Wanna know why dems always "cave?"

[Atman]

Watch HBO's "ROME" last night. I can't keep the names of all the characters straight, but the exchange between the Senator and the soldier placed in charge in Ceasar's absence (did I get that right?) will tell you exactly how this team in Washington has got it's legislation through.

I'm sorry that this will leave some of you wanting for more explanation, but I'll have to leave that to those who've followed more closely than I, because I'm afraid I'll screw it up if I try to re-tell it in too much detail. Anyone? Who saw the new episode last night?

[seabeyond]

1. boxer didnt cave jan 6. conyers, water, waxman, many others

havent caved. kerry hasnt caved a number of time. biden and clinton have even not caved at times. lots of not caving going on.

but if you want to say, dems always cave, so be it

[Atman]

5. Excuse me Captain Literal!

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

6. except this is what the media says, and what the republicans say

and it is what many are saying and thinking about the democratic party. seeing how i think the dems will do a good job, and wanting them to take over the govt i feel that maybe we may not want to promote that all dems say nothing, or whatever you stated

i am not the only person that takes things literally.

kinda like dems are spineless
dems are doves
dems spend all the money
dems have no plans.

would you vote for that party

[Atman]

11. Because the net result is the same

Having half a dozen "rogue senators" doesn't do shit for the party except get a handful of supporters riled up. It gives false hope. Conyers didn't cave on the Downing Street Memos, and was forced to hold hearings in a closet in the basement. The republicans never "cave" because they understand the importance of unity in battle. And this is a battle.

No general ever told his CIC "Sir, we're losing on every front, but one band of brothers is out on the front lines taking it from all sides while the rest of the army retreats. So I'd say we're doing a great job!"

Yay for the band of brothers. But without the backup of their own army, they're on a suicide mission. It looks brave and uplifting to the demoralized citizens, but it's still a suicide mission.

I'm not being defeatist. I'm talking cold hard facts, and far too few in the democratic party seem to understand it. This is war, a fight for the very soul of the nation.

Anyway, how about a comment on the subject of the thread? Did you see "Rome" last night? I am increasingly convinced this is being aired as an alegory or metaphor for the Bush administration. Last night, a Senator was presented a jobs bill by Marc Antony, in Ceasar's stead, and told exactly how and why he'd pass it, and was presented with the various ways in which he'd be effectively destroyed if Ceasar's legislation did not pass. Polite, but force "politics." I brought it up, because it does a great job of putting some perpspective on why the more lilly-livered among our legislators are unable to muster a NO vote against BushCo. I was interested in hearing some feedback on that, not one's defense of the democrats based on a literal interpretation of my subject line.

[seabeyond]

13. i disagree., i think with repug power in all places, including media

the dems have done a damn good job. i think they have been part of why bush looks/is such a mess now. i give them credit for what they HAVE done. i dont think you give them credit. i dont see that as productive.

[lateo]

15. True but...

Enough of them do that the Republicans get almost everything they want. Bill Clinton should have been so lucky when he was in office...and he was ACTUALLY ELECTED!

[seabeyond]

16. the whitehouse, senate, house and judiciary and media

is repug. of course they get what they want. they are in power. the are responsible fully for all the ills of our society. this is what happens when you have one party power

[lateo]

17. When the Dems controlled the Senate...

in Bush's first term...they still gave this unelected shit most of what he wanted.

[seabeyond]

18. are you talking about immediately after 9/11

for real. like right after 9/11. we understand the oddity of that moment dont we. cause prior to 9/11 bush was a failure. low low numbers. 4 years ago, sucha long time ago, with all that has happened. cant forget what was happening at the time. and where we are today

[lateo]

33. True but...

Before 9/11 Bush got a trillion dollar tax cut passed...which largely favore the super wealthy and he pushed through a lot of judges.

[eallen]

2. We have to build a Democratic majority.

I'm a little tired of hearing how the Democrats in Congress are failing. They have to work with a fact, that only we the people can correct: they are in the minority.

The basic problem isn't that they are caving. The basic problem is that there aren't enough of them. Work to fix that.

[Tamyrlin79]

3. maybe if they wouldn't cave on electronic voting machines

we might be able to.

[Melodybe]

34. Yay Tamyrlin! My political soul mate kicking it!

If democrats really cared they would call Diebold out, until then they are wasting our time.

[Mr_Spock]

4. Stop using logic in arguments!!

It's not permitted here. :rofl:

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. As long as we vote on evoting machines with NO PAPER TRAIL,

there will NEVER be a Democratic Majority in this country. The repukes own the evoting machine companies, they have the House, Senate, Executive branch and the Judiciary. The ONLY way we will have evoting with paper ballots is if someone is INDICTED for election fraud and found GUILTY. Otherwise, the rules will never be changed...they ARE in charge you know.

GET RID OF EVOTING MACHINES!!!! USE PAPER!

[gratuitous]

8. Except that by standing on principle once in a while

They could effect some of that change, even though they're in the minority. How many nominees were aborted, how much legislation was killed, how many Democratic programs stalled because the likes of Orrin Hatch and Jesse Helms wouldn't budge on one thing or another? And they acted for purely partisan reasons, impervious to any criticism.

Now, compare and contrast that with a Senate Democratic caucus that couldn't be bothered to insist that John Roberts' full record be furnished to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This isn't partisan game-playing, this is simple cooperation between the branches of government, and acknowledgement of their co-equal powers under the Constitution. Yet not one Democrat would put a hold on Roberts (not a filibuster, mind you) and hold up a vote on his nomination until the White House provided his complete record. Instead, they once again ceded to the Executive their duty to advise and consent to a nominee.

Miers' record could probably do with a little scrutiny, but if the White House withholds all records of her work for the White House on some claim of executive privilege or attorney-client confidentiality (and they used the attorney-client claim with Roberts), then the Democrats can't credibly stop her nomination because they didn't hold up Roberts.

By failing to stand up for a principle on Roberts, the Senate Democrats will have to swallow whatever Miers is, and smile about it. She won't answer questions, they won't know a thing about her, and without anything to object to, will have to vote to confirm her. The Senate has reduced itself to an irrelevancy. Hell, Bush could re-nominated John Bolton in this atmosphere, and the Senate would have to confirm him.

Considering this corrupt administration's record on "trust us," the Senate and especially the Democrats have every right and reason to say, "No way." Instead, they meekly submit to whatever abusive treatment the White House metes out to them, and while they're pretty insulated against the depredations of the GOP, the rest of us aren't so lucky.

[Mandate My Ass]

9. BRA - VO

:woohoo:

[gratuitous]

14. Thanks

I was beginning to wonder if this line of argument made any sense, because I hadn't heard back from folks when I advanced it. It seemed real evident to me, but then a lot of things seem real evident to me that nobody else appears to understand or endorse. I appreciate the feedback, and doubly appreciate that it's positive.

[Mandate My Ass]

24. It's very well thought out and articulated

Will Pitt wrote something here yesterday (I remember Democrats, IIRC) in the same vein, which I also enjoyed, and yours is every bit as convincing.

For eight years the republicans shreiked like stuck pigs over anything and everything. I don't agree that we want to raise it to that level and we definitely don't want to adopt that tenor, but our dem leaders have truth on their side and they don't use it. If they know something that the people don't, they have the obligation to say it despite the swift-boating from the right and the alleged (but highly doubtful in my mind) overwhelming public distaste for anything that sounds remotely partisan.

It's like they're trying to make the case that they should be followers of public opinion, no matter how ill-informed and self-destructive that opinion is.

[Tactical Progressive]

20. I'm sure that if they could have just put a 'hold'

on a nomination to get what they wanted, they would have. Ergo they couldn't.

There was some kind of rule the Republicans effected during Clinton's terms where if even one Senator used a 'pink slip' I think it was called, then the nominee wouldn't be forwarded to the full Senate for confirmation. They did away with that when they gained control of the Senate back in 2002 I believe. Republicans don't play anything close to fair and one of their biggest tricks is changing the rules to suit themselves.

[gratuitous]

21. Of course Republicans change the rules to suit themselves

But even now, with all the rules changes, one Senator can still hold up the business of the entire body. Helms did it countless times when it came to the UN. Everybody would holler, old Jesse would just smile and drawl something racist, and often as not, he'd get his way.

I'm not saying that Roberts would have been stopped, or even seriously delayed, but by standing on the principle of full information the Senate Democrats could credibly use that as a way to hold up the Miers nomination, or any subsequent nomination. By not insisting on it for the nominee to the Chief Justice of the Surpeme Court, Senate Democrats have in effect waived any right to demand a full review of any nominee's record, at least in the public mind.

[Tactical Progressive]

25. I don't know that they've waived it by not using it

I some sense that may be true, but in another it's just the opposite: not using it on one case may give the credibility to use it on another as opposed to using it all the time and Repubs get the media to call you 'obstructionist' every chance they get. Of course the media never called Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee 'obstructionist' no matter how many Clinton nominees they held up for no matter how long. The media plays their two faces right in synch with the Republicans.

[gratuitous]

27. Except that if you don't use it for the Chief Justice

How do you justify using it for a mere Associate Justice? No, the Senate Democrats didn't formally "waive" any right to examine any nominee's record by declining to stand on principle during the Roberts nomination, but you can bet that in the popular media any insistence on looking into Miers' complete record will be painted as simple obstructionism, maybe even as evidence of latent Democratic misogynism.

It just seems to me that insisting on seeing a nominee's full record is such a little thing to ask. Make the White House come across or hold up the nomination. After all, they nominated the person; they should be willing to support that nomination, not just count on the Senate to rubber stamp it, which is basically what they're getting right now.

The legislative branch of government is supposed to be co-equal to the executive. It's a case right out of Civics 101 for the Senate Democrats to make.

[Tactical Progressive]

29. They asked, they insisted, they demanded

They even filed some legal motions to get more info. It's not like they didn't try.

They can ask for more info on Meiers if she's not forthcoming because she is not as well known around Washington as John Roberts was.

[gratuitous]

30. I must have missed that

Because I remember the Senate Democrats asking the White House very politely if the administration could, you know, turn over everything on Mr. Roberts. When the White House returned the request with little drawings of everyone on the staff pointing and laughing at the request, the Senate Democrats went away. I don't remember them insisting or demanding anything, and I'm totally unaware of any legal filings they made or any court rulings that were issued. I'd really like to see anything you have in that vein, because I'm left with the impression that getting a look at Roberts' entire record just wasn't a big issue for the Senate.

[eallen]

22. The pink slip is for nominees from the Senator's home state.

Somehow, I doubt John Cornyn (R) or Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) will pink slip Harriet Miers. No one else can.

[Tactical Progressive]

23. Yes, home state

And there's one Republican Senator from alot of states. That's how Republicans were able to block so many Clinton nominees.

I don't know how they got that rule in the first place, but the point is that Republicans rescinded the rule when they gained the Senate. So Dems don't have anywhere near the kind of power to block appointments that two-faced Orrin Hatch and his fellow thugs did.

[eallen]

31. Ah. I didn't realize the rule had been rescinded.

[MsTryska]

10. the guy in charge is Marc Antony....

as in Antony and Cleopatra.


But you make an astute observation....you get to be Counsel, as long as your co-counsel with Ceasar, and oh yeah - don't hire anymore furners.

have a good day - it was nice seeing you and your lovely wife too.

[Atman]

12. Marc Antony...of course

I knew that! LOL! I was drawing a blank and didn't want to have the whole thread de-railed by naming the wrong person. Thanks!

I really thought that segment was a brilliant illustration of several things: first, why so many people say Bush is so nice and congenial...because he pretends to be, just like Marc Antony. He was oh-so polite and cordial, and even joked about the fact that he didn't really know the Senators name, but was being polite and cordial because it was politics. The way the threats and warning of retribution were laid down were so Bush-like, you can just see it happening in the oval office. "Oh, you don't have to do it my way." And then he addresses the Senator's wife and says he'll always look after her should anything happen to her husband. Nothing was overt, but the implications were unmistakable.

Think of Delay's strongarm tactics to get the Medicare bill passed..."do you want us to endorse your son's campaign?" Same type of thing.

[WCGreen]

38. It was slaves, not forgieners.....

And they did it to try and keep the republic going.....

Since the beginning of Marius seven year rule of Rome when Caesar was a child, the expansion of Roman citizenship had been expanding to include all of Italy....

The patricians had gone into te country, established large estates and basically turned the whole of Italy into a feudal system...

The move by Caesar, via Anthony, was to cut the power to the Patritians....

Caesar wasn's bad a guy as everyone thinks he was...

when you put him in the context of the times, he would have been a populist while the patricians in the Senate would have been the big business....

He expanded the say of the people....

Marc Anthony was a general, a brute and a creation of the Patritians....

Attia and Servila were two key members of the ruling class who had blood ties going back almost as far Ceasar.....

In fact, Caeser and Attia shared the same blood, the Julia....

[MsTryska]

40. same difference....

after all who were the slaves, if not foreign born conquests?


i do agree that Julius was a populist, tho.

[WCGreen]

42. Yea, but they didn;t have to do more than provide room and

board...

Witht he freemen, they could leave, negotiate contracts and also serve as a pleabian.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Because they're politicians whose first priority is themselves.

So, they chase the money and the votes that will advance their careers.

[Nia Zuri]

26. Get along to go... along.

Many have presidential ambitions or at least want to assure their continued power. They don't want to make too many waves, or have something they have said, done or voted on come back to haunt them at a later date. They are paralyzed by their own desires for their futures..

[Gruenemann]

28. I also learned from that episode that

A large penis is always welcome.

[incapsulated]

32. Well..... no.

Marcus was able to ram through his legislation because a) this Senator was a former supporter of Pompey and was already on dangerous ground b) he could have him killed and c) there was no one left in the Senate that was a supporter of Pompey, they were all in Caesar's camp, now, the few that were left. He was also rewarded by being made counsul, I don't know of any "rewards" the rethugs are handing out to the Dems for compliance.

Although there are a lot of similarities between the US and ancient Rome, the weakness of the Imperial Age Senate doesn't really show itself until later, except for the corruption.

No one has yet given the excuse that the Dems are spineless because the Bush family will have them murdered, and if that's what's being offered here, I'm not buying it.

[Atman]

37. No, I'm not suggesting the exact situations

I'm referring more to the heavy-handed tactics. We've long been used to "Support my bill or I won't support yours" type of thuggery. That's just politics. But the roots of BushCo are in PNAC and Poppy's CIA days. There is a lot of backstory that we'll never hear. As far as the BFEE bumping off adversaries, I wouldn't doubt it for a minute, although I wasn't claiming that just for mere legislation, when extortion, blackmail, and old-fashioned hardball politics will often work just fine. The family has a very long history is Extreme Politics. Don't ever misunderestimate their propensity for the dirtiest of dirty tricks and retribution.

[incapsulated]

39. But I don't blame Bush for the Dem's weakness

That is entirely their own choice, as far as I'm concerned, which is why they infuriate me. No one is threatening their family. Blackmail, extortion? Show me the evidence, I don't see it. The hardball the rethugs play is to keep their own in line and to "frighten" the Dems by, oh, using the media and other tactics the way the Dems would if they had a collective brain. The Dems cave on their own because they are stupid and spineless and corrupt, themselves. They think appeasement will get them re-elected. They have their own corporate interests and financiers.

[AlphaCat]

35. I wanted to see that...

How do you like it? Is it well-done? Do the costumes look realistic or, instead, like too much 'Ten Commandments'?

[incapsulated]

36. It's great, watch it

Although they fudge a little history here and there for drama, they keep to the overall truth of the story. All the costumes and background are extremely accurate, although physical layout of Rome is more later Empire (the one that would have been current with the time was less interesting, and most people wouldn't know the difference). It's a British production. I'm loving it as someone who is very into Roman history.

[AlphaCat]

41. Thanks!

I'm always looking for good historical dramas!

[WCGreen]

43. It's my favorite show