Enabling/Defending those who spread hatred and contempt is participation

[shance]

quite frankly.

Ignoring, denying, or rationalizing wrongdoing allows an offender to continue his offense and even gives him an impression that it is acceptable behavior.

Think about Arnold Schwartzenegger, and all the people surrounding him, so-called friends and co-workers on the sets laughing and watching as he assaulted women in front of their faces.

That is participation is it not?

When we defend and protect, or even try and rationalize someones abhorrent behavior and/or actions, (like Rush Limbaugh) because we feel sorry for him, are intimidated in some way, they have a lot of money, and/or power,

is that not enabling an incredibly dysfunctional behavior to continue, ultimately another form of participation?

When we allow injustices, unfair and unjustified attacks to continue and refuse to get involved or stop the offense, we are ultimately no better than the bully or the offender.

Take a realistic look at many of our Democratic 'leaders'.

Through their amazing denial, pathological resignation, cowardice or fear, shrouded in "bipartisan support" (Joe Biden, MVP**) and overall rationalization of Republicans actions, they have essentially given us our current situations on a sterling platter.

In many ways, are they not as guilty as the Administration by allowing it?

I am not talking about the Barbara Lees, Jan Schakowskis (sp?), Barbara Boxer, Byron Dorgan, blessed Robert Byrd, Teddy Kennedy, Russ Feingold, and independent Jim Jeffords and any others who have chosen to do what is right and have not chosen to play it safe, who (like Feingold and Barbara Lee) chose to stand alone and face whatever came, BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Ultimately these leaders have made decisions based upon their integrity as an American, not based upon their special interest buddies and the next election.

Have Nancy Pelosi, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Joe Biden (again), Joey Lieberman, (even) Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Howard Berman and others truly represented their constituents?

I dont think so, but one can sure count on those mailers coming our way asking for more money when they havent even done their job. But they will be sure to tell us that they have.

How else can one paint what have been some terrible job performances?

Essentially they are making weak decisions, and by those decisions, the overall negative effective has been hugely significant, especially as they could have been much more effective standing together.

Ultimately, such mediocrity will be revealed through their overall absence and relative insignificance in the history books. However, they will definitely be a part of the contribution, but I would imagine its not the category of contribution they would like to be included within.

They are not defending this country against the right winged zealots, and as a result of they have left our nation even more vulnerable. Instead are rationalizing their incredible IRRATIONAL responses and in the meantime, strengthening their bonds with corporate interests.

Whats worse is they literally do not seem to care what our reactions are to such betrayals upon our governmental checks and balances, not to mention an overall twisting and torturing of the truth, which they continue to allow. It sickens me to feel this way. I want to believe in this party.

I have to say, if it werent for Howard Dean, I dont think I would still consider myself a Democrat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Two things

You are correct in general that we are enabling

Now to the Democrats.... I know they have been fighting.
It is just that much of it is NOT makign it to the news media.

I watch C-SPAN all the time now, and I can tell you there are
days I am truly proud of these people, but alas
speeches on the well do not make it to the press these days.

Try to read Byrd's speeches, Kennedy's speeches, and Pelosi's
statemetns. Do not expect them to make it to the news media, since
the news media is making sure YOU DO NOT hear about it.

That is the general comment.

Now to some particular Democrats, yes Dashcle needs a
backbone, but to be quite open I suspect there is a war
going on behind closed doors and you and I are not really
privy to much of this. We get snippets of it every so often. So
go and look for those statments in their websites.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Assaulting women and making stupid statements are 2 different things

You have a right to say whatever you want to say about any ethnic, religious, whatever group. No matter how stupid and ignorant it may be, I will defend your right to say it.

You do not have a right to touch any person who does not want you to touch them. The old "your right ends at my nose" rule.

It is not consistent to call Arnold to account for his unsavory past and then two inches of text down refer to former Klansman Byrd as "blessed."

Both have the right, in my opinion, the responsibility to reform their behavior, whether either or both is sincere in their repentance is between them, their conscience and whatever deity if any they consider themselves accountable to.

Whether either or both is fit for public service is between them and their voters, ideally; in actual practice it is an irrelevant question. Whether either or both are "elected" is up to their contributos.

[shance]

7. Your picking and choosing arguments. Be consistent.

To equate Schwartzenegger with Robert Byrd, is I have to say in my opinion is pretty laughable.

While they have both have made choices in life they would now have rather not made, one has shown his redemption through his actions as a statesman for the people, including African Americans. The other held a press conference because he is running for governor. In addition Robert Byrd has been the only Senator to this Administration really to have the cajones to stand up and express the truth when everyone else marching in lockstep. So that comparison is truly apples and oranges.

I didnt realize that the truth was irrelevant.

Its all about the contributors? Did I understand you correctly? And being fit for office is an "irrelevant issue"? Wow.

Is that really what you meant to say? In other words my dog Bear could run the governorship?

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Are you confusing fact with subjective judgment, ideal with reality?

Freedom of speech is a right under the Constitution, regardless of whether you or I believe it should or should not be.

The same constitution does NOT give you (or Arnold) the right to initiate physical contact with women without their consent. Again, regardless of whether you or I agree, it is difficult to argue that groping women is a constitutionally protected right.

The question of whether either Arnold, Rush, or Robert Byrd has A) sinned or B) redeemed themselves is one of opinion.

For the sake of argument, I am assuming that Byrd's Klan activities were limited to speech, writings and symbolic actions that while subjectively offensive, were and are nevertheless constitutionally protected. That may or may not be the case.

Sin and redemption, and relative "badness" of Act X or Act Y are matters of moral, ethical and theological opinion.

You may consider Arnold's sin greater or lesser than Byrd's, and you may set your own bar for redemption.

I said that it is inconsistent to bless Byrd and condemn Arnold, but you do not have to be consistent!

Your best argument would be to defend your position not by what Byrd has done to redeem himself, but by the fact that his sin consisted of exercising a constitutionally protected right, while Arnold's consisted of actions that could be classified as assault!

In an ideal world, fitness for office would be paramount, not just relevant, and the source and size of campaign contributions would not affect the outcome of elections.

In actual practice, however, fitness for office is indeed irrelevant, and money is the key factor.

Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion. That it is the reality of US politics is just the way it is!

[shance]

3. I agree and yet I have been a dedicated Dem and involved for a while

And I have to say when push comes to shove, there is NO excuse whatsoever for allowing and enabling what has been going on in Washington. They have put our lives essentially more in jeopardy because of many if not most Democrats' refusal to fight the tough fights.

Im an activist and I have felt highly threatened by John Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, the power grabs as everyone should. But we teeter on the brink here, and one more terrorist act would and could give John Ashcroft the green light (under of course that great guise of "terrorism") to huff and puff and blow our house down and make us disappear. We are not that far away from that my friend. And we can in large part hold our Democratic leaders accountable by choosing to make decisions based on conformity and fear, instead of standing up for what was right. Instinctually and probably literally, they knew so much of all this stunt was just that, a stunt. But they are not the ones that will ultimately feel the brunt of it like we will, and so one bad choice has led to another bad choice, and so on and so on and so on....and Americans consequently have been sold down the river pretty much without a paddle, save Howard Dean.

[shockingelk]

6. If there's another terrorist act ...

And the dems can't make people realize it's the WH fault ($160 billion plus in Iraq and $41 Billion for Homeland Security which protects us from everything - is that getting priorities straight?), I would agree ... I mean like, I was astounded when I read this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-5.html

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-554), and the Consolidated Appropria-tions Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), I hereby request and make available $38,100,000 for the Department of Homeland Security's Counterterrorism Fund. Of these funds, I hereby designate $28,748,918 as an emergency requirement pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

These funds would allow the Department of Homeland Security to continue to improve the security at our Nation's ports by deploying radiation monitoring devices nationwide and strengthening the system that is used to identify potential threats posed by international cargo shipments and international passengers.

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH*

We haven't planned for securing our ports well enough in the 2003 budget?

[Brucey]

11. I agree.

There's shades of gray, too. Don't count everyone except Dean as an enemy.

[LunaC]

4. Courage is not the absence of fear....

....it's doing what's right in the presence of fear.

That's the first thought I had as I read your comments. I thought it was appropriate here.

[shance]

8. I love that saying.

Thanks.

[shockingelk]

5. 2002 was an anomoly

"I have to say, if it werent for Howard Dean, I dont think I would still consider myself a Democrat."

For federal elected positions, there are effectively two choices.

Vote Green, Libertarian, Grass Roots, whatever on the local level, but it seems to me that the reality is that everybody that's not booted in two posts here should define themselves as a "Democrat" for practical reasons.

I'll be the first to chide those that voted for *'s war because they were up for reelection in 2002 ... but what was the alternative? Loose and have a 25/75 minority in the Senate? The landscape has changed now ...

I have no explanation for Liberman. He doesn't count.

[shance]

9. Im with you. Im a Dem, but a conflicted Dem these days.

Push comes to shove, I'll vote Dem or I wont vote at all.

I just want to see more Dems like Kucinich and Dean, (and Barbara Lee**), and heck even Carole Moseley Braun. I have really enjoyed hearing her speak and I met her six months or so ago and she is terrific. Would like to see more of her somewhere in the party. Good energy I think.