If somebody doesn't step up, the Democrats will have squandered everything.

[BuyingThyme]

Pelosi and Reid are done as leaders. The damage they've done to our party and or to our politics is beyond anything anybody could have anticipated.

We, the voters gave the Democrats an opportunity to neuter a lame-duck president, but they instead managed to create a lame-duck Congress. It's truly an amazing feat. Think about how far they've fallen in such a short timespan. They traded war for wage.

But here's the good news: There's a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE leadership vacuum and, at the same time, there's a bunch of qualified Democratic presidential candidates looking for an opportunity to lead (and at least one more may be on the way). The country is absolutely starving for one good person to stand up, take chances, and kick the shit around.

But to pull it off, this person is going to have to kick that shit in the faces of Pelosi and Reid. And the great thing about this reality is that the Republican presidential candidates do not have a similar opportunity. No matter where they kick their shit, it's going to blow back in their faces.

It's okay for a Democrat to challenge Pelosi and Reid, isn't it? That's what leadership is all about, right?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. We'll Be Fine. But Thank You For Your Concern.

I just merely don't agree with you on it whatsoever.

[BuyingThyme]

4. You don't agree with what?

[liberaldemocrat7]

128. Ok I step up to exercise some leadership. Go here http://endthewar.dmocrats.org

Go here

http://endthewar.dmocrats.org

then make some phone calls.





SHOP AT ZAZZLE.COM FOR MUGS, STAMPS, BUMPER STICKERS AND MORE.

Buy Abraham Lincoln Daguerrotype postage stamps at zazzle.com

Buy Civil War photo items at zazzle.com

Buy Vintage Baseball items at zazzle.com

[lonestarnot]

7. Maybe this will convince you.

$8,833,143,251,907.69

[Captain Hilts]

8. No, I don't agree either. Dems don't have a veto-proof majority.

That ties their hands.

[BuyingThyme]

10. Ties their hands to what? War?

[MadHound]

18. They don't need a veto proof majority to end the war

They have control of the committees and the agenda. Hold up every single supplemental war funding bill and force Bushboy to bring the troops home.

No veto proof majority needed.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[maggiegault]

99. I really have a problem with your name-calling and bad language. Where are the mods?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

exactly. The naysayers who want a veto proof majority BEFORE we act

ignore 150 yrs of history. Since when was an act of congress totally dependent on having a veto-proof majority? That is a bunch of crap.

If you control the pursestrings, you can control government, IF you have a spine.

then again, this collection of Dems has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory more often than not.

[karynnj]

119. That works to end the war NOW only

Most Democrats are not for that, but for deadlines in the future to get out.

[jerryme1]

132. Exactly. Just don't produce a bill. That simple.

My belief is that all Congressional members are more concerned with being reelected than doing the right thing.

[dflprincess]

24. They didn't need a veto proof majority when Bush vetoed the first funding bill

all they had to do was let the veto stand.

[sendero]

108. Exactly...

... I'm still waiting for ONE PERSON to tell me why they couldn't have told Bush "this is the only funding bill we will pass. Veto it, and you are cutting funds for the troops".

It is a total lack of political will and a complete and abject inability to control the message.

I'm sick of it. All we've gotten for having a Dem congress is testimony with no consequence and investigations that will go nowhere.

It's pretty disheartening.

[Joe Fields]

38. Fuck veto proof majorities! very few congresses have had them.

We need leaders with guts and morals. plain and simple. Any way you slice it, you cannot pretend that the repubs haven't continually made monkeys of us, since we took the house and evened up the senate. This, with a president sitting at a 28 percent approval rating and a vice president that everyone loathes, and with 70 percent of the public supporting the dem position. These dem leaders of ours would fuck up a wet dream. Someone needs to wake them the fuck up and tell them to quit acting as if they are still the minority party, the way they wring their hands. It has thoroughly disgusted me, and millions of others.

[BuyingThyme]

39. Those are not the talking points, Joe.

[Joe Fields]

43. pardon me. Nevermind....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

122. "..very few congresses have had them."

It hasn't happened in 40 years.


The 89th Congress (1965-1967) D68/R32




For those interested:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

[pnwmom]

131. And when have we ever had a party like the Republicans whose

members vote so consistently along party lines and against their own state's self interest?

We used to routinely have coalitions of Democrats and Republicans voting together, but that's practically disappeared.

[jgraz]

148. Riight...the big bad republicans are sooo scary we can't possibly fight against them

And people wonder how Democrats get a reputation for being weak. :puke:

[pnwmom]

130. In the past, there have rarely been parties with the ability that the

Republicans have had for the last 7 years to march in lock-step. That is the other factor in this equation. Even with all the negative feelings Republicans have for Bush now, they swing into line behind him on practically every vote.

[leftofthedial]

63. what a load of shit that tired excuse is

they allowed the lack of a veto-proof majority not only to paralyze their own agenda, but led them to pass bills that promote the frigging opposition's illegal agenda

all but a handful of the current congressional dems should be hauled before the same tribunals as king george and his court

[Captain Hilts]

66. It is what takes impeachment off the table. nt

[leftofthedial]

68. yeah, they should just let the repukes do whatever they want

since they don't have a veto-proof majority

then, in 2009, if they "win" the "presidency" and get a veto-proof majority too, they should do nothing because at least 5 of the SCOTUS justices are hard-core repukes

acting on principle is a sign of weakness. thank you for clarifying that.

[Captain Hilts]

72. Go ahead. Go vote for Nader. The RNC just loves folks like you. nt

[jgraz]

83. No, the RNC loves the Dem leadership

After all, who else would cave in to a bunch of criminals who are hated by 60-70% of the country?

[leftofthedial]

169. why would I vote for Nader?

The RNC totally fucking hates me. I know this for a fact.

[Morgana LaFey]

64. And what is it, exactly, that ties their mouths??

And what is it, exactly, that makes Reid and Pelosi let others make deals with Bush that are so bad neither Pelosi nor Reid would vote for the legislation?

[Tesha]

106. Fear.

> And what is it, exactly, that ties their mouths??
>
> And what is it, exactly, that makes Reid and Pelosi let
> others make deals with Bush that are so bad neither Pelosi
> nor Reid would vote for the legislation?

Fear.

The fear that if they take an unambiguous stand on *ANYTHING*,
someone will say something nasty about them.

Tesha

[Morgana LaFey]

186. I know, I know. I wanted MOOKIE to know, or at least think about it

Thanks for spelling it out for her/him.

[leftchick]

126. Corporate Cash! That is what

for gods sakes both parties are beholden to corporate interests.

[Morgana LaFey]

187. Yep, that too. nt

[aquart]

2. Thank you for your concern.

Let me know when you have the votes.

[BuyingThyme]

5. The votes for what?

[John Q. Citizen]

37. You have the 80% of the Senate Dem votes. It said war for oil. 80 fucking percent.

Now, perhaps the people are very glad and happy that 80% of the Senate Dems voted to continue to fund the illegal occupation and the oil theft. But I doubt it.

My bet is the Repos are very happy to have sold that lemon to the Dems.

[Beelzebud]

44. Yes because we can only try things that are safe and a 100% sure thing.

No, thank YOU for your concern!

[BuyingThyme]

54. Thank you for standing up against the concernation.

[lonestarnot]

3. Including our national Treasury.

$8,833,143,251,907.69

[AnOhioan]

6. K&R

Despite the party faithful here on DU, the country knows the Dem leadership has enormous credibility problems.

[Erika]

12. Not near the credibility problems the GOP have

LMAO.

[AnOhioan]

15. Hey, The Dems are not as bad as the Pubs!!!.....

Great campaign slogan that will be sure to win us the WH and increase the majorities in Congress!!!

:sarcasm:

Being "not as bad" will not win anything in '08.

[PassingFair]

28. Ted Rall Award goes to YOU tonight!

For your insightful catch!

[jgraz]

84. Vote Democrat! We suck somehwat less than the other guys!

I can see the campaign posters now...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

112. LOL! great one.

hey, you may be on to something!

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. Agreed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1050167

[pnwmom]

11. They've had a bare majority for 4 and a half MONTHS.

Don't you have any perspective? You can't "neuter" a President without a 2/3 majority in at least one house. We don't have one in either.

[lonestarnot]

13. $8,833,143,251,907.69

[dave29]

34. Bush sees this growing number as his allowance

unfortunately - he already spent his political capital.

[pnwmom]

40. That's a big number all right.

But it doesn't prove anything.

[Telly Savalas]

52. Congress spent an additional $100 billion on the war without bothering to spend a single second

considering where that $100 billion would come from.

You don't need a motherfucking veto-proof majority to raise this issue.

[BuyingThyme]

53. Or go to, for that matter.

[Telly Savalas]

55. I'm sure Halliburton will choose to spend our money wisely.

Like Congress, we should trust them unconditionally.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Lame ducks are easy to neuter.

How is it that you've been brainwashed into thinking that a Congress needs a 2/3 majority to govern effectively? You couldn't have come to that conclusion on your own, so why repeat what you hear without even thinking it through?

[The Stranger]

48. That is long enough NOT to give in to the latest round of war funding.

And the press sure as shit isn't going to wait for the Democrats to get their act together.

[BuyingThyme]

51. Yes, they sure surrendered quickly. Four months.

Who woulda imagined.

[BlooInBloo]

56. Some DUers think it's a click-your-heels-3-times sort of thing.

[BuyingThyme]

57. Nancy only had to click twice.

[pnwmom]

101. There are the magical thinkers and there are

those who are here trying to peel off Dems from the party.

[BlooInBloo]

113. True dat.

[BuyingThyme]

188. To go where?

[cui bono]

60. That was long enough for them to let the Repubs get a bill

passed to further fund the occupation. That bill should have never made it to the floor. They should have sent the same bill or none at all. But they should have NOT let the Repubs get that bill out there which even made the Dems say that voting against it was voting against the troops. Bad move. Dems blew it big time.

[ComerPerro]

80. The people on the "fuck the Dems" bandwagon are in one of two camps, or some combination

some of them don't really know the first thing about the politcal process, and assume that a simple majority without control of the White House is enough to pass anything.

And some of them just can't admit that they support a party that is in power (or somewhat, at least), because it goes against the way they define themselves as rebels. Therefore, they have to revolt against the Dems, because it helps keep them against "the man"

[jgraz]

87. OK, Mr Political Expert, explain to us all why the Dems needed a veto-proof majority

in order to NOT send a blank check to the white house. If you really do understand how government works, then you're knowingly repeating a treasonous lie.

Your other comments are equally ridiculous (which you cop to in your parenthetical comment). Many of us worked our asses off to get this party into power (or somewhat, at least) and now we want to see them exercise it. Could it be you who are choosing your positions based on how you wish to appear to others? Is it fun to play the sensible grown-up, even though it requires the insertion of that huge stick up your ass?

[pnwmom]

103. Do you understand that the Democratic party represents a much wider

group of people than we see here on DU? DU, by definition, is the progressive wing of the party. There are millions of moderate and even conservative Democrats. They all deserve a place at the table.

[jgraz]

115. What does that have to do with anything?

This isn't about ideology. It's about failing to do your job, then lying about it to the people who put you in office. Every time a Democrat says they had to fund the war because they didn't have a 2/3 majority, they are insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of most of the base (what they call the "radical fringe") of the party.

Big tent? Fine. But can we at least draw the line at ineffective cowards who use Rethug talking points to gloss over their failures?

[JoePhilly]

170. Agree ... and Dems on the whole are more diverse then GOP members ...

Our diversity is a strength and a weakness.

The GOP is so narrow, that it is easier for them to hold to a narrow line. The Dems really do have a BIGGER tent. We have conservative demos, liberal dems, moderate dems. The GOP has Conservatives, period.

The dems has had about 4 months to start to address the HUGE mess that GW and the GOP have created. 4 Months. They will not be able to bring our diverse party into alignment in 4 months. To expect that is to assume that all dems are liberal DU members. They are not.

If we (DU) want to effect change, we need to support Dems across the board. All of them. Once we have Dem's in solid positions, THEN we can start to push for "better" Dems where we need them.

We can't expect all dems in congress to become liberal DU dems in 4 months. We'd all love to see the war end now, but we need to think more strategically. If we fight among oursleves now, this war NEVER ends.

[pnwmom]

102. And the third possibility is that

they've never really been a Democrat, but are here trying to push Dems one way or another -- either further to the left, or out of politics altogether.

[jgraz]

116. Or the fourth possibility...

Is that we understand that criticism is healthy for a politicial party, and when it comes right down to it, we put country first, party second.

How about you?

[pnwmom]

129. I think there's a difference between healthy criticism and

SOME of the criticism that goes around here, which can get pretty vicious.

[jgraz]

86. You can't "neuter" anyone if you don't have any balls yourself

I'm sick of the Dem leadership whining about their poor little selves with control of both houses of Congress. The Rethugs had a razor-thin majority and they fucking ROLLED the Dems for 12 years.

It's called spine. It's called standing up for what you believe and making your case to the public. They could bring the fucking government to a halt if they wanted to, but they're too worried about saving their own asses.

[Tesha]

107. See, that's funny. I was under the impression that all appropriations bills...

> You can't "neuter" a President without a 2/3 majority in
> at least one house.

See, that's funny. I was under the impression that all
appropriations bills started in the House, and needed a
majority of the votes cast to pass.

So if the *ONLY STINKING THING THE DEMOCRATS DID*
was refuse to further fund the war, there wouldn't be any
more funds for the war and the Presidents favorite pair of
big brass balls would be cut off.

But maybe I misread the Constitution and a minority of
Republicans can still fund the war without our help, ehh?

Tesha

[PFunk]

16. Unfortunatly the general public (including alot of indies) think otherwise.

And despite their bare senate majority the Dems better do something to either stop bush or go down in defeat trying. Or they WILL LOSE BOTH HOUSES IN '08 even if they win the presidency. Count on it.

[grasswire]

22. who did YOU vote for in 2000?

Just askin'

[tom_paine]

17. I am afraid you are almost certainly correct

I have been trying (vainly) to be patient, and that it is still possible (although the probability seems to be decreasing by leaps and bounds) that the system is and will work by the end of Chimpoleon's Evil Reign.

But the more I look, the more I feeel as if that is "poillyanna" nonsense.

It comes down to this, the Democrats need to project STRENGTH, not the weakness they cannot seem to STOP projecting so much so I wonder if they even notice how they look.

"How can they defend ME and MY INTERESTS if they are too craven to stand up to a weakened Lame-Duck with 28% approval ratings?"

That is a legitimate question millions of people will be asking themselves come 2008, no matter who our nominee is.

I think that's why the Bushies killed or had the Clombians kill Wellstone and his family, because of the m all he WOULD have stood up and his spine and inegrity would have contrasted the rest of these jellyfish we seem to have for leaders as day contrasts night.

So he had to go. And his death, along with the anthrax the Bushies sent to the Dems and media in 2001, relayed a powerful message.

Mission accomplish, Royal Bushies.

[partylessinOhio]

19. The truth hurts. Madame Squeaker was to drain the swamp and set

things right in 100 days. Now she is the Swamp Mistress.

If we don't move her and Reid out very soon - stick a fork in the Dems - they are done.

[pnwmom]

49. Spoken as a non-Dem.

I take it with a large grain of salt.

[JeffR]

20. I'm not thrilled with Reid, though he has his moments

As for Pelosi, she acts sometimes as if her majority in the House is not decisive. That's where we have a convincing majority, in the People's House. She can afford to be a lot more aggressive. She too has her moments.

Their feet need to be held to the fire. It isn't good enough to put anyone into office and think it's OK to sit back and wait for them to roll the stone up the mountain. Either we exercise our civil rights and demand that government represent us, or we end up jaded. Quite possibly, we end up jaded even if we keep raising our voices and demanding to be heard. But our votes - and more importantly, maybe - our threat to withhold them, still carry some sway.

This isn't done, and if the leadership falters, others will step up. Hell, they always keep working, those who step up: Feingold, Conyers, Kucinich, Waxman, Rangel, Frank, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer. If they haven't quit, neither should we.

[bvar22]

67. Uhh, Rangel is the one who brokered the "secret" Free Trade deal

with Bush* and the republicans last week.
He said he didn't have time to consult with LABOR, he only had time to meet with the Corporate Lobbyists who wrote the DEAL.
Most of the Democratic Caucus STILL don't know the particulars of the "secret" Free Trade deal that Rangel "negotiated".

Pity.
I USED to believe in Rangel, but as soon as he got the chair of Ways&Means, he CASHED IN with a DEAL that will fuck Americans who have to WORK for a living.
Pity.



Bread & Circuses

[JeffR]

73. No argument.

Rangel has been disappointing often as not. So was Adam Clayton Powell, but I still miss him. These people aren't perfect. They need to do better, like any of us.

[bvar22]

77. I liked the rest of the list.

"Feingold, Conyers, Kucinich, Waxman, Rangel, Frank, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer"

I would also add Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee. There are a handful of others in the House that I still trust to represent Middle Class America, but not very many.
That tells the story, doesn't it?....That we are counting the Democrats that can be trusted instead of counting the crooks.
:hi:

[JeffR]

78. Yeah, that's where we're at

I remember too well feeling like this decades ago. To paraphrase George Harrison, it's a well-known drag. But the more boldness shown by our little list of Quixotic freedom fighters, the more pressure that puts on the leadership, on behalf of the base.

I'm not optimistic, but I am encouraged by the work of these good and great people. They represent what's best of us, as American progressives.

[grasswire]

21. nice try, pal

But I'm not buying it.

I've noticed in the last ten days or so a concerted effort on the part of those who worked very hard to split Dems in 2000 to work very hard to split Dems again. Greens, or someone else with nefarious intentions, are working to fracture the Democratic Party. Those who are screaming "failed Dems, failed Dems" suddenly go quiet when asked who they voted for in 2000.

Knock it off. Now.

True Democrats are getting pissed about this attack.

I, as many others, am fully, thoroughly proud to be a Democrat and honor both our proud history AND our current leadership in defense of the Constitution.

[BuyingThyme]

23. Knock, knock! Hello!? Nancy and Harry already split the Dems.

Pick up a newspaper. It's kinda a big deal.

[grasswire]

27. I believe it was Karl Rove who started that story

And it ain't gonna work. Stop perpetuating it.

[BuyingThyme]

29. I think it's American people who put Congress

in the same approval category as the Chimp.

But if you have a link to the Rove story you made up, please share.

[Erika]

32. Exactly n/t

[BuyingThyme]

33. Not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

149. Huh?

How about posting that story?

[MadHound]

46. Defense of the Constitution?

:rofl: Patriot Act :rofl: Patriot Act II :rofl:

The Dems are splitting their party and slitting their own throats simply with their actions. They can stop this war, they have the majority in both houses and thus control the agenda and committee. They have enough power to hold up the funding of the war indefinitely, yet all they do is pass non-binding resolutions, get a bill vetoed, and cave. What, you think that people, especially Dems, don't know how their government works? The Dems could have defunded the war and brought the troops home. The Dems could have filibustered Alito or Roberts, but they kept their powder dry. The Dems could have actually read the NIE before they enabled Bushboy's war. Hell, the Dems could have actually done their job and listened to their constituents wishes and not enabled Bushboy's war.

Instead the Dems have increasingly exhibited that there is increasingly less difference between them and the others simply due to their own actions. This isn't some grand Rovian plot, these are the actions of the Dems and the Dems alone. We don't excuse the 'Pugs for taking any of the above actions, why should we give somebody a pass simply because they have a D behind their name?

Oh, and before you make that lame fucking accusation, I've worked and voted for Dems all the way from McGovern to Kerry. And the quality of what the Dems have to offer, both in terms of candidates at all levels, and ideas has distinctly declined in that time period. And yes, much of the reason for this is very self evident in the donor lists of these candidates. It is hard to fool oneself into believing that the Dems have been increasingly corrupted by Corporate America when it is self evident, in black and white, that they are.

[grasswire]

82. why are you placing blame for all our ills on Dems?

It is Republicans who have gotten us here, and Republicans who stole the majority position from us in at least three recent elections, rendering us unable to make any headway.

[MadHound]

109. Oh, so now legit, truthful criticism of the Dems is now considered

to be blaming all of our ills on the Democrats? Sorry, stop with the over the top hyperbole. Yes, a Republican got us here, but he couldn't have gotten this far, this fast without the willing cooperation of the Dems. Let's see, if the Dems had held up the IWR, what would have happened? If the Dems had used the power of the filibuster on Alito and other nominations, what would have happened? If the Dems would now defund the war, what would happen?

No, I'm not blaming the Dems for starting this shit, I'm calling the Dems out on their "me too" attitude that they have consistently displayed for years now. This is supposed to be the opposition party, the party of the people. But sadly, it seems as though all of that corporate money has turned the Dems into an enabling party for Bush and his corporate cronies.

Oh, and you speak of theft, why is it that in '04 the first and most vigorous prosecutor of that theft wasn't Kerry and the Dems, but instead the Greens? Why was it that when Greg Palast handed Gore all of the evidence to the Florida votescam early in the recount period, Gore rather than banishing Bushco to the political wilderness forever simply sat on the information, allowing the theft?

No, I'm not placing the blame for all of our ills on the Dems, so please stop with that tired, weak, meaningless canard. What I am doing is criticizing the Dems for failing to fulfill their duties and obligations as a political party.

[jgraz]

117. Hear, hear

:thumbsup: :yourock:

[Carolina]

173. excellently put, Madhound!

grasswire loves to ask: "who'd you vote for in 2000" to deflect from the truths of your very cogent argument throughout this thread. Said the same thing to me in another thread and I have worked/voted for Dems since RFK in 1968. Some folks just can't understand that since 2000 many of us have been repeatedly disappointed by the Democrats lack of political courage once in office. And a huge part of that disapppintment is our growing recognition that the Dems are owned and thereby corrupted by their corporate masters.

[Morgana LaFey]

65. Oh, goodness. With that kind of thinking you could easily be

a REPUBLICAN supporter of George W. Bush. That takes the very same kind of mindless obedience and misguided loyalty.

[grasswire]

85. why do you assume that pride in the Democratic Party...

...is "blind obedience and misguided loyalty"?

I support the Democratic Party because of its proud history and because of its meritorious stand for workers, for equality under the law, for women's rights, for civil liberties, for one man, one vote, for affordable housing and universal health care and dignity for elders, for workers, for clear skies and clean water and safe food, for protection of the earth, for humble foreign relations that are focused on peacemaking, for truth in government, and for so many, many other things demonstrated over the decades.

How is the support of those principles "blind obedience and misguided loyalty?"

Your assertion is at once insulting and laughingly foolish.

[jgraz]

88. Maybe you should support the Rethugs for freeing the slaves

History is all well and good, but I'm definitely in the "what the fuck have you done for me lately" camp. We're talking about the CURRENT Dems CURRENTLY in Congress, not FDR or JFK or even Jimmy Carter.

THESE Democrats, the ones who WE elected, are failing us. Pretending otherwise does no one any good.

[grasswire]

93. speak for yourself

I have a wee bit more patience and believe that your impatient tactic does more to lose in 2008 than anything else could. And where would we be then?

[jgraz]

94. Sorry, out of patience

As are most people, if you follow the opinion polls. What the hell makes you think that the current Democratic leadership has the first fucking clue on how to hold a majority? From what I've seen, they're well on their way to handing Congress back to the Rethugs in 2008.

[grasswire]

97. From what I see...

...you're helping to ensure that loss.

[jgraz]

98. Still want to pretend the Emperor's fully dressed?

You go right ahead. Let us know when you figure it out.

Meanwhile, why don't you call the next mom whose kid dies in Iraq and give her the spiel about "patience".

Or maybe you can explain how the "my party, right or wrong" folks are helping the Dems win in 2008. Last I checked, they were tied with the previous congress in public approval.

[Morgana LaFey]

185. You're not talking about pride in the Democratic Party --

except historically and I agree with jpgraz: what have you done for me lately is a lot more appropriate in this CRISIS of governance we're living through.

What you're talking about is blind loyalty to failed policies and possibly people -- our so-called "leaders" -- who simply may not be capable of being anything OTHER than failures. Either that, or they're listening to the wrong advisors. One final possibility, and it's definitely true for some: they're bought.

I, as many others, am fully, thoroughly proud to be a Democrat and honor both our proud history AND our current leadership in defense of the Constitution.

It's the current leadership part I worry about.

Some day you're going to want to know about something called codependence. Remember that word. Your life is going to get pretty uncomfortable and out of control in time before you wake up and realize you're giving away too much of yourself and have to find a way to stop. Or perhaps you'll realize that those around you to whom you give your loyalty aren't worthy of it, or don't return the favor and you'll feel mightily betrayed. And used. Your world or significant parts of it will come crashing down around you in one way or another. That'll be a good time to remember the word codependent and look it up, read some books on the subject, see a therapist.

You have a codependent relationship with our Democratic leaders, and they aren't worthy of your loyalty. You're not alone in this, there are plenty of DUers who are in the same ridiculous, ill-fitting boat. You don't realize it now -- can't. But someday you might. They're not going to save you or us or the country or the Constitution or the world, or (apparently) even themselves. THey're not going to live up to your wild-eyed ideals and hopes and dreams. They're incapable of it. You might even secretly believe that the more loyalty (and patience?) you -- and ALL OF US -- give them, the more likely they are to succeed. Couldn't be farther from the truth. There's no connection. None whatsoever.

Good luck with all that.

[Canuckistanian]

25. Who is this "one" who will lead the way?

And why do they need to "kick that shit" in the faces of Reid and Pelosi????

[BuyingThyme]

26. Because the vast majority of Americans

what somebody to do the right thing for once.

[L. Coyote]

30. Current Tally: 36 investigations, 220 hearings. HELLO!!

The DEMs are off to a good start. You should consider joining the party:

"... In a flurry of subpoenas and press releases, the Democrats have launched 36 investigations, holding about 220 committee hearings since seizing control of Congress last November - and forcing the resignations of six Bush administration officials. ...

"... House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ... is conducting 20 investigations.

"They include inquiries into misinformation about weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq War - something that has the potential to embarrass the British Government - corruption in postwar reconstruction, White House contacts with the convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the leaking of the identity of the CIA operative Valerie Plame. ..."

And just think. More are about to begin as others expand.

If this is squandering, we'll need 60 hours in every day to do it right.

[BuyingThyme]

35. If nobody steps up, this is all squandered.

[pnwmom]

61. How so?

[BuyingThyme]

143. So, Dems investigate Bush and find out he's been raping babies

in the Lincoln Bedroom. Being that impeachment is off the table, how does it matter? Being that Gonzales is still AG, how does it matter?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

36. To what end? Why bother if Pelosi pre-emptively took impeachment "off the table"

How dare she, before we even had the chance to kick open the door into the fetid Republican basement where the bodies are stored?

[Telly Savalas]

58. As a result of these investigations and hearings,

what measures were put into the war funding bill to hold the White House accountable for anything?

What legislation is in the pipeline which will make a meaningful difference?

We all know that the Bush Administration is filled with fuck-ups. We don't need investigations to demonstrate this. We need purposeful action.

[BuyingThyme]

59. We need Speaker Waxman.

Or Woolsey.

Or Gore.

Or Lee...

[bvar22]

70. And WHAT has this "flurry of activity" accomplished?

Scooter went to jail, but that was the work of Fitz, NOT the Democratic Congress.

WHAT have they really accomplished?
They have had subpoenas PUBLICLY FLAUNTED in their faces and meekly turned away.

Not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRATIC INVESTIGATION had produces a finding of ANY wrongdoing!

The First Quarter is already OVER, and the Dems score is still ZERO!
LESS than ZERO! The Republicans have SCORED a secret Free Trade Deal and $100Billion more for the WAR!

Bread & Circuses


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[ComerPerro]

81. not nearly enough for the uninformed "all or nothing" crowd.

They are gonna take their ball and go home. Again.

Can't count on these people when you really need support.

That's partly because some of them don't really believe in anything. They just like being against a majority. Makes them feel like rebels.

[jgraz]

91. Yes, "nothing" is not enough for anyone

I really don't understand where the fuck you're coming from. Your accusations make absolutely no sense.

If you want to make up bullshit ad hominems, at least invent some that have a vague resemblance to reality. "They just like being against a majority" -- what absolute horseshit.

[jgraz]

89. And they already have more than enough to impeach Bush, Cheney and half the fucking cabinet

Oh right, I forgot, we don't have 2/3rds of the Senate. I guess we should just go home then.

[maggiegault]

31. Agreed. Enough is enough. The people have spoken.

And all the Dems have done is enabled the Dim Son with their lame-ass tactics and concilliatory tone.

I don't want one more American to have to endure what my family has lost in the past month. Those Dems, every single one of them who enabled the Dim Son to continue with his nasty ugly little war, have blood all over their hands. Including that of my brother.

I'll still be around, and I will never vote GOP, but I am starting to see that a politician is a politician, regardless of the party.

[porphyrian]

41. As you can see, you'll never convince the bean counters.

There is a whole contingent of cowards who think the only time to stand up for what's right is when they're guaranteed support for it beforehand. They rationalize their cowardice as "pragmatic," claiming it's a waste of time to do the right thing without everyone else's votes to back them up. If they spent half of the energy they waste trying to justify their cowardice, they would've already convinced enough people to vote with them. Pussies.

[jgraz]

96. The word "coward" is sadly apt

Can anyone give me one example where these "pragmatic" decisions resulted in the Dems actually doing something?

[HardRocker05]

42. fool us once, shame on them. fool us 100 times, shame on us. does anybody seriously think the dems

are going to change their ways until THEIR BASE dumps them? until then, they will continue with this traitorous duplicity and pandering in their effort to pick up just enough votes in the middle to land themselves a few more years living on the public dole.

[pnwmom]

62. People who keep referring to "the Dems" don't sound like Democrats.

There are middle-of-the-road Democrats, too, by the way.

Pelosi and Reid do not represent only the most far left.

[jgraz]

118. You've repeated this slur several times now

Is it your opinion that anyone who criticizes their own party is not a "True Democrat" (tm) ?

[pnwmom]

133. Not at all. It is the viciousness of the language used by some coupled with

the degree to which their choice of language separates themselves from other Democrats -- for example, by saying "they" need to do XXX instead of "we" need to do XXX.

And some DUers are given to making global and damning statements about the party (as opposed to expressing frustration or being angry or passionate about particular issues, which is healthy.)

I don't know why those given to the worst statements of vitriol stick around here, except to spread their dissatisfaction as much as possible.

[jgraz]

137. "they" is an appropriate word

Most of those posts are talking about the Congressional Democrats, and using "The Dems" for short. In that case, "they" seem to be making it abundantly clear that "they" don't give a shit about what "we" think.

I'd be interested in seeing a statement that you think is too vitriolic, given that you're making these comments in a thread started by an eminently reasonable OP.

[grasswire]

140. gotta wonder

Why would someone who is anti-Dem want to post in a forum for Democrats? Hmm?

[jgraz]

145. And I wonder why someone who purports to be pro-Dem

continues to flog such an obvious loser of a "strategy".

[leftchick]

45. Thnak you for stating the obvious

but a lot of folks STILL do NOT want to hear/see/believe it.

:thumbsup:

[The Stranger]

47. The Democrat leaders' squandering everything defines the party.

[Erika]

50. Not al all

When compared to the GOP.

[Solon]

110. That's a pretty damning indictment right there. n/t

[jgraz]

120. How's about we compare them to a functioning political party that actually listens to the people?

Just suggesting we apply a higher standard than comparing them to a bunch to traitorous criminals...

[Vidar]

69. Highly recommended. Pelosi is nothing more than Lieberman in a skirt.

[onenote]

71. that may be single silliest thing I've ever seen posted on DU

and that's quite an accomplishment.

[EFerrari]

90. You must have missed my mad at John Edwards thread.

That was pretty silly.

[maggiegault]

100. Lose your brother over in Iraq, and then tell me if threads like this are "silly"

[onenote]

111. wasn't referring to the whole post, just the Pelosi = Lieberman comment

[Blue_Roses]

74. What a dumb post.

Not to mention sexist:eyes:

[Le Taz Hot]

135. Woah!

Explain to this 52-year-old activist feminist how that was sexist. I'll wait.

[jgraz]

95. That's just not appropriate

Nancy is WAAAY hotter than Lieberman

:hide:

[and-justice-for-all]

75. BushCo's War funding should have been cut....

..off at the head.

Yeah, it may have looked bad for a minute, but thats better then the 4 years of Warmongering Shrub has had a blank check too. If they funding was cut and redeployment was issued shortly there after, I do not think it would have had a negative effect on the DemParty.

I think the Dem party would have been seem as rescuers rather then "defunding the troops devils."

[and-justice-for-all]

76. Do I smell Trolls? nt

[Le Taz Hot]

136. No,

you smell life-long Democrats pissed off that the people in their party are not following the mandate they were given.

The 11th Commandment was Ronald Reagan speaking to the faithful. The Democrats have no such commandment or have the political parties become so indistinguishable we forget ideology comes from what party?

Country before Party.

[MonkeyFunk]

92. A bit dramatic, no?

You're just wrong.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[AnOhioan]

105. I see you missed the day they taught civility at school

If you can't make your point without hurling insults you have no point to make.

[bigtree]

114. yeah, let's install one of those legislators who can't even manage a majority of support

for their own proposals.

That'll show 'em.

I'll be damned if I'm holding ANY of our Democrats more responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq than Bush and his republican enablers. All of this nibbling at our own party for the results of the republican obstruction is ridiculous.

[jgraz]

121. Another perspective

"All of this nibbling at our own party for the results of the republican obstruction is ridiculous."

Perhaps all this legitimate criticism of our own party for their failure to do what we elected them to do may result in a healthier, more responsive -- and, by definition, more electable -- party.

[bigtree]

125. We have a task before us NOW which shouldn't have to wait

until after January 2009.

The majority of our Democrats are still committed to voting for legislation containing an exit date from Iraq, the majority of republicans are not.

It's the republican holdouts who deserve our total attention, not a focus on those in our party already committed to ending the occupation. Legislating an end date in veto-proof legislation is the ONLY way Bush will move off of his occupation. The rest is just noise.

[jgraz]

142. Correction: we HAD a task before us

And the Dem leadership pissed away all of their leverage.

"It's the republican holdouts who deserve our total attention"

My senators and representative are Democrats (or ^airquoteDemocrats^airquote in Fein$tein's case), so I'll focus on them if that's OK with you.

"those in our party already committed to ending the occupation"

Really? Do you really think Pelosi and Reid are committed to ending the occupation? Or are they committed to blaming the occupation on Bush so they can grab the White House in 2008?

"Legislating an end date in veto-proof legislation is the ONLY way Bush will move off of his occupation"

So let me get this straight. You contend that Bush would ignore a cut-off of funds and leave the troops in the field, but he'll respect a bill passed by Congress to end the war? How does that make sense?

[bigtree]

152. Bullshit. There's NO evidence AT ALL that holding up the supplemental would make Bush end it.

None at all. There IS evidence that Bush could find funds to continue the occupation indefinitely. The notion that Bush would notice or care enough about some shortfall in supplies or equipment for the troops that he would end the occupation is an amazing disregard of his abuse of the troops so far.

[jgraz]

157. Not my point, but thank you for playing Reading Comprehension for 10 Year Olds

Re-routing of funds by the executive branch is a straight up impeachable, go to jail felony. Are you saying that * would do that yet he WOULD respect a bill passed by a veto-proof majority?

(You've heard of signing statements, right?)

[bigtree]

161. funny how you jumped to ridicule me over the ability of Bush to find funds to continue

He's already requested, and received over 4 billion from the general defense budget, and the GAO, among others, spelled out how there were funds available for Bush to continue to limp our troops along, at least in the term covered by the funding bill containing DEMOCRATIC priorities included by our party members.

With a veto-proof bill which is upheld by 2/3 of Congress after Bush rejects it, it is the opinion of most observers that he would then have to be sued to recognize Congress' authority. But, that would also be clear grounds to impeach Bush for his obstinacy on Iraq.

You really don't deserve a response after that '10 year-old' insult. If you actually bothered to do any research at all (I refuse to do it for you after your smart-assed comments), you would uncover several funding schemes which could be 'legally' used by Bush to continue. In fact, the mantra from Democratic critics of our leadership that the troops have enough funds to evicerate the need for a spending bill ignores the prospect that Bush can (and would) use those funds to continue his occupation no matter what Congress did.

And again, the idea that Bush actually cares about the needs of our troops to notice or care about shortfalls enough to move him is an amazing disregard of his treatment of those deployed so far.

[jgraz]

162. Yeah, I'm really not interested in researching excuses for how Congress can avoid doing their job

You say Bush has many legal means to fund the troops. Then why was it so urgent for Congress to pass the funding? And why, given *'s previous record on supporting the troops while the war was fully funded, do you think it helps to give him even more money to continue his failed war?

All of this smacks of a desperate effort to gloss over Congress' complete failure on this issue. Hell, they didn't even manage a political win here. The latest polling clearly shows that the public is on to them.

Of course, I'm sure you'll spin that as an example of them taking a political hit for the good of the country. And still more troops get killed...

[bigtree]

164. The funds in the Democratic spending bill were identified as necessary by our party members

who crafted the bills: Murtha, Obey, Skelton . . .

Democrats who crafted and voted for the Democratic spending bill included priorities which had been ignored for four years by the republicans. It makes sense that they would feel secure in finally stepping up and providing those funds they felt and advocated as necessary for the safety, security, and well-being of those troops we've been unable to remove from Iraq.

The problem with money allocated in the past was that republicans refused to exercise oversight and hold the administration accountable for billions given to them. That oversight process by our new Democratic majority is underway and we should not be so cynical about the ability of our legislators to appropriate money and make Bush account for it. That's their job and they clearly intend to exercise that responsibility.

As for the opinion polls, there is obviously frustration from folks who expected for our majority to somehow dictate action on Iraq. There are folks who insist our Democrats can just act unilaterally with their slim majority and I'm not surprised that they are dismayed by the political realities of the republican obstruction. I refuse to hold Democrats more accountable or responsible that the republicans who put our troops there and are keeping them in harm's way with their refusal to allow legislation containing an exit date to advance.

[jgraz]

167. "their refusal to allow legislation containing an exit date to advance"

How can this happen in the House? The minority is irrelevant there. Pelosi, et al, could pass a bill calling for *'s execution and the Rethugs would just have to rollover and take it.

In the Senate, the rethugs could filibuster (something we never managed to do effectively). My response is "make them." Let them stand up there and hold up debate and explain to the public why they want this war to continue. Then make Bush veto it and also have to explain (lie, in his case) about why he's ignoring the will of the people.

This was a fight the Dems could have won. But we'll never know, because despite all their tough talk (remember Reid's promise of an "even tougher" bill?) they didn't stand their ground long enough for any of this to play out.

Sad.

[jgraz]

165. And of course, your excuse bears little resemblance to the excuses put out by the Dem leadership

According the latest fundraising letter from Reid, the Dems HAD to send the bill because they couldn't override *'s veto. No mention of the GAO or other funding.

As far impeachment goes, we all know that's an empty threat. Pelosi has taken it "off the table". And really, what more do they need at this point? The president has already admitted (boasted) that he's committed thousands of felonies by violating the FISA law. If congress won't impeach over that, or signing statements, or outing CIA agents or illegally firing US Attorneys or lying us into a war, etc, etc, etc, what makes you think that a little thing like ignoring a veto-proof bill would cause them to act?

[L. Coyote]

123. How many of the Dem bashers on this thread are actually over 16 years old?

Just wondering because of the lack of substantive comment and
apparent lack of understanding of how Congress works.

Maybe it is just the level of emotion? But, emotion alone does not accomplish much.

I just cannot see how a lot of stone-throwing ranting does any good at all. Bitch, bitch, bitch, how mature!

[porphyrian]

124. Maturity obsession is another sign of immaturity.

And what you see as "Dem bashing" is a call for accountability, which no one seems capable of answering. If you don't like the tone of it, stay out of the conversation. That's as Democratic as your attempts to silence dissenters, anyway.

[L. Coyote]

134. Hello, 36 investigations, 200+ hearings,

What you write, "a call for accountability, which no one seems capable of answering," completely disregards the new era of accountability.

And, telling me to "stay out of the conversation" in the name of keeping things "Democratic" with your ad hominem "your attempts to silence dissenters" illustrates my point fully in light of its inherent, self-contradictory quality.

Where's the beef? And I mean substance, not bitching and throwing stones.

[porphyrian]

138. Nice. You almost read my entire post. Comprehension needs a little work, though.

Keep at it.

[BuyingThyme]

141. Can I ask you a serious question.

There are a few people out there, yourself included, who don't seem to understand that one of the things Congress does is hold hearings. That's why they've got all them committees. That's what committees do -- hold hearings.

Now, what was it you thought those committees did?

Seriously. I don't understand.

[grasswire]

139. I wondered that, too

Immaturity reigns.

And there are an awful lot of people on DEMOCRATIC Underground who appear to be ANTI-DEMOCRAT. Why bother to post in a forum for Democrats if you hate the party?

Why?

[L. Coyote]

146. The why is so obvious, it hardly needs comment.

It fits the overall pattern. Assault thy enemies. There are billions of dollars spent to herd
American politics. Any effective medium will be asaulted in every possible way, from within included.

Anyone who does not realize that the 'vast right wing conspiricy' is operating on DU is not giving much attention to this forum.

[jgraz]

147. Yes, we're all republican plants.

Tell me, do you actually know anyone in Iraq, or is all this just a game to you?

[L. Coyote]

150. Just watch how people respond to my response. It will illustrate my point.

The worms will just provoke by changing the subject, or acting as if the comment
was directed at them personally, anything except a substantive reply to the statement.

[jgraz]

158. That's because your idiot comments don't merit a substantive response

This was a substantive OP with several intelligent responses. Yours were not among them.

If you want a real debate, make an actual point. And hey, try to do it without calling people "worms" or implying that they're shills for the GOP.

[jgraz]

144. Exactly. Because only stupid teenagers are bothered by needless deaths

Damn, I just wish all those children would just grow up and accept the extra 500-1000 dead American troops. People are just SO immature.

[stillrockin]

127. Now is the time for all brave men (and women) to

take their balls out of their purses.
:mad:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

151. i think some people here dont want politicians, they want miracle workers.

[grasswire]

153. good point

The "failed Dems" meme is sure getting old.

[BuyingThyme]

154. American consensus is not a "meme."

[jgraz]

159. See, BT? It's all a game to some of these people

Dead GI's? Blown up, diseased and starving Iraqi children? Hey, now THAT'S and issue we can USE to win elections! For GOD'S SAKE don't do anything to stop it! Then we'd actually have to do something REAL that might piss off our corporate overlords.

[grasswire]

174. do they pay well for agitprop these days?

Just askin'

[jgraz]

177. Riiight -- don't argue the points, just make groundless accusations

Could it be because you haven't got a fucking leg to stand on? I thought so.

You may resume shoving your nose up the DLC's ass now.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

182. Sweetpea, you are so out of ammo

But please continue to make an ass of yourself. It's pretty entertaining.

[jonnyblitz]

155. voting "no" on war funding hardly requires performing a miracle.

there is no dignity in being an apologist for cowardice.

[BuyingThyme]

156. Neither does keeping that vote from occurring in the first place.

In fact, it's a miracle that something so insane was put up for vote. A miracle for Bush.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

176. theres no bravado in constantly losing to the republicans because we dont cut our politicians any

slack either.

[jgraz]

160. No, LP, we sometimes want LEADERS instead of politicians

Is that really so much to ask?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

175. activists can be leaders and arguably we need more activists

if you expect politicians to not be politicians, its naivety.

[jgraz]

178. At the very least, I expect politicians to be competent politicians

Both Pelosi and Reid said they were NOT going to send * a blank check. Remember Reid's "even tougher bill" promise? If they truly felt this was the right path, they should have done it from the beginning. As it stands, they not only enabled the war, they did it by looking weak and disingenuous.

Look at the approval rating on Congress this week. Is THAT what you want from your politicians?

[KingFlorez]

172. Exactly

[Zandor]

163. A Democrat In the White House working WITH Pelosi and Reid

is what's needed to end the war.

If you're suggesting we elect a Democrat in 2008 and they "kick that shit in the faces of Pelosi and Reid" you are looking to cause a rift when there would be zero need for one.

[BuyingThyme]

183. Sorry. I thought there was already a gargantuan rift.

Maybe I'm thinking about a different Pelosi and Reid.

[Zandor]

191. There is somewhat of one, and it needs closing

The notion that a new Democratic president should somehow "take on" Pelosi and Reid instead of working with them is nuts.

If you want to argue they didn't fight Bush hard enough on war funding, okay. I agree. But if a Democratic president takes office and we have a majority, there would no reason to call on that president to take on Reid and Pelosi. S/he should work with them.

[BuyingThyme]

193. Pelosi and Reid should be replaced.

They have never shown any inclination to lead the Democratic Party in a productive, let alone progressive direction. They never wanted to be anything more than figureheads. And before you say four months isn't enough, take a moment to realize that they started pulling this non-leadership crap long before the November election.

Neither Pelosi nor Reid should have been elected to leadership roles, particularly in wake of the 2006 election which in addition to being a referendum on Bush's performance, was a referendum on their's.

Anybody who wishes to run for president as a Democrat must be willing to lead the Party in spite of, and in contrast to, the the long history of Democratic leadership failures. Anything less will fail miserably in the end.

[republikkkon]

166. why, when attacking republican policies...

do people scream "dissent is not un-american!"

yet, when attacking democratic policies...

people scream "immature! trolls! anti-democrat! attack! REPUBLICAN!"

can you not detect the hypocrisy? is it only ok to question people you don't agree with?

[Zandor]

168. "kick that shit in the faces of Pelosi and Reid"

We're going to elect a Dem in 08 to do that?

Sorry, that's just dumb.

[BuyingThyme]

184. Some believe in Democratic leaders, others believe in Democratic values.

[AnOhioan]

194. Excellent post

If Democratic leaders do not practice Democratic values, they deserve everything they get.

[KingFlorez]

171. It hasn't even been a year since the new Congress came into session

Reid and Pelosi have done a lot so far, there has been investigations and oversight. This post is absolute nonsense.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

179. this is about the vote for war funding.

and ofcourse all is lost. :sarcasm:

[BuyingThyme]

181. Do you happen to know how long a Congress lasts?

[KingFlorez]

189. Yes and there happens to be a lot of time left until this one is over

The point I'm making is that it's ridiculous to expect things to have changed in just a few months, especially with Bush in the White House. Change doesn't happen overnight.

[BuyingThyme]

190. That's the thing. Things have changed dramatically.

We're well on our way to doubling the occupation.

[mmonk]

192. Not standing up to clear tyranny has it's risks.

That's why I don't like it and have had enough. Nothing more should be sacrificed than has already been sacrificed at the altar of politics.