"But WHY Are Our Dem Leaders Such Timid Wimps?"

[dajoki]

When the Dems caved on the first war funding bill I gave them a pass, thinking that they had a plan up their sleeves. It turned out I was wrong!! Ever since they took the majority they continue to act like the minority. Important bills, as outlined in Weiner's blog have been, at the least ignored by our leadership and at worst conspired against by them.

I'll take the latter. How else can you explain what Reid did with Dodd's "hold" on the FISA bill? Reid chose to ignore Dodd's request, which is a violation of traditonal senatorial courtesy. Why would the Majority Leader diss one of his own senators in the face of Administration criticism? Looks like a complex cave to me, which, when added to so many others, underlines the unwillingness by Reid (and Speaker Pelosi in the House) to act like a true party of opposition.

They have been getting away with these kinds of cowardly acts all along. Are they still afraid of being branded as "traitors" by this administration? I don't think so. To me it seems like political expedience(don't rock the boat)because it always seems like they only care about the next election.

When is it the last straw? And what is the alternative?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Weiner's blog
But WHY Are Our Dem Leaders Such Timid Wimps?
Oct 24 2007 - 9:10am
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/10618

When I was in Germany recently, addressing the Democrats Abroad chapter ( www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/suicide.htm ) in Munich, most of us in the meeting hall were perplexed by the behavior of Democratic Party officials in Washington, D.C. What is behind those leaders' ongoing timidity that in some cases is making them enablers of the worst of CheneyBush policies, especially with regard to the Iraq Occupation, excessive presidential powers, and the trashing of the Constitution?

With those topics in mind, let's spend a bit of time here trying to figure out the possible genesis of this Democratic wimpiness, and what can be done about it.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid appear to be saying: "Given our relatively slim margins in both the House and Senate, and Bush's newfound desire to use the veto pen, we find it much more useful to try to peel off enough moderate Republicans to our side on a number of issues in order to get some positive legislation passed. Passing defunding-the-war resolutions, or ones authorizing an impeachment panel, for example, might make us feel good but they might well alienate the very moderate Republicans and Independents we're trying to lure to our side. We want to get legislation passed for the American people and that's where we should be focusing our energies, not on distracting, bash-the-Administration resolutions that stand little chance of accomplishing anything while making our legislative work more difficult."

If that is the motivation for much of the Democratic leadership's timidity, I would disagree with the strategy but at least I could understand the reasoning behind it. In many cases, however, I think that argument is a smokescreen for deeper motivations.

I haven't heard any Democratic leaders say this out loud, but it's likely that privately a number prefer the Iraq Occupation to continue through Bush's tenure because that way it's "Bush's War," a "Republican war," and the margin of victory for the Democrats in 2008 could be even bigger, given the massive unpopularity of the Iraq war in the country. If this cynical point of view is actually operable, those Democrats would have blood on their hands; all the U.S. forces and the Iraqi civilians will suffer in the next 15 months because some Machiavellian Democrats waited to act to remove the troops until after the presidential election.

What I suspect is actually going on for most Democrats is Karl Rove Syndrome. They fear that if they don't continue funding Bush's war in Iraq, they might be blamed if something goes even more disastrously wrong on the ground there (because they didn't "support the troops"); they might well be swiftboated as being "unpatriotic" or insufficiently "anti-terrorist." In short, these Dems don't want to do anything that could jeopardize their re-election chances or those of new Democratic candidates for Congress.

OK, though I find that attitude somewhat cowardly -- and immoral, as an awful lot of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians will be killed and maimed in the next 15 months -- at least one can understand its partisan political roots.

THE TENDENCY TO CAVE EARLY

But how does one explain so many other caves by the Democratic leadership? Good example from last week: The revised FISA bill contained a retroactive amnesty for the giant telecoms that violated the privacy rights of American citizens in the domestic-spying operation run by CheneyBush's National Security Agency. (Incidentally, we now have learned that the data-mining started early in the Bush presidency, long before the tragic events of 9/11.) ( www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/17009 ) The Dems fought that amnesty clause but finally gave in. (Interestingly, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, who has accepted large contributions from the telecoms, ( http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00001685&cycle=2006 ) capitulated early. )

But that's not the most flagrant retreat to which I'm referring here. Sen. Christopher Dodd, who is in the running for the Democratic presidential nomination, alerted Majority Leader Reid that he was going to put a "hold" on the bill, so as to not give Congress' imprimatur to unconstitutional law-breaking by giant corporations. Reid chose to ignore Dodd's request, which is a violation of traditonal senatorial courtesy. Why would the Majority Leader diss one of his own senators in the face of Administration criticism? Looks like a complex cave to me, which, when added to so many others, underlines the unwillingness by Reid (and Speaker Pelosi in the House) to act like a true party of opposition.

Another example is Pelosi separating herself from the tough comments of Rep. Pete Stark, who denounced his Republican colleagues' upholding of Bush's veto of the S-CHIP bill extending health care to poor and lower-middle-class children. Bush said the bill spent too much money, but Stark reminded his Republican colleagues that they always seem to find the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to fund the Iraq Occupation but claim not to have enough money to help sick kids. Stark's courage in stating the obvious should be applauded, not dumped on by the Democratic leadership.

But maybe we shouldn't be too surprised by Pelosi's cowardice. After all, she gave away the game when she announced in the run-up to the 2006 midterm election that impeachment would be "off the table" if the Democrats became the majority in Congress. Impeachment is the remedy called for by the Constitution, th ultimate weapon that can be used against an Executive Branch that has run amok with its power. Pelosi's pledge means that the Republicans can carry on as usual knowing that Bush and Cheney will never face any accountability for their illegal, immoral and self-destructive actions.

Nancy Pelosi is my Representative in Congress, and I've written her numerous times to try to find out the reasoning behind her "off the table" decision. Her replies are generic blather without ever responding to the question. I can understand why she might have made that "off the table" remark prior to the 2006 election, so as to not scare away moderate Republicans who might be amenable to voting for Democrats. But the situation is different now, and CheneyBush have not altered their domestic and foreign extremism. Plans are proceeding apace for an air attack on Iran, for example. Thus, voters would understand if impeachment were to be put back "on the table" as a weapon-in-reserve to make CheneyBush think twice about continuing their rampaging policies.

Suppose, for example, Congress were to pass a bill saying that absent an imminent threat from Iran against the United States, a CheneyBush attack on that country would be, ipso facto, grounds for immediate impeachment. That might concentrate their minds a bit. Powerful forces inside the Pentagon, opposed to an all-out, shock&awe attack on Iran's military infrastructure and weapons labs, reportedly have made CheneyBush alter their plan ( www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27889 ) to one relying more on surgical strikes.)

[jeff30997]

1. Because the Repukes have...

Photos of them in embarrassing situations ?:shrug:

[The Traveler]

2. Something is hidden

I don't know what it is, but there is either a hidden agenda the Democratic leadership is attempting to serve, or some hidden threat they are attempting to placate. There is something that causes me to think the latter is the case. It is not something I can quite put my finger on, but there is much about their actions and demeanor that suggests a person desperately trying to buy time.

I look around and regard how all these mechanisms of tyranny have been put in place, all ostensibly for our protection from the bad men who want to hurt us. But are any of us so naieve we would doubt the speed with which those mechanisms could be turned against us? All that is missing is a military willing to usurp the Constitution. And when I consider that, I regard recent revelations about the degree to which the Dominionists have succeeded at inserting true believers into the officer's corps of the Army and Air Force.

Perhaps our leaders fear even more than the typical DU poster that the fabric of our Constitution democracy is stretched to the tearing point.

[dajoki]

3. I truly hate to say this...

but I agree about the hidden threat or something on that order. I would like to believe that they do have a hidden agenda, but their actions have become all to predictable.