The Democratic Party's disconnect

[Jack Rabbit]

There is a disconnect between rank and file Democrats on the one hand and the party's congressional leadership and the DLC on the other.

Rank and file Democrats are angry. They do not not see Bush and his lieutenants as just another conservative administration with whom they have some differences, some profound, about economic issues. Yet the Democratic leadership insists on treating the Bush regime as if it is just another conservative administration and continue to treat it with deference.

To many rank and file Democrats, Bush is not even legitimately president. Free and fair elections were denied to the people of Florida in 2000 and to the people of Florida and Ohio in 2004. These were key states that could have been won by the Democratic candidate in a fair contest.

The regime has used its power to enrich those who have foot the bill for Bush's rise to power through tax cuts and from putting some of Bush's corporate cronies in key regulatory positions. Conflict of interest is a hallmark of the Bush regime.

Even Mr. Cheney's shepherding of post-war reconstruction contracts in Iraq for Halliburton, of which he was once CEO, without competitive bidding smacks of a serious conflict of interest. Add to that that there was absolutely no truth behind any of Mr. Cheney's pre-war statements about the threat posed by Iraq and Mr. Cheney's frequent trips to Langley, presumably to strong arm intelligence analysts, and one gets the idea that the invasion was staged solely for the benefit of war profiteers.

Many rank and file Democrats, this one included, want Bush and Cheney impeached and removed, period. They feel betrayed by the party's leadership that just doesn't get it.

Bush and Cheney, along with Mr. Rumsfeld and Dr. Rice and others, manipulated intelligence reports prior to invading Iraq in order to make a bogus case for war. That by itself makes Watergate look like petty crime and anything related to banging an intern in the back room look like a parking ticket. It isn't just an impeachable offense, it's a war crime.

And that isn't all.

Mr. Bush has, with the counsel of Mr. Gonzales, have disregarded treaties to which the United States is party concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and other war detainees and residents of occupied territory and of the administration of occupied territory. This is in violation of the supreme law of the land clause of Article 6 of the Constitution. These treaty violations consist of torture and humiliating treatment and of the denial of due process in judicial proceedings. Again, these are not just impeachable offenses, these are war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Bush and Cheney have demonstrated a reckless disregard for and even hostility toward the constitutional rights of private citizens. Mr. Bush authorized, partly on Mr. Cheney's counsel and that of Mr. Gonzales, instituted a program of warrantless wire tapping against private citizens in plain violation of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, Mr. Bush lied about this program in 2004, publicly stating that a warrant was needed to implement such action, months after authorizing the NSA to implement wire taps without warrants. With the counsel of Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Bush has incarcerated American citizens indefinitely without charge in plain violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Finally, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney showed a disregard for the national security of the United States by conspiring with several of their aides, including Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove, to disclose the identity of an undercover agent of the CIA as part of a political vendetta against the agent's husband, who has publicly questioned how the Bush regime used and even demonstrated how the regime falsified intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq.

These are grounds for the impeachment of not only of Mr. Bush, but of Mr. Cheney, Dr. Rice, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Gonzales. The grounds are serious, valid and urgent. Yet Democratic leaders even balk at a wimpy process like censure.

Impeachment is not going to happen unless the people make it a priority. The politicians certainly haven't.

[Liberal Dose]

1. K & R

I am SICK of having my concerns kicked aside while the Dem leadership tries to appeal to people who will NEVER VOTE FOR THEM.

:banghead:

The only war conservatives are interested in fighting is the one on US. WE are their only enemy, and their hatred polarizes them against us.

[The Magistrate]

2. Indeed, My Friend

One of my favorite political quotes is the cry of Radical politician in nineteenth century France during an outbreak of riotous crowds in Paris over some now forgotten issue: "Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!" No political figure has ever put the essential element of democratic rule so succinctly, or so clearly defined the real role of the politician within it.

What politicians of our Party say on the subject of investigation and impeachment is immaterial: what degree and intensity of outcry we can create and maintain in the subject is essential. In the final analysis, politicians have little choice but to accommodate popular outcry, particularly when this demonstrates the ability to provide many bodies and much money.

We should beat the drum for impeachment daily: we should demand it in the most strident tones as the vindication of the Constitution against high crimes of state that any patriotic American loyal to that document and the country and its ideals has no choice but to require of our representative givernment. That is, after all, precisely what it is, and while truth is hardly essential for success in a political line, it can certainly be helpful to it at times, and this is one of them.

Sooner or later, political leaders will have no choice but to take up positions at the head of the crowd. We just have to make it unmistakeable how numerous is the crowd, and just where it is congregated....

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Absolutely

We should beat the drum for impeachment daily: we should demand it in the most strident tones as the vindication of the Constitution against high crimes of state that any patriotic American loyal to that document and the country and its ideals has no choice but to require of our representative government.

It's simply not going to happen if we don't demand it. Never before, not even with Nixon and the White House horrors, has there been an occupant of the White House so hostile to the constitutional process.

Bush has long been a threat to democratic institutions. It's time to rescue them.

[KoKo]

42. Magistrate....lately my worry is that we no longer have Politicians.

We have tools of the corporatists. And, the few "voices of the people" mainly the Progressive and Black Caucus in the House are drowned out.

Most of us remember the "ideal" of what we "thought" being a 'Politician' meant. We knew they might take some "money on the side" at least we'd read or heard about some like that but we always figured we had the right to throw them out if they stepped over a line. We remembr them with smiley faces and hands outreached ...as affable likeable folks who needed to get along with people to get elected.

How many Repugs fit the "affable glad handers" beholden to a few crooks but still scared they will be voted out in the next election if they don't listen to the "people."

Any view of C-Span will show the scowling faces of most Repugs along with a few "glad handers" of the past like Jeff Sessions, Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch. But more likely one sees hard bitten partisans whose face shows the inner corrupt soul.

There are few there who aren't more beholden to their Corporate Lobbyists to write their legislation and the Think Tanks and Political Machines who run the ads that turn out their partisan voters.

On the Left we have cowered, nuanced Dems who act like they can't remember when the bus hit them...and how they ended up on life support.

I think the term Politician in folks minds today goes back to old movies they saw as a kid. For good or bad and inbetween. These days Politics is such a huge business it's hard to separate the business from the governing because it's the business that governs.

[paulk]

45. it's not so much a failure of leadership as a debate over strategy

We can't get impeachment without investigations, we can't get investigations without control of at least one house of Congress.

The question is - will calls for impeachment by the Democratic leadership help or hurt our chances of achieving that goal?

[Bryan Buchan]

3. Then influence and change the way the

dems function and work for the people. Do something! Get out there and kick some DLC ass, work for progressive liberal democratic candidates...Stand Up...Take Action...Vote...Join PDA

http://www.pdamerica.org

[babylonsister]

4. You speak for me, Jack Rabbit! Thank you!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Warpy]

5. YES!!

But don't expect party conservatives to realize either of two things: that they are the MINORITY and that they are DEAD WRONG.

The only way to get rid of the ones in power is to THROW THEM OUT! In this spirit, I will be voting Green in the upcoming Senatorial race. The man simply has not earned my vote and should not be returned. We can get rid of his replacement in 2012 if his replacement is as bad or worse.

If you love what your government leaders are doing, keep voting for them. However, if you don't, VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT, every last one of them, their party is irrelevant.

I will be voting a straight contrarian ticket this year. I will be voting against ALL incumbents.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Critique of the contrarian vote

In order to proceed with regime change (aka impeachment of Bush and Cheney), the Democrats will need to take control of at least the House of Representatives and preferably the Senate as well. That will give Democrats like John Conyers, who will become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the power to issue subpoenas and launch a real investigation into the regime's many misdeeds.

There are many very disappointing Democrats, such as Joe Lieberman and Jane Harman. However, unless these people change parties, they are going to vote with the Democrats on the continuing resolution in January that will make regime change possible.

For that, I'll hold my nose and vote for them.

[Warpy]

13. Disappointing Democrats won't vote for impeachment anyway

Nor will they vote favorably on other issues.

Fire them. Keep firing incumbents until they remember who their real bosses are.

Of course, there are exceptions, very few of them. However, even they tend to have Beltway Blinders firmly in place on the war, on the Patriot {sic} Act, and on other issues. Let your conscience be your guide when it comes to Conyers, Boxer, Feingold.

I have hated what my government has done for the past 37 years. I will keep voting to fire them.

I've had enough of government of the people by the rich and for the rich.

To hell with all of them.

[pberq]

6. Kick & Nominated !

[freefall]

7. So true, Jack Rabbit, especially the part about these people being

war criminals. I will be attending my state's Democratic convention in two weeks. I intend to wear my ImpeachBush t-shirt to all but the formal events. It will be interesting to see how I am received.

Every time I get a solicitation from one of the conservative "Democratic" organizations such as the DLC, DCCC, etc. I send it back with a note saying that I will continue to contribute to individual Progressive Democrats and to the Progressive Patriot Fund (Russ Feingold's PAC) but will not contribute to or work for their organization.

Does anyone know if Al Gore has a PAC?

Peace,

freefall

K&R :kick:

[Jack Rabbit]

8. My letter to Ms. Pelosi

Mme Leader:

I sincerely hope that your remarks on Meet the Press yesterday. "impeachment is off the table," is not your final word on the matter.

Let me preface any further remarks with the following link, which I posted online this morning:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Jack%20Rabbit/49

The fact is that there are already valid and urgent reason to impeach and remove not only Mr. Bush, but Mr. Cheney and three of the four top cabinet officers as well.

I am aware that impeachment will probably take place after the House reconvenes with a Democratic majority in January, when you will be elected Speaker. I am also aware, as are you, that were Messrs. Bush and Cheney be impeached and removed from office under those circumstances, as they ought to be, that you will be the President of the United States.

That, of course, makes it impolitic for you to speak out too forcefully on the issue. Nevertheless, this is not the time to try to talk down impeachment. It is necessary and proper that the Bush regime be ousted from power.

I, for one, have no doubt that you do not harbor any presidential ambitions. If you do not feel you are suited to be president, then I would suggest that you step aside in January and allow the Democratic caucus to choose as Speaker someone who is. We, the people, are going to lead you politicians forward in the move to impeach Bush and Cheney, kicking and screaming if necessary.

Sincerely,

XXX
(aka Jack Rabbit)

[peacetheonlyway]

18. I agree...

Jack Rabbit, you are a Star.

This was a courageous letter written to Pelosi.

It is absolutely ILL ADVISED for any democrat to think impeachment is OFF THE TABLE.

let's start leading them kicking and screaming to impeachment..

I'm keeping my eye on Conyers.. he will come surprise us all in the end!

[Tim Osman]

21. Right On

The outright refusal of impeachment = complicity

[mom cat]

9. Spot on! ... K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

10. You speak for me as well... * never was and never will be MY President.

[tom_paine]

14. K & R

[happydreams]

15. ...

Neo-liberalism/Trilateralism

[yardwork]

16. I agree! Bravo!

[droidamus2]

17. Their useless...

As far as I am concerned the DLC (what does that stand for Democratic Lite Cowards???) is useless. They have no backbone and are more interested in protecting their positions in Washington than building a strong Democratic party that can compete in any state, county or district in this country. Howard Dean has it right when he says the Democrats meed to build grassroots organizations in those areas that we have a hard time winning now. The DLC just wants to use all the campaign money to make sure they retain their seats, they are the Democrats that don't stand for anything. In my opinion the members of the DLC should just be honest with themselves and register as Republicans.

[NativeTexan]

19. Can't help but agree with most of this, but impeachment....

...if successful, gives you Cheney...impeach Cheney, you get Hastert....and so on.

Now after the election, you might be able to impeach your way to a President Pelosi.....but that is only IF you get TWO convictions. I am less in favor of a President Cheney, than I am a President Bush, and I CAN'T STAND BUSH!!!

But, for sure, AFTER we take back the Congress, the supoena power will make life a LOT more fun!!

But otherwise, this Clintonian Democrat is right there with you. These people are at least incompetent, and more probably EVIL!!

The country was taken by a bloodless coup...no doubt. Oil companies are now deciding public policy, along with prescription drug companies.

[Tim Osman]

23. If Bush is held accountable and punished,

then maybe, just maybe, President *vomits in mouth* Cheney might learn that there are indeed penalties for this kind of nefarious behavior. Fucking scare the rest!

[NativeTexan]

25. Never happen.....just be going from Hitler to.......

......Goering!!

[Jack Rabbit]

26. The point is to impeach simultaneously

We know Cheney is just as much a crook as Bush. You are correct that it would be pointless to impeach Bush just to get Cheney. So the idea is to impeach them both at the same time.

[Senator]

29. No, "waiting" and "after" only makes it partisan -- not principled.

And therefore more likely to fail.

Forget about Cheney. There's nothing to stop simultaneous removal and no other credible way to do it. The 2 are equally guilty and responsible. Cheney has been a far worse "public" offender.

It needs to be demanded now to be morally and patriotically credible.

In fact, we could well get it done without the help of our "fearful leaders" among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy.

We just offer the choice: "It's Pres. Hastert now or Pres. Pelosi later. You decide."

If this notion got spread around a bit we could well have them out of office before the mid-terms. (Yes, really.)

--

[NativeTexan]

39. I don't see how, because.......

.....the Repugs will never allow it to even come to a vote in the House, meaning it is dead before it starts.

There is nothing unprincipled about waiting until you can accomplish your goals, instead of failing due to a lack of majority, THEN trying again when you DO have it.

SOMETIMES, it takes a tactical maneuver to reverse a bloodless coup!!

[Senator]

43. It's not about "winning," or maneuvers, or tactics, or the Repugs

It's about the truth and standing up for it. Failure to make an honest accusation, when warranted, is no different than lying to protect the perpetrators.

It's just like failing to object to unlawful electors on Jan. 6th (2001 and 2005); which makes one complicit with the stolen elections. Fascism depends on such cowardice (always spun as strategy) to thrive.

The irony is that it is also an awful strategy/tactic. If the Dems would stand and accuse they'd garner 5 to 7 percent of the white male demographic almost immediately because that group respects (and follows) strength in leaders, even the faux PR strengthiness that they wrap the bushkid in.

The beltway analysts, in their obsession to poll-test their way to getting the last half of one percent of swing voters, seem blind to this simple reality.

If the Dems launched a real party-wide call for impeachment right now they'd instantly "nationalize" the '06 elections; something which terrifies Rove. They'd also create a real chance (I'd say 15-20%) that enough Repubs (after 6 years of horrors) would "see the wisdom" of returning to the "reality-based community" and join the impeachment effort for the good of the country. Only a few would have to opt for honest Americanism over the bushkid's faith-based Stalinism to start the snowball down the hill.

Even on the "cautiousness scale," which rules the actions of the DC Dems, opposing impeachment is senseless. There is simply no downside to fear. There has been no sign of the touted backlash. In fact, since impeachment/censure has been "out there" (months now) the bushkid's numbers have continued to fall -- and from his core base (the "get him!" "get him!" crowd).

But this all may be irrelevant. The truth has a power of its own and everyday more and more (former) Americans are realizing that a bona fide war criminal sits in a stolen White House from which he terrorized the nation with a bomb threat of "muchroom clouds" and from where he continues to spy on them and lie to them with sociopathic ease.

Even the tiniest event could break open the floodgates.

---

[NativeTexan]

44. You are making good points, and I am starting to see....

....the thought process you have put into this. I guess my point was, not so much winning, as it was actually making impeachment stick. With your thoughts about repugs having to wake up and look around, there could be some merit there.

Very good posts, and a very good discussion. You have given this moderate Dem something to chew on here....THANKS!!

[Martin Eden]

20. Are truth and justice still the American way?

If so, it is the duty of our elected representatives in Congress to expose the truth and to be proponents of justice. Failure to do so is to abandon the foundation of our Constitional government: the rule of law. This is an imperative that transcends partisan politics. If high crimes are ignored on the basis of electoral political considerations, a conscious choice has been made that imperils the integrity of our system of government. The checks and balances integral to our Constitution are meaningless if the people sworn to uphold them have other priorities. Impeachment is the Constitutionally mandated means for Congress to remove members of the Executive branch who have violated their oath of office.

Have high crimes been committed by the current administration? The body of evidence demands no less than a full investigation by the House Judiciary Committe with the power of subpeona on at least four separate issues: the manipulation of intelligence leading to the war in Iraq; the contravention of international treaties on the treatment of prisoners; the issuance of signing statements by which the president asserts his authority to circumvent laws passed by Congress; and the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. These issues must be resolved by means other than avoidance. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people have the right to know what their government is doing. Our elected representatives have a sworn duty to uphold the law.

The House Democratic Leader does not have the right, before all the evidence is examined, to decide that impeachment is "off the table." She may as well declare that due process of law is suspended. The Democratic Party should neither call for impeachment nor take it off the table. Instead, they shold demand on behalf of the American people a full investoigation to determine the truth and enforce the laws of our nation. If the pursuit of truth and justice is a losing strategy in American politics today, then woe unto us and our prospects for a better furture.

[Tim Osman]

22. and please, please, pleeease

don't nominate Hillary. She doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

[TankLV]

24. Excellent post, Mr. Rabbit!

as usual.

[zonmoy]

27. could it be

that the democratic leadership is both completely corrupt and fully aware that short of all progressives and uncorrupted democrats created a third party they can do whatever they bloody want and the progressives will have no other choice than to vote for them.

[Gloria]

28. Well said--kick

Blatant lawbreaking is now OK...I don't hear any squawking about "role models" but we sire heard it during Monicagate....

The Dems don't seem to have a connection to the gut, whereas the Republicans (and Colbert), do.

[LeFleur1]

33. Pelosi

Pelosi said that the Democrats weren't going to campaign on 'impeachment'. It's off the table. She also said there would be investigations and "we'll see where they lead."

I suppose, to make it clear to those who don't get it she should have said, "If, during the investigations we find impeachable crimes have been committed, we will impeach."
Her meaning was evidently too subtle for those who love to hear what they want to hear. Some on this forum twist the facts and opinions in the same way the neocons twist the facts/opinions they hear. It's mean spirited and depressing and it doesn't help the country.
Pelosi spoke up in the beginning when no one else would. She has sometimes been the first and the only person to stand and take the flack from this ding dong administration for criticizing their actions. We should be standing with her, not using the old neocon character assassination tool.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. Yes, that's an very good point

I, for one, am willing to take "investigations" as shorthand for investigations and impeachment. There really can be no doubt that one won't lead to the other.

However, her language was aimed at discouraging talk of impeachment at a time when that is something that ought to be discussed by the public, if not the politicians who represent the public. Let Ken Mehlman try to do the discouraging. That's his job.

[Gloria]

41. Yes, I know that the plan is investigations first because

the public could be turned off by impeachment talk. Wes Clark is pushing for investigations and even more strongly, he specifies Bush as needing to be made accountable. This approach was discussed on Franken a few days ago.

Blatant lawbreaking can and SHOULD be discussed, in each specific instance. It is useful in building a case for later on, preparing the groundwork and pointing out the lawbreaking would be useful for the fall elections on their own merit. Not to talk about is like not even campaigning, not even believing in the law, not even trying to put the country's standards back on a higher track. Once the public is woken up to the transgressions, then impeachment is a less risky move.

I don't think the approach is bad, but to soft peddle the transgressions now and for the campaign season IS.

[appnzllr]

30. Let's get real

The Democratic Party is in a hard position. They are trying not to look like they are radically left, since the Republican Party keeps pushing the debate further and further to the right. What is now centrist or moderate is what used to be conservative. The Democratic Party cannot get back into power by just appealing to its base. It also has to attract the undecided, those who could vote either way. The Republican Party has framed the debate, and because of this they have been able to make it look like they are the party of moral values and national defense. And since the media is either cowed or is an outright publicity arm of the White House and the Republican Congress, it is hard for the Democrats to get their message across. The recent problems of this administration have helped the cause of the Democratic Party, but that may not be enough. Those who consider themselves to be the base of the party need to be patient and vote Democratic in primaries and in the coming election in November. Then, if the Democrats can take the House and/or the Senate, we can see what they do. If they ignore the real moral issues of poverty and healthcare, etc., then the base of the Democratic Party may have something to complain about. It is time to be patient and show loyalty.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Response

The Democratic Party is in a hard position. They are trying not to look like they are radically left . . . .

As Malcolm X said, "Of course I am an extremist; the problem is extremely bad."

The Republicans have done more than just shift the debate to the right over the last thirty or forty years. They have shifted politics to the right. I don't mean politics in just the partisan sense of the word; rather, I mean it in the higher sense of the word where we discuss not simply who shall represent us and what programs those representative shall put in place in the short term, but on what bedrock principles shall guide them in the long term.

What is right wing is defined by the notion that certain people have a right to rule over others. The distinguishing characteristic of the rulers may be heredity, race, religion, wealth, gender or some other characteristic that makes some one inherently "better" than another.

The neoconservative philosophy is a right wing attempt to impose an anti-democratic rule of the industrial aristocracy on the rest of us. The children of the ghettos and barrios fight the wars; the children of wealth and privilege are exempt and attend Yale or Harvard in order to prepare to govern and lead the nation into the next war, whose purpose is to force open markets for the benefit of the ruling class.

This sounds like a lot of Marxist mumbo-jumbo, but it is almost as if the neoconservatives have stood Marxism on its head: they believe all history is the history of class warfare and they have committed themselves to the victory of the elites over the masses.

In their view, the only thing that matters is power. Power begets power. Once in power, the idea is strip away institutional threats to power. Lies are told to justify wars. Those who own information outlets determine what information the public shall have and what opinion shall and shall not be heard. Their is no government censorship, but, as Amy Goodman asked: if there were, would we know the difference? If that isn't sufficient to control debate, the government will violate civil liberties in order to stifle dissent. A unitary executive makes the decisions about what is acceptable and what is not. A citizen has the right to a fair and speedy trial, unless the unitary executive decides the citizen is an enemy combatant. What is that? Just trust the unitary executive to know; good citizens have no reason to fear him.

One may challenge the idea that America has ever truly been a democracy. In the beginning, the franchise was restricted to White, male property owners and slavery was legal. Even as slavery was abolished and the franchise expanded, the wealthy used their assets to exercise a discorportionate influence over what is putatively popular government. Nevertheless, the right to vote and to express one's views and worship as one pleased were, until now, sacrosanct.

The neoconservative America I have described is not the America I learned about in my eighth grade civics class, when I had a teacher who made me memorize the Constitution with all its archaic spelling and punctuation. There was nothing of a left wing radical about this woman; she would often slip an ultraconservative view into her lessons. But I wonder what she would have to say about the Patriot Act or NSA snooping without a warrant.

The authority of the elites cannot perpetuate itself in a system that promotes free of speech and thought or a free flow of information and ideas. There is nothing conservative about a neoconservative. Conservatives like Goldwater and Rudman believed in small government, constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and fiscal responsibility. Bush and Cheney believe in an expansive national security state that spies on citizens, throws enemies into prison without charges, depends on a supine media that covers Paris Hilton's sexual exploits rather than exposes their lies and fuck ups and a fiscal policy of reducing taxes to the wealthy and borrowing money and spending it like there is no tomorrow.

Why is it that Democrats are concerned about appearing "too radically left"? That is just a phantom. The real issue is that the Republicans are too radically right, so much so that they must now be thought in terms of hostility to constitutional rights and the abandonment of common sense.

Of course, we should expect the Democrats to take initiatives on poverty and health care, which are issues of politics in the lesser sense of the word. However, this is no time to be patient or move slowly on issues of politics in the higher sense. If we are to maintain a government that invites public participation in civic affairs and, to that end, guarantees a set of civil liberties to facilitate public discourse, if we are to continue to expect a government that levels with citizens about why it is acting as it does, especially about going to war, then defeating neoconservatives is insufficient. We must remove them from power and bury them with a stake through their hearts.

Impeachment and removal followed by criminal proceedings and incarceration is the proper remedy for the neoconservative disease that afflicts the American body politic.

[appnzllr]

47. Keeping it real

From the standpoint of the Democratic base, the Republicans are far to the right. I agree with that. However, what do they look like to the voter that the Democrats need to appeal to? What does the swing voter, the average American, think of the Republican Party's stances? Do they see the shift? Or do they think that the Republicans are making some good points? My point is that the voters that the Democrats need to appeal to in order to throw these bozos out of power are the ones who don't realize how far to the right the Republican Party has gone. If they think that the Republican Party is still centrist, then it is -- except that the center has moved. Therefore, the Democrats are further from the center. That's the point. The Democrats cannot get back into power just by satisfying the base of the Democratic Party. They have to appeal to other voters who are willing to swing or switch back away from the stances of the Republican Party. Do you think that by some magic all of the swing voters will suddenly believe just the same as the Democratic base? It's not going to happen -- no matter how right we think we are. We have to appeal to those voters where they are. If the Democratic base gets more and more frustrated about what the Democratic Party is doing that they do things like staying away from the polls or supporting the Green Party or something idiotic like that, then the Republicans will be in power for a LONG time.

I have to say though that any Democrat should be more than a little annoyed with Liebermann. (He should just switch to the Republican Party.) I am also disappointed with some of the things that Hillary has done.

[whododayis]

31. face it. most elected dems smile at us but they know we aren't leaving

the third party option isn't an option for many in the party, and until we get a high profile (feingold or boxer) to announce that they're going independant/third party, the movement will never become more than a pipedream. Remember what the repubs did when Perot tried to break off a segment of the GOP and was summarily stomped and ripped. Unfortunately, the pointy heads that lead the Democrats will likely do something similar to whoever leads our movement, which is why they treat us like the weird uncle that you see at Christmas. They smile nice at us, ask us for our presents, votes and contributions, listen to our stories and pretend to act interested, and then forget about us and what we think before they even pull out of the driveway. Anybody have an opinion on this?

[Jack Rabbit]

37. For now, we're not leaving

For now, the goal is purely a negative one: remove Bush and the neoconservatives from power. That is necessary for any positive action that will follow.

To achieve that end, progressives, moderates and sober conservatives should reach out to each other.

After that, we can act like Democrats again.

[kiteinthewind]

32. Ditto! nt

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[CrispyQ]

34. This pretty much sums up how I feel:

"Many rank and file Democrats, this one included, want Bush and Cheney impeached and removed, period. They feel betrayed by the party's leadership that just doesn't get it."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

38. Why are all Democrats not demanding impeachment?

What do they get out of NOT demanding it?

[sadiesworld]

46. What do they get out of it?

Another ride on the gravy train?

[ulysses]

40. thought I'd give it a bit

before I offered my usual agreement. What I wouldn't give to get you and several others in our company together.