The Senate Dems have 49 votes...Give Reid credit

[cally]

The Dems have a bare majority in the Senate. Leiberman is a wildcard and a crazy hawk. Johnson is ailing. If the Dems took away his Chairmanship then I would expect him to caucus with the Reps. All of you who advocate Reid and the Dems attacking Leiberman now, remember the consequences. Leiberman is not up for election for six years. I wish he hadn't won re-election, but he did. If the Dem leadership alienate him enough, then McConell will lead the Senate. Remember that right now Reid determines what bills are brought up. If we lose the majority, none of the Dem proposals will hit the floor.

The smartest option for Reid is to make the Republicans pay for their filibuster. Give Pelosi and Reid credit. The initial Dem agenda passed in the House is very politically popular. The Reps will try, and maybe succeed, in thwarting passage. They have the votes but not the public will. I think letting the Reps filibuster yesterday's resolution is very smart politics. The Reps facing re-election will not find this plays well in their states (well, it will be OK in a few) Politics is a messy business and I think Reid knows how to fight and win.

I have a wish list for the Dems that I think most of you share. End the Iraq war, use diplomacy in Iran and stop another ill thought out war, protect choice, and most important, address the impending global warming crisis. None of these issues have the support of a majority of Congress. It's up to us to pressure them to vote the way we want.

[WI_DEM]

1. you're right, but I so hope we can expand our majority by a couple of seats or more in '08

so we can tell Lieberman to go Cheney himself.

[Donnachaidh]

2. uhhh -- Lieberman is ALREADY caucusing with the thugs

This does NOT bode well for the rest of the year. Do you really think that power-mad little gremlin is going to step back from the Dark Side? I sure as hell DON'T. :rant:

[cally]

6. He is not caucusing with the Reps

He is voting for the Iraq war but he still gives the Dem a majority.

[Donnachaidh]

9. yeah, I'll keep my opinion on the next few votes

I say he IS already caucusing - and his votes will prove it.

[theboss]

14. You don't know what caucusing is, do you?

These arguments never cease to amaze me.

[LSK]

12. then explain to me why Biden, Levin and Leahy are chairing hearings?

:shrug:

[haymark]

3. If Reid can't lead

What good is he? Are we suppose to wait till 60 Dems can be elected? How many cycles will that take? If Reid can't get things done who is going to come out and vote for more Dems...probable voters will be demoralized and DU can't do it all.

[Cocoa]

4. so what does he give the republicans to get the votes?

what deal do you want him to make with McConnell?

[cally]

7. Are you saying that Reid can't lead?

It may not be as fast or far as we want, but Reid is leading.

[MadHound]

5. A majority in the Senate, same in the House,

That's what we have, that's what we need. Now the Senate and House Dems need to take a lesson from the 'Pugs in how to get their troops to march in lockstep on the important things, like ending the war NOW.

The people who are dying and suffering in Iraq, soldiers and civilians alike, can't fucking wait until we get a bigger majority to work with, or until the Dems get their shit together, or whatever the reason of the day is. Because every minute wasted, every day gone is simply flushing more lives down the drain. You may be able to live with that, but I certainly can't.

The Dems were given these majorities by the American people, and we had one clear message in mind when we did so, END THE GODDAMN WAR ASAP! If these Dems can't or won't do that, then we absolutely have to get rid of them and put in those who can do the job. It is that simple. Stop focusing on '08 and instead look at the here and now. Take care of this problem in front of us and '08 will take care of itself. Don't take care of this problem and '08 won't matter.

[cally]

10. We don't have a filibuster proof majority and we don't have a majority

We need more votes in the Senate.

[MadHound]

13. Neither did the 'Pugs during the past six years

Yet did the Dems dare to filibuster? Hell no! They wanted to play nice, be bipartisan, please their goddamn corporate masters! And we the American people got fucking steamrolled by the results of that shit. Now that we have the power, it is high time that we used it. There are many, many things that you can do as the opposition party, as the Republicans are now in the process of showing us. There is much more that one can do when you're the majority, and again, the 'Pugs showed us that too over the past six years. About damn time we took these lessons to heart and start playing to win, not playing to be nice. There are too many lives at stake in this, and we can't afford to wait until '09 when Hillary or whoever may or may not end the war!

[skipos]

15. Repubs had the nuclear option because of Cheney though

and Dems don't, correct?

[Hamlette]

16. right, the nuclear option would not help the dems on this issue right now

because lieberman would vote with the GOP and Cheney would be the tie breaker were we to consider the nuclear option, it would not pass.

[Peace Patriot]

17. I share your frustration, MadHound, but I think that saying, "Don't take care of

...this problem and '08 won't matter" is not realistic, and it may undermine courage for the difficult, long term work that we must do to restore our democracy. We may well have to endure years more of unjust war and other fascist policies before we can achieve proper representation of the American people in Congress and in the White House. The lousy representation we are seeing today--particularly in the Senate--was not created in a day, and will not be undone in day.

The Senate is a particular problem in part because only one third of the Senate was up for reelection in '06. So many Bush "pod people," rightwing dinosaurs and collusive Democrats continue to be a drag on the implementation of the will of the people in that body. If we had had a chance to throw them all out, many would be gone, and the Senate would be much more anti-Mideast war and anti-fascist.

We also have the problem of NON-TRANSPARENT elections. In many cases, we really don't know--and can't know--who was really elected to Congress. Our elections are now run on "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. We can presume that SOME members of Congress were genuinely elected, by looking at the opinion polls and other evidence. It is likely that the changed coloration in Congress is due in part to the people outvoting the machines, in their anger and disatisfaction with the country's leadership. But there is one quite good analysis (at www.TruthIsAll.net) that we should have won 50 seats in the House, not just 30 or so. So we are handicapped even in the House. (My guestimate: a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales," by Diebold/ES&S, in favor of Bushites, warmongers and corporatists.)

Think of it this way. In '06, the entire House was up for reelection. SEVENTY-PERCENT of the American people want the Iraq War ended (another poll today puts it at 74%!). I don't think I have ever seen a bigger mandate on an important issue. Is that % reflected in the House? No. There are at least 40 Democrats, for instance--the traitor "Blue Dog Democrats" (a rightwing Dem coalition founded by Gary Condit, as I recall), who want to cut spending on everything EXCEPT THE WAR BUDGET. There goes your majority. We would be lucky to have about a 50/50 split on the war. At best, 50% plus a few are anti-Iraq war--compared to 70% of the American people.

I don't have the resources to analyze the elections of those 40 "Blue Dog" traitors to democracy, but I would place money on Diebold/ES&S involvement (a good bet, since Diebold/ES&S "counted" 80% of the votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy), and on strange anomalous numbers in the vote counts, discrepancies with the pre-election polls, and a preponderance of "close" elections (easiest to fiddle, undetectably).

So, in terms of "the difficult, long term work that we must do to restore our democracy," restoring TRANSPARENT elections is probably Priority No. 1. Even associated election reform problems--like our filthy campaign contribution system, illegal purges of black voters, and corporate news monopolies dominating our public airwaves and dictating the narrow parameters of debate--are not solvable without us having enough legislators and officeholders to push through true reform laws.

How can we achieve transparent elections in this circumstance on non-transparent elections? It's not an easy task, but it is DOABLE. It's going to take time. The Dems in the House have a bill that will be only somewhat helpful--if they can get it past War/Corporate Democrat Diane Feinstein (now head of the elections committee in the Senate). This bill (HR 550) will require a "paper trail" and a 2% audit (automatic recount by hand). But it is absolutely MIND-BOGGLING that we don't have those things now, and that the bill is SO MODEST (in Venezuela, for instance, they do a FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT audit). Also, these lying criminal rightwing corporations, Diebold/ES&S, should be purged from our voting system. Instead, Congress will be rewarding them with more billions for upgrades, "patches," printers, security, testing, servicing contracts and even the paper receipts or ballots that are newly required (they get those contracts, too!). Furthermore, the central electronic tabulators--likely the main culprit in stealing elections--will remain in place, even with voting machines that have a "paper trail" (of which only 2% will be audited).

To achieve true TRANSPARENCY--not just bullshit "patches" to this broken system--we likely will have to go the long route, through local/state jurisdictions, where ordinary people still have some influence. And election reform IS happening at these levels already. (A similar phenomenon is occurring with regard to global warming--cities and states taking the initiative.)

There are three principles to keep in mind, which I have gathered from the awesome, peaceful, democratic, leftist (majorityist) revolution that is sweeping Latin America--where, not a decade ago, there were brutal fascist dictatorships (often U.S.-backed)--and where, today, there are leftist (majorityist) governments in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Nicaraga (and soon--next election cycle--in Peru, Paraguay and Mexico):

1. Transparent elections.
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

I might also add PATIENCE and LONG-TERM THINKING. If the Latin Americans can do it, so can we. Nothing is going to change that much in '07, '08, '09--except the possibility of nuclear holocaust, triggered by Bush-Cheney, in the Middle East, something that would be in no one's interest, and that even they can probably see is not even in the interest of the greedy. U.S. involvement in long term Mideast war--something that EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American people oppose (according to a poll posted here at DU last summer)--is a good possibility, with U.S. financial ruin and civil insurrection as consequences. We may not get our country back until they've thoroughly looted it and thrown thousands of us into torture chambers, or out of airplanes--as happened in the above-mentioned Latin American countries. Then we heal our broken hearts and rebuild, on the basis of democracy and social justice. But we have to plant those seeds, and build those grass roots structures, now, looking to the future. And I don't think that saying that "it's all over" if we can't do it by '08 is all that helpful. Miracles can happen, but you can't count on them. You need to strategize on the basis of truth and reality. And to expect this only partially representative Congress--operating within a fascist junta--to change things by fiat is not realistic. We should be ENCOURAGED that the people outvoted the machines, but not overly hopeful that the peoples' interests will now be served, nor overly-discouraged when that doesn't happen.

[MadHound]

18. So how long are we supposed to be patient? Better question,

How long are those who are currently in harm's way, dying by the dozens every day, supposed to wait? How much blood should the Iraqi people and the American soldiers spill before we say enough? Go over to Iraq and tell those people "'Scuse me, can you folks just hang on a little while longer while we clean up our elections and get a larger majority and have some strategy sessions? Thanks, appreciate that! Hey buddy, you'd better get a Band-Aid on that, it looks like it will leave a mark.":eyes:

We can sit around and twist on our thumbs til the cows come home and still not have that perfect situation that you describe. Meanwhile people are dying in their tens of thousands, and quite frankly the world can't wait for us to get our shit together. The war must end ASAP, not when we've had some strategy sessions, or when we have a larger majority, or when our elections are cleaner. The Iraqi people, the soldier out in the field don't give one good goddamn about that shit, they just want the killing and violence to end, now. So we've got to suck it up and do what has to be done with the people and majority that we've got. And quite frankly, taking any other course of action is damn near as immoral as the war itself. Do you want to be the one to tell those people to wait? No, I didn't think so.

[Beelzebud]

8. If our majority is treated as a minority, then why bother voting?

[porphyrian]

11. So lieberman gets to hold our country hostage for his vote? Fuck that. - n/t