of everyone else who says different. Your statements are sick.

Now you are oh so innocently claiming you do not see what you set up and keep trying to play the victim. Well you are a victim, and it is not here at DU but a continuous victim of your "I stand behind/with my Dem representatives".

Well, have fun with your Iraq carnage and your "I stand behind/with my Dem representatives".

[live love laugh]

71. I give up. You "win." n/t

[Robbien]

73. I wouldn't expect anything else

Someone else always wins when one is dealing with people who always support groups that abuse them.

[LWolf]

68. Good analogy. n/t

[bigtree]

76. The issue at hand (Iraq exit) IS bigger than one bill

the 'nonsense' is the implication by all of the caterwauling over one supplemental that just holding the money back would prevent or dissuade Bush from continuing his occupation.

The 'bigger' issue is the matter of the timetables - which the majority of Democrats voted FOR - and which failed to advance on the supplemental with a veto=proof majority. It's 'nonsense' to abandon support for our party when the overwhelming majority of Democratic legislators are still prepared and willing to vote for timetables for withdrawal; the majority of the opposition hasn't yet come off of their obstruction of legislation containing an exit date.

You are 'spreading' and promoting apathy. There is no other opposition to Bush in any position to challenge him. You're selling abandonment of our party members by smearing those legislators and others with whom you disagree with as being in favor of the occupation when the majority of them voted for and supported timetables for withdrawal when they were included in the Democratic supplemental spending bill which Bush vetoed. They haven't abandoned that commitment or disqualified themselves from advocating for and supporting a withdrawal from Iraq at the earliest possibility, despite your cynical and vain attempt to deprive them of that important and significant stance.

It's not the money which is holding our soldiers there, it's Bush and his republican enablers who have effectively denied passage of any legislation mandating Bush bring our troops home by a date certain. Democrats still stand united against the occupation. Voting for one supplemental spending bill which contained priorities assembled by our own party in support of those soldiers in Iraq, those deploying, and those in support positions around the region *does not equal support for war, carnage, or any other of the ridiculous charges you've made here.

And also, no one owns language. Not the DLC, Progressives, Liberals, Moderates, Bush, or you or me. You can either accept that people are responding in a sincere manner or you can continue to label and characterize their motivations based on your own biased view. But you don't have to come here and talk to responders to do that. You can sit in your own little room and continue the same contrived dialog alone with your immaculate self.


edit:*

[H2O Man]

70. I think that:

{1} If a person says the democratic party is terrible, and they are leaving, that they are making a serious mistake;

{2} that if they say the party is A-Okay, and they think the leaders in congress acted in a noble manner on the last vote, that they are making a mistake; and

{3} that if they say the vote on the war funding was a terrible thing, and shows that grass-roots activists must step up their efforts to move the party to the progressive left during this primary season, they will make progress.

[live love laugh]

74. Very well thought out. I don't think things are A-OK. I do think it is

unreasonable to expect people who have been seated for six months at best to rescue this country from the Bush cabal.

My problem is that since the Dems have been seated within a month or so, there has been nothing but criticism of them--even before they were seated there was rampant criticism.

One of the posts here uses a psychological analogy about abuse to say that only victims would support them. I think in that same vein, that the Dems themselves are victims of abuse. And my point is, I don't like to see that abuse happening here. Sometimes it is over the top. After all, what happens when you continually abuse? The abused become weak and ineffective. That we are helping that process along here is what disturbs me.

I am not saying that the vote was good or acceptable. However, there are complexities...things that you and I do not know about...that go into them making the decisions that they make.

I choose to believe that they work on my behalf because if they don't then why bother even caring anymore?

[H2O Man]

78. I don't read

everything on DU, and so I accept that there could have been a significant amount of negative comments made since January that I have not read. However, I know that without question, there has also been a significant amount of positive comments posted in that same period. For example, a lot of the people who I respect the most on DU were pleased with the first spending plan congress sent Bush. It wasn't perfect, by any means. But it was a significant step in the right direction.

After Bush vetoed the bill, many of these same DUers (myself included) have said that it is a significant step in the wrong direction. We have stressed the need to invest our energy in building the anti-war movement. This includes by increasing our attempts at voter education and registration. These are efforts to build the party.

We also recognize the need to be very frank with those elected officials who we think betrayed the anti-war cause. And I use the word "betrayed" purposefully, because I believe it is accurate. We are not going to approach them with our palms up, begging them to support us. And we aren't going to approach them with our palms down, preparing to hand a donation of our money to them when they come begging for contributions. We will approach them prepared to shake hands, when they show a willingness to live up to their end of the bargain we made last November, when we voted for them.

[bigtree]

79. you have *Democratic legislators who assembled most of the priorities in the bill

they intended for that money to be spent on those already deployed in Iraq, on those deploying, and in those in support positions around the region. They most certainly acted in a noble manner in their follow through on their concerns, if in fact, one accepts that their concern was sincere.

Of course, you are more than free and apt to disagree with their judgment of the need for the funds, but I think there's too much denigration of legislators who I believe acted out of concern and with good conscience in opposition to the manner in which the previous republican Congress had neglected those concerns they advocated in the legislation. This was their first chance in the majority to provide the funds they thought were necessary and they acted.

I would note that they acted retaining their opposition to the occupation and still intent on taking any significant action to effect that. By inference of their vote for the Democratic spending bill, they apparently didn't believe that the one supplemental was as enabling of Bush continuing as the critics are apparently convinced; or that holding back the supplemental was doing anything at all to move Bush off of his occupation.

[H2O Man]

80. "They most certainly

acted in a noble manner...." As long as one thinks that giving Bush all the money he needs to increase the US occupation in Iraq is "noble," I suppose. This is just one example of the very different values that members of the democratic party have. What you say is noble, I say is a cowardly act.

[bigtree]

81. There have been several reports, including a GAO study last month

which demonstrate ways in which Bush would be able to find the money and means to sustain his occupation. The issue is the concern for his level of attention to the condition of the troops. Can you qualify for me the view that withholding the funds would have caused him to end the deployments? If so, I would agree that a delay would have been prudent. I don't think the delay in funds would have stopped him at all, at least in the period the bill covers anyway, so the argument that he needed, and now has 'money to increase the occupation' makes no sense to me at all. He's been doing that for the majority of the year (for four years)with impunity; oblivious to the cost.

Bush doesn't give a wit about the welfare of the troops and intends to limp them along as long as he's able; at least through the summer into fall. I don't know why it's such a noble thing to expect Bush to notice or care enough about the welfare of the soldiers that he'd stop deploying them because of one supplemental spending bill.

I really don't know why the troops in Iraq should have to serve half-prepared, or not at all just because we disagree with and are unable to change the political obstacles (Bush and the republicans) that are keeping them there.

Bush isn't sitting somewhere calculating how much it will cost to stay in Iraq; worrying that if he ran low on military construction supplies, or body armor, or new Humvees that he'd be forced to bring the troops home. He's continued on through all of those shortages since they were first identified in 2003. He only cared about the bill as some political symbol of opposition to the timetables, not to some worry that a shortage of money would cause him to abandon his surge.

The only thing which is holding the troops in Iraq is the refusal of republicans to come off of their obstruction of legislation mandating a date certain for withdrawal. You can see his nervousness about September. He's evidently been told that's the end of the support of his veto-sustaining congressional cabal. At any rate, it's not the appropriated money which is holding our troops there, he is. And he doesn't know or give a damn what it costs

[H2O Man]

84. I think we

agree on many things. A big part of what we agree on is that the administration is guilty of many things regarding this war. I also know that you are every bit as concerned about the well-being of the US troops as I am. I do not doubt or discount that for a second. I think that we have significant differences in the way that we think that the democrats in congress should be doing their jobs right now.

[bigtree]

88. well, they've done this

and the question on an exit date remains with the majority of Democrats ready and willing to vote for *timetables again. One veto-busting vote and the troops begin to come home, money and all. It's more than just a political mistake foisting responsibility for all of that on Democrats who allowed the spending bill to go forward, it's almost a surrender of our expectation of responsibility from Bush and those republicans who refuse to say they've had enough of the killing and dying in their refusal to set an end date.

[Liberal Veteran]

72. I agree and have avoided the wailing and gnashing of teeth threads.

As much as we'd all like to see this idiotic war end today, it ain't gonna happen that way.

It sure as hell ain't gonna happen if people think that going independent or green is going to make it happen. All that will do is make it easier for the republicans to win back the congress we hold so narrowly now and this war will NEVER end with the republicans in power.

[pberq]

83. So you don't mind sending another 400 American soldiers to their deaths?

[live love laugh]

85. That bill, even if the majority had signed it, wouldn't stop the deaths immediately.

Also, as previously mentioned in the thread by another post, funding alone (or lack thereof) won't stop the war.

[BlooInBloo]

86. Hope you're ready to be called a Nazi for it.

[Lost4words]

87. Hold on to that as long as you can.

I really do not believe we have a united democratic party any longer, the special interest DLC has seen to that quite effectivly IMHO. And I wont explain my opinion any farther that that.

:banghead: 8643

[Dr. Death]

91. Good thing you're standing behind them - if you were in front,

they'd stab you in the back.

[Skittles]

92. I don't goose-step to my party

that's why I am not a repuke

[flying_monkeys]

94. In my 25 years of voting Dem, they usually disappoint me.

I am more liberal than the ones we usually elect, so I am used to being unhappy.


I just wish we'd get some people in with backbones who are willing to risk not being re-elected to Do The Right Thing for once....


Why can't we ever get our own Dem real life version of Mr. Smith Went To Washington?