Will Democrats Commit Political Suicide in 2008?

[CrisisPapers]

| Bernard Weiner |


Author's Note: Approximately six million U.S. citizens live overseas, most of them eligible to vote back home. Democrats Abroad has so many active chapters all over the world that their ex-pat members have some leverage in shaping Dem policy and a number wind up as delegates to the National Convention. The largest German chapter is in Munich and they have been kind enough to invite me, as a progressive blogger/public speaker from the States, to meet with them during my occasional trips to Germany, visiting my wife's family.

Prior to my DA talk last week, I had the occasion to speak with numerous Germans and Austrians about their take on American foreign and domestic policy. As on previous visits to other countries in the past six years (Crete/Greece, Morocco, Italy, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos), the virtually unanimous reaction of the locals was to commiserate with me as an American with leaders as ignorant, reckless and incompetent as Cheney and Bush. This attitude, voiced by everyone I met on my recent trip to Europe -- from service providers to businessmen to college professors to current officers and former employees of multi-national corporations -- was expressed even before they learned my political persuasion. The roof message above, spotted in Vienna, seems to capture the general point of view.

As for my recent presentation to DA-Munich, the meeting room was packed with activist Dems living and working in and around Bavaria's largest city. These Democrats mirror the progressive, activist base back in the States: They are politically savvy and deeply perplexed by their party's timid leadership in Washington. Here are my brief opening remarks, updated on occasion:

Many of you may remember that the last time you had me here, a month or so before the 2006 midterm elections, I said that it looked like the Democrats could well sweep into control of the House and Senate, but, if that happened, CheneyBush might react with even more desperation. And that having majority control would not be an instant utopia for Democrats, but merely the first steps for a new beginning. And that's pretty much what has occurred.

This evening, a little more than a year out from the next presidential election and only a few months before the first primaries, I want to talk about three overview subjects: 1) The imploding CheneyBush Administration, and the dangerous actions of that cornered, wounded beast. 2) The Iraq War and the impending attack on Iran. 3) The positive and negative nature of current Democratic Party policy, including some discussion about the leading contenders for the nomination.

I'll give you my take from someone in the thick of blogger activism in the States, and I'll be interested to hear what the situation looks like from your perspective on the other side of the pond.

1. DOWN IN THE BUSH BUNKER

The ranks of the Bush Bunker crew, the loyalists who still remain in White House, are shrinking fast, especially with the departure of Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, et al. The first-tier decision makers left include Cheney, Addington, Hadley, and Bush; I don't include Defense Secretary Bob Gates (as he's being frozen out by Cheney&Co.), or Rice and Chertoff, who are basically toadies to their boss.

Given the catastrophe that is the war in Iraq (and the one about to begin against Iran), along with the various corruption and sex and policy scandals involving Republican stalwarts, and the enormous unpopularity of Cheney and Bush -- given all those GOP negatives, one would be tempted to say that things look rosy for Democrats going into the November 2008 election.

But if we've learned anything in the past six years, it's that the CheneyBush crew do not give up easily, and are quite happy to continue their smashmouth, in-your-face, big-lie brand of politics and dare you to stop them. Given their bleak situation, they are worried, to be sure -- GOP members of Congress are especially anxious about being wiped out in 2008, but they are sticking with the Administration for now -- but CheneyBush are not in any mood to give up and slink away.

Why? Partially because they realize their criminal culpability and wish to remain outside the federal slammer. They continue to control enormously powerful governmental forces to help protect themselves and their friends and punish their enemies. I'm referring to their control of the Judicial Branch, including the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorneys around the country, the courts they've packed with their ideological brethren, and FEMA, the agency that would supervise martial law if and when it were to be invoked. CheneyBush also still control much of the mass-media, who either are ideologically in bed with them or afraid to frontally challenge the Administration on its behavior and blatant lies.

There are scores of retired generals and colonels, and currently serving officers, who snipe at the Administration's dangerous and failed military policies; a few days ago, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Ret., who commanded the troops in Iraq in 2003-2004, blistered Administration policy there from the occupation then to the current "surge" now. But CheneyBush still can count on the services to execute their orders, reckless or no.

THE ABANDONED DEM MANDATE

Now you may say that I'm ignoring a very real impediment to the CheneyBush juggernaut: the Democrats, who defeated them handily in the 2006 midterm elections and are now in the majority in both houses of Congress. Surely, one would think, the Democrats would be able to use their considerable majority muscle to roll back one bad Administration policy after another, and to make sure CheneyBush do limited major damage in the next 15 months before they depart the premises.

But the Democrats, who inherited a clear mandate for major change in the midterm elections, especially on the need to get the U.S. out of Iraq, have little to show for their victory. Several committee chairmen (symbolized by Waxman, Conyers, Leahy, a few others) have conducted important hearings and investigations. But in the main, this amounts to the Democrats nipping at CheneyBush around the edges, hardly ever confronting their impeachable offenses frontally. Certainly, the Democrats make a lot of noise, hold a lot of one-day hearings and the like, but CheneyBush made a conscious political decision to simply ignore them.

Executive Branch leaders are subpoenaed to testify or to provide potentially incriminating documents -- but these officials simply do not comply. The Democrats threaten them with, and then cite them for, "contempt of Congress," but then choose not to enforce those contempt citations. Time and time again, the Dems back away or roll over for the Republicans.

For example, the Dems allow their favorite bills to go down to defeat (especially on the war) on the mere threat of a GOP filibuster, without ever making the Republicans actually mount a filibuster, where they would have to put themselves on the record attempting to defend the indefensible. Similarly, the Democrats have within their power -- 41 Senate votes would do it -- to withhold funds for anything other than bringing U.S. troops home, but the Dems don't even attempt such a move. In short, the Democrats are mostly bark with no effective bite, and they've taken their major weapon, impeachment, "off the table"; as a result, the approval ratings for Congress are even lower than they are for Bush and Cheney, especially so with rank-and-file Democrats.

2. THE PERMANENT IRAQ WAR

It seems plain that CheneyBush have no desire, and no intention, to withdraw from Iraq. They aren't building that humongous new embassy and those hardened military bases for nothing. Iraq is intended to be the staging point for U.S. policy in the greater Middle East for a very long time. Bush likens the mission and time-frame to U.S. troops remaining in South Korea for more than half a century -- ignoring that South Korea in the '50s had no insurgent rebels trying to force out the occupiers, no religious and sectarian civil war raging, no American leaders talking about a "crusade," etc.

Apparently, Bush figures that even though the U.S. can not "win" in Iraq, it can't "lose" either. The U.S. eventually will pull back to its massive bases inside the country -- where they will be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar attacks -- and remain effectively in charge of actual Iraq policy while it carries out its covert and overt actions all over the greater Middle East.

It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that the U.S. -- perhaps in coordination with its one dependable ally in the area, Israel -- will attack Iran's military infrastructure and weapons labs sometime between now and October of next year. All the signs point to that impending attack, and the campaign has begun in earnest to "catapult the propaganda" (in a manner eerily familiar to U.S. actions prior to attacking Iraq) and to provoke the Iranians into taking some action or position that will outrage Americans into acquiescing to an attack on Iran, devoid of any imminent threat to the United States. The Democrats in Congress, incidentally, have done little or nothing to stem -- or even talk about -- this likely attack; several of their leading candidates are on record as favoring an attack, should it come to that. Indeed, more opposition seems to be coming from inside the Pentagon than from Democratic leaders and candidates.

3. WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR DEMOCRATS?

So now we come to the future of our party, so filled with hope after November of last year, so frustrating and irritating to so many in the interim.

The Democratic leadership seems to be operating, to use a football term, a "prevent defense" strategy. They see the Republicans imploding in one scandal after another (sex, financial misconduct, political disasters), see the war in Iraq going nowhere except into a political and civil-war maelstrom, see the awful candidates the GOP is putting up (in one recent GOP poll, "none of the above" won). They look at all this self-destructive Republican behavior and seem to be saying: Why should we stick our necks out with any major "offense" initiatives? Let's just watch the Republicans' self-immolate and in November waltz into the White House and grow our majorities in the House and Senate?

But with these "loyal Bushies," who are always on the offense, if you only play "prevent" you run the very real risk of a catastrophic defeat as events change on the ground prior to the election.

I think it's true that if present trends continue, the Democrats will do very well in Senate and House races next November, and will extend their control of the Congress, maybe even obtaining a veto-proof majority. Theoretically, the Dems should take the White House as well. But, even without considering major changes beyond their control that could affect the presidential race -- such as the attack on Iran or major developments in Iraq, or a real or invented "terrorist" incident at home, or a successful manipulation of the Electoral College vote into congressional-district voting in key states instead of winner-take-all, etc. -- even without all that, the Democrats, as is their pattern in recent years, could well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

How could this happen? Let's look at just two things.

1. The activist base is so angry at Democratic leadership for its weak or non-existent initiatives with regard to Iraq, Iran, Impeachment, Domestic Spying, Habeas Corpus, etc., that it could well decide to sit on its collective hands in November of 2008. Or bolt to the Greens. Or help create a viable new third party, perhaps in collaboration with the angered, frustrated Republican base -- those centrists, moderates, libertarians and old-fashioned conservatives appalled by the extremists who have hijacked their party and taken it into dangerous foreign adventurism, who have stomped all over the Constitution, who have created such outrageous deficits and debt. A bi-partisan, populist "Unity" ticket, in other words.

2. I've been writing about this anger building in the Democratic base for quite some time. Believe me, I'm not making it up. Just before we left the Bay Area to fly to Munich, the following, highly typical letter-to-the-editor appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. I've seen similar letters and commentary in a wide variety of newspapers and websites; they speak for a huge chunk of disenchanted Democrats:

Third-party voter

Editor - ... As of today, I will vote for Sen. Barack Obama or Bill Richardson, because in my opinion, Sen. Hillary Clinton is the best chance the Democrats have to lose the 2008 presidential general election.

If she is their nominee, hatred of her will motivate Republican conservatives to vote and work to elect the Republican candidate, whoever he is.

At the same time, Clinton is the most likely to drive a third party candidate from her left to enter the race. The growing number of independent voters includes disaffected Republicans and they, too, would be more inclined to vote Republican if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

Even though I strongly feel that the U.S. will be best served if a Democrat, not a Republican, is elected President in 2008, I will vote for a third-party candidate, even if it means the Republican candidate is elected. I won't be alone in doing so.

JIM DICARLO San Francisco (9/23/07)

THE WOULD-BE NOMINEES

The candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination are nothing like the embarrassing lot the Republicans are putting up -- virtually every one of the Democrats in the running would make a far better President than any of the Republican hopefuls. Just look at these guys: Giuliani (a shameless, monomaniacal liar), Thompson (a bumbling, would-be Reagan), McCain (a total sell-out on the war), Romney (a thoroughgoing, flip-flopping hypocrite trying to buy his way to the presidency), etc. etc. But the fact that Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove's preferred candidate, is running away with the nomination race is not necessarily good news for the Democrats.

We now know that the Republicans have been preparing their smear campaigns against Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, for years. (Indeed, a recent story revealed how illegal actions were taken to smear Edwards in 2004.) Poll after poll has demonstrated that there has been and will continue to be a 40% block of American voters who loathe Clinton and would never vote for her. So in order for Clinton to win, she has to hold on to the 40% who reliably vote the Democratic ticket, and then win the moderates and independents in the middle. This might be possible if she could hold onto that firm 40%. But, as that not-atypical letter-to-the-editor makes clear, there is a huge swatch of the Democratic Party, mainly from the dedicated activist base, who do not wish to support Hillary because of her generally hawkish, wishy washy positions on the war, her more-macho-than-you attitude on Iran, her lining up with institutional forces such as with big pharma on the health-care issue, and so on.

So, even though she may be highly intelligent, and has run an impressive primary campaign to date, she simply may not be electable -- conceivably putting Rudy Giuliani or another GOP Neanderthal in the White House -- and her selection could diminish any coattail influence she might have on other races.

The general take on Barack Obama is that he's an exciting candidate, bright, energetic, charismatic -- filled with good ideas and, on occasion, not afraid to express them -- but not quite mature enough as a national politician, with not much of an experiential record to run on. He's certainly a positive, fresh new face, and will be a force to be reckoned with in 2112 and beyond, but probably not this time out, unless as the vice presidential nominee on someone else's ticket (Richardson/Obama?)

John Edwards has a long history as a populist, anti-corporate individual of conscience, and he's been quite effective staking out his progressive opinions during this primary stretch. The Rove wing of the GOP wants to take out Edwards early, as he's an effective populist campaigner. It looks as if he might score big in the Iowa caucuses, coming in first or second, and gain some momentum. But the media, echoing the White House spin, has been largely ignoring his campaign or treating him roughly.

As you can see, Obama and Edwards are battling for the same block of voters -- the liberal-to-progressive, anti-war, anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. By splitting the energy, money and support, they almost guarantee that Hillary will be the nominee of the party.

I haven't mentioned Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel because, as intelligent and courageous as some of them have been -- especially Richardson on the war and Kucinich in a number of areas -- they've gone nowhere in the polls and probably stand little chance of capturing the nomination.

THE FLUIDITY OF POLITICS

Things are fairly fluid politically right now. As I've written previously (and as the Chronicle letter writer indicated), there is a potential opening for a third-party run, drawing from the disenchanted wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Is there a charismatic crossover candidate willing to take advantage of that momentary opening to help mount a viable run for the White House in 2008? If a strong third party candidacy emerged, which major party would be most helped, the Republicans or the Democrats? Could the Republican candidate slide by into the White House if too many Democrats deserted their party to vote for this third-party candidate? Might the chances for popular approval soar if that third-party were to create a bi-partisan "Unity" ticket, made up of a leading Democrat and a leading, anti-war Republican. (Gore/Hagel?)

Finally, a longer-range thought. Even if a viable third party doesn't get born this time out, the Democrats are ripe, as are the Republicans, for a good, long, soul-searching debate about the future of the party. Redefining the mission. Coming up with some philosophies of governance, and foreign policies, we can agree on. Developing policy statements in various areas that are not just reactions to what the Republicans are doing. Etc. Etc.

In short, the 2008 election may well turn out to be a watershed in modern American politics, re-aligning the electorate in ways they feel more comfortable with. We shall see.

So, my comments are but a very brief summary of the topics I think are most important. Let's get into a deeper discussion of all this, and whatever else you'd like to talk about, and see if we can come to any intelligent analysis that will help us all as we move forward in 2008.

THE Q&A SESSION

What followed those prepared remarks was a wide-ranging discussion of U.S. domestic and foreign politics, everything from: whether Gore (now Nobel Laureate Gore) will jump into the presidential ring -- there was much enthusiasm among the DA crowd for the idea; the intricacies of vote-tabulation and the likelihood of electoral fraud again; the insanity of attacking Iran; the possible genesis of Democratic wimpiness these days; the punishment the Party leadership is preparing for several state Dem organizations such as in Florida and Michigan for pushing their primaries way forward, etc. But a good share of the conversation involved the frustration and puzzlement they feel toward their Party leadership. And about the Democratic contenders, especially whether anyone can stop Hillary.

And, of course, these DA members wanted to know my preferred candidate(s). I told them that, for a wide variety of pragmatic and policy reasons, I would prefer the Dem nominee not be Hillary Clinton; I am more favorably inclined to John Edwards, with much to admire also about Bill Richardson and Barack Obama. Despite their elitist ties and tendencies, any of these three would be somewhat more progressive and anti-war and more sympatico than is Hillary.

But, if Hillary turns out to be the Dem standard-bearer in 2008, then all we progressive, anti-imperialist Democrats will face the usual moral dilemma next November. Clearly, there are significant differences between the two parties. The question is: Will there be enough of a difference between our candidates and those put forward by the Republicans to justify yet again holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils? We shall see how the political situation plays out in the next six months.

-- BW

[Atman]

1. They're trying the "Devil You Know" approach, and it's bullshit.

This whole line of thinking defies common sense. All anyone has to do is look at the numbers. Bush's poll numbers, the GOP's poll numbers, the money the parties/candidates have raised, the whole matrix. We're looking at a hugely disastrous year ahead for the GOP, yet there are still people like Weiner who want to give the GOP hope. Or perhaps he's trying to motivate the Dems to not be complacent? COMPLACENT? The Democrats are outraged, sick and tired and fed up, and along with them are many in the GOP, which has put forth perhaps the most laughable, lackluster, no-ideas group of candidates in memory. Does anyone seriously believe Americans, fed up with endless war and government hypocrisy, are going to sweep cross-dressing, abortion-backing, mob-tied Rudy Guiliani into office just because Hillary is running? Hillary may be more pro-war, and Americans may be largely stupid, but one thing Americans understand is that even if Hillary is President, if she is swept in with a filibuster-proof/veto-overriding Democratic majority, then a real anti-war agenda can take hold in Congress. Nothing like that will happen if Rudy, or any of the right-wing war-whores, is elected.

I keep hearing that Democrats shouldn't think it's a lock, and to be sure, Bush might try to hold on via martial law, but I think even that's a very long longshot a this point. "The numbers" are historically anti-GOP. Not pro-Dem, but ANTI-GOP. They've laid their true selves on the table for all to see -- they're liars, hypocrites, haters, war mongers, racists and generally just selfish bastards to the core. America can see that, and it's reflected in "the numbers."

Bernie can suck my wiener.

.

[bonito]

2. Great read

I agree, there's definitely a large empty space right now, and fortunately it can't be filled with a pro war candidate, it's for the taking for the democratic party right now, but the longer that void remains vacant well.:shrug:

[aquart]

3. Ah, threats in the morning.

I have two words to these fucking blackmailers (I mean, aside from "get stuffed" which can be assumed) SUPREME COURT.

Now crawl back under your rocks.

[Totally Committed]

4. Awesome blog entry...

Thanks for posting.

TC

[Demeter]

5. People Who Scoff At This Analysis and Forecast Deserve What They Get in 2008

But none of the rest of us does.

[eagler]

6. Given the fact that corporations are pumping millions into Hillary's

campaign and the fact that she's already being tagged the nominee before any votes have been cast, I think the democrats are being set up for a loss in 08.

[petepillow]

9. I agree completely.

Political Suicide '08? They already have the knife against the wrist...

My humble request to the MSM on behalf of the country's well being? STOP SHOVING HILLARY DOWN OUR THROATS. Please?

[Robeson]

7. Good read.

[ejbr]

8. I know this is a site for Democrats,

but if there is no attempt to impeach Bush/Cheney, then I will vote for a third party or sit out the general election. The fact that the Dem leadership are counting votes before presenting evidence is not only ludicrous, but also a lame excuse to sit on their hands and let tyranny reign. Many people find it tolerable to not impeach for various reasons. They have no problem placing these reasons above the continuation of our country on the fundamental principles that it was founded, but I do not. Not impeaching will open the door for future tyrants, plain and simple.

For my own sanity, I have concluded that not impeaching is unacceptable. And unacceptable to me means I would rather vote third party or sit out the general election than support a party who would rather consider their political fortunes over the salvation of our country. The Dem leadership talks about getting their legislation passed instead of impeaching. From where I am standing, they have only been passing REPUBLICAN legislation, while their laws get vetoed without an override! If there is no impeachment, I am hoping that there are an abundance of us pissed off progressives who finally say, "ENOUGH! OUR VOICES MATTER!!"

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Knight of Ni]

15. Voting for a third party or sitting out the election? Sure why not?....

Because that's worked SOOOOOOO FUCKING WELL for us in the past.:sarcasm:

[ejbr]

19. You're missing the point...

there will not be any "us", as far as I will be concerned. I am no longer going to be a Democrat. Get it? Or do you also need a diagram? <-- no sarcasm here as you seem kinda slow on the uptake.

[MikeNearMcChord]

10. The Prevent Defense, Prevents you from winning.

I don't understand why do some leaders in the Democratic Party think millions will flock to them in '08, if they have really no program. In 1994 the R/W of the GOP didn't just say Clinton Bad, Clinton Bad, the had The Contract With(or on, as it turned out)America, a selling point that got enough voters to swing congress and America to the R/W side of the ledger. People are out there, who are not partisan, and want to vote for something that is good for America and not just against the GOP and replace it with ???. Thanks for the article Dr. Weiner!

[Carrieyazel]

11. Great essay. With Hillary as the nominee we are signing our death warrant.

She is absolutely the worst candidate out there. You never nominate someone who is detested by half of the electorate. And she is also disliked by millions in the Democratic Party who detest her cold, calculating nature. This is a formula for political suicide.

[Dent-Arthur_Dent]

12. Add the question of voting that counts and is counted

I agree with much the original post says. I would add one additional issue: Voting fraud of all and any kind on a huge scale.

So far the "other" mistake in all democratic presidential calculations seems to be the idea that voting will actually count correctly and be counted. Having seen the DLC and other corporate thinkers deny the issue repeatedly, and the entire lack of any Democratic Party pro-active plan to track or protect the vote and considering in the cover the MSM is giving to HillaryCo. we may have little to actually say about this.

Note: (in no particular order and regardless of other conditions)

1. Unless Rove is incarcerated soon (unlikely) he will act as does Gingrich, behind the scenes but very much in control of events. The same might be said for other key players who "appear" to have left the stage. Their only real defense against protracted investigations and long term sentencing is to keep the “side” in power.

2. The Bush/Cheney, LLC are not the kind of outfit who plan for the possibility of losing. It is neither part of their experience nor their worldview. They have only one definition of forward and that is to win by any means necessary. Their past activities and current legislative agenda point directly to conditions whereby they will not leave the Whitehouse, under any circumstances. Keep in mind they do not regard the Constitution, or any US law as a binding argument. Why would an "election" change that?

3. They have surrounded the current office holders with loyalists to the cause for whom nothing is an extreme (see recent congressional testimony). They have built an interlocking administrative support mechanism from the formerly (relatively) independent Federal Bureaucracy, staffed with large numbers of true believers and apparatchiks. While Shrub’s word may not be law as such they view loyalty as the test of governance to an extreme only approached by the most rabid of sports fans, or religious zealots.

4. One need hardly emphasize that those who believe in Armageddon tend to prepare to fight it. The tacit assumption being that it is better to destroy the universe in the battle than to allow the “evil” opposition to control any part of the remaining world. (Does any of this sound familiar?)

5. As current congressional behavior demonstrates repeatedly there is no leadership within either house of legislature to confront tyrannical acts by the current office holders or their minions. Repeated and compelling testimony on many fronts regarding the war(s), healthcare, state of the economy and Federal deficit, continuing monitoring of private communications of all sorts, etc does not move either Congress or the Senate to act do defend themselves or ourselves, in any sense you prefer.

6. As others have noted previously the main stream press at all levels denies and erases evidence of anything that does not suit the prevailing view. Newspeak has come home.

7. As was demonstrated in the last presidential and congressional election cycles having enough votes does not mean you win.

8. I say all this willing to see my individual views be mistaken. However, the evidence has repeatedly shown otherwise.

[D23MIURG23]

25. Welcome to the DU.

Excellent post. I fear you may have hit the nail on the head with a few of these points. Seems we may not be out of interesting times just yet...

:tinfoilhat:

compliments on the Hitchhikers reference by the way.

[tomreedtoon]

13. Is this begging the question? Of course.

Our next President will be Republican. It doesn't matter if they, in Lewis Black's metaphor, dig up Ronald Reagan's corpse, prop it up and put it on the Supreme Court steps.

Democrats have no principles, no passion, and no desire to help the ordinary man. And worst of all, the only candidates who want to seem to stop the war aren't getting anywhere in the polls.

On edit: The people here on DU are wonderful. Maybe if the Democratic Party self-destructs in 2009, you might be able to form a true progressive political party. But sadly, not until the blowup.

[bonito]

14. Recommended!

[ixion]

16. a truly spot on analysis

:applause:

[Dent-Arthur_Dent]

17. Where's the Beef?

"1. DOWN IN THE BUSH BUNKER

The ranks of the Bush Bunker crew, the loyalists who still remain in White House, are shrinking fast, especially with the departure of Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, et al. The first-tier decision makers left include Cheney, Addington, Hadley, and Bush; I don't include Defense Secretary Bob Gates (as he's being frozen out by Cheney&Co.), or Rice and Chertoff, who are basically toadies to their boss."

The pattern of working under the radar or behind the scenes continues: Does anyone know where Karl et al are right now and what they are doing? Only Libby has been under press scrutiny, and lately Karl. Other than Rumsfeld they all are keys to making the process of hidden government work. Regardless of the address on the door they are likely back at work on the same agendas and strategies. If Gingrich and Quale can do it certainly Rove, Wolfowitz and Libby will, if not for the ideology or the power over the process, then for the money.

[BridgeTheGap]

18. Assume nothing, pay attention and back your candidate in the primary

Anyone who would consider doing ANYTHING that would keep the g.o.p. in the WhiteHouse needs to reconsider.

[pat_k]

20. They're doing it now. Failure to impeach is a self-inflicted and festering

. . .wound that is slowly killing the Party. If they treat it, it will be a long and painful death.

The endless declarations of powerlessness raining down from our "leaders" are pushing angry Americans into helpless silence and apathy. As the Democratic Party once again confirms the "weak Dem" image, those who haven't been silenced are finding that their anger at bushncheney is fast being matched by disdain for Democrats.

They may or may not alienate enough Americans to lose the White House or the Senate if they continue to refuse, but the wound will continue to fester until they, and the nation, admit and confront the horror of our national predicament, and the horror of their appeasement, head on.

It is so heartbreaking. If the Congressional leadership stood up and declared to the American people "WE HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THIS. We can impeach and remove them! And YOU can make it happen!" it would be body blow to the fascists. Victory is not just possible; there are compelling reasons to conclude it is probable. But even if a vote on a bill of impeachment lost in the House or Senate, the fight itself gives Americans who are angry at Bush a way to express their anger. Instead of alienating and earning the disdain of the public, the Party would be engaging them. And each person engaged is more likely to stay in the fight and make it possible for us to win future victories against the fascists.

The way to truly "accomplish things for the American people" is to ENGAGE the American people in accomplishing things for themselves.

If the leadership takes up the fight to remove bushncheney from office, they wouldn't just be doing the right thing -- fulfilling their oath; fighting to rescue the Constitution; strengthening our democracy by engaging more of the electorate -- they'd be doing the WINNING thing. The entire Party would reap the political benefits that go with such demonstrations of fortitude and commitment to principle.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Yes, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicanites would not

be running around acting like ninnies.

If a Democratic president had violated this many Constitutional provisions, the Republicanites would be writing op-eds, appearing on national and local news programs, and networking with people to promote impeachment. They would buy time on national TV and appeal directly to the American people to call and write their Congresscritters to ask for impeachment.

The Dems have plenty of grounds for impeachment. They don't currently have the votes, but that's their fault for not pushing their colleagues and convincing some of the moderate Republicans to join them--and an appeal to the public could push some of the fence sitters off the fence onto the correct side.

[pat_k]

24. Opps -- typo. Meant "Unless they treat it. . ."

[illinoisprogressive]

22. Excellent post. I feel very much like the speaker and I am very much against Hillary for same

she is simply unacceptable and I will not vote for her. I am one who will revolt if she is the nominee.
the problem is that half our party feels this way and yet you cannot get word out about it. the media insists on shoving her at us and won't recognize the half of the party that rejects Hillary.

[illinoisprogressive]

23. the gop is imploding and if we nominate Hillary- that will finish our party for sure

[Demeter]

26. Why Should 2008 Be Any Different Than 2007?

Same people, same shit, different day. Same outcome.