"Democrats always knuckle under" - How would you answer?

[JackRiddler]

Here is a rant from a former Democrat I ran across today. My question to all of you: How do you answer it? What do you do about it?

I don't care a whit what the Democratic Party or it's various factions stand for or purport to stand for. The fact of the matter is, and this has been clear for some time, they won't fight for anything.

They knuckle under every single time to pressure from media and the right-wing. They turn on their own frequently. Case in point-Russ Feingold tried to censure Bush for illegal domestic spying and Dems went on tv and took to the Senate floor to denounce him. Hardly any of these same ones went on tv to denounce the censure of MoveOn.org with the enthusiasitic support of a good number Senate Democrats.

They hate "us". By "us" I mean their natural base, people like me who have loved the party since childhood and remember it as it used to be. People who don't want wars or occupations, people who want them to stand up for economic justice and for justice period, people who want Bush/Cheney et al held accountable. The party leadership does not want to hear from "us", badgering them to do the right thing, or to simply stand firm on issues from domestic spying to tax cuts for the rich.

It's too comfortable to go along to get along. Hearing from "us" upsets them, interrupts the natural flow of things. I for one refuse to kiss the hand that slaps the shit out of ME and mine every chance they get. So if they go down in flames, good riddance and let's build a new party, a better party, and fuck them.

[Horse with no Name]

1. I'd agree with them.

What exactly is not true about what they said?

[papau]

11. health insurers are in heaven with obama

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. They love Hillary too.

Why wouldn't they love someone who promises to mandate the purchase of their product on everyone?

[papau]

12. With Obama I certainly agree-Corporate managers are happy no Clinton as they"can work with"O-Insurer

joy are certain no Medicare for all all option as in Edwards and Clinton plan - and minimal "universal" via welfare for insurance companies

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. That's why I'm supporting progressive Democratic candidates

like Kucinich. I also sent money to the lady running against Pelosi in the primary. Dems can only change the party by their votes and their support.

[Speck Tater]

3. Very true. It's been a problem for a long time now. NT

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Depends which kind of democrat you mean.

Progressive
Liberal
DNC
DINO
Traditional/New Deal

Not all democrats are alike. A Charles Rangel is not a Nancy Pelosi or a Joe Lieberman.

[GreenPartyVoter]

111. And "Switched parties but not policies" We'll consider them to be

a subgroup of DINOs.

[Warpy]

5. I would remind them that Democrats have been faced

with overwhelming opposition for a long time, first from the southern Democrats who later turned GOP during Johnson's time and later from not having veto proof numbers in both houses of Congress. Democrats have had to settle for crumbs for a very long time. It hasn't stopped them trying for more but it has stopped them succeeding.

When they complain that Congress hasn't followed up on all the subpoenas that have been blown off by the White House, I'd remind them that even if they prosecuted under inherent contempt, Stupid still holds pardon power and it would come to nothing. It's far better for them to keep investigating what they are able to while waiting for Stupid's clock to run out.

Then they can clean it...

[pinto]

7. Good points.

:kick:

[JackRiddler]

16. Sorry, neither point convinces me.

Here is something Republicans and other rabid dogs understand very well: PEOPLE RESPECT SPINE. It's one secret of their success.

Show some spine, and you'll be surprised at how strong YOU are.

I've been watching the Democrats knuckle under at the slightest pressure from the right-wing and the media ever since 1980. Why don't they have a reputation for being fighters?

No spine = no self-respect = no respect from others.

A big reason why they have always faced such "strong" opposition is that they rarely even squeaked to announce they were present. They didn't fight Reagan, they joined him. They didn't formulate a consistent critique of Reagan or Bush, or Bush Jr. Imagine if they had rejected Reaganism from the beginning, the power they would have now that it lies in ruins. It wouldn't have taken 28 years to sink in - show me even a sustained six-month period when the Democrats really showed coherent opposition to the Republicans.

And it works the same way when they're in power too, as Clinton immediately knuckled under to a Republican program at the slightest sign of opposition from them.

How come Republican minorities can block legislative programs? Why can't Democrats do that?

I think it's downright shameful to excuse inaction with the claim that one needs "veto proof numbers in both houses of Congress"! Incredible! Republicans never had those under Clinton, and that didn't stop them from blocking him.

You don't need veto proof numbers (!) to reject the USA PATRIOT Act, to deny authorization for the Iraq war, to stop the bankruptcy bill and all these other atrocities of the Bush regime.

You just need to actually fight for what you say.

The Democrats didn't have veto proof numbers when they took on Nixon - in fact, they had just been hit by the worst landslide in their history. But they were prepared to fight for the constitution, and lookie-see, the invincible super-popular leader turned into a paper tiger crook. But today's Democrats would have knuckled under to Nixon, that is a fact.

As for impeachment today: crime is crime. Expose it and the people will begin to see. Expose it, and let Bush pardon his buddies. That's not "nothing," that's a lot better than creating the impression that nothing's wrong because you're not making any noise about it due to bullshit, cowardly strategic maneuvers. "Triangulations" inevitably backfire because they leave everyone thinking you have NO SPINE.

And watch, if the Democrats get in, do you think these investigations will be pursued then? Ha!

We already saw this in 1993: it was time to "move on," we had to "get things done" and not "dwell on the past." Thus was justice denied. Thus were politicians taught that CRIME PAYS once again. Thus did Clinton save the Bushes for a comeback, as Clinton 2 (and probably also Obama) will do again in 2009.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[tom_paine]

47. You hit the nail on the head with that one, Jack.

Amazing how even here at DU, where we pride ourselves on being conscious of the machinations and lies of the world, there are STILL, even NOW, large numbers of people (maybe not an absolute DU majority but certainly a large and substantial minority at the least) who can't see it or (more likely) refuse to see it because of ego damage by acknowledging such ironclad realities and truths as you have outlined, or because it hurts too much, or because people wnat to cling to hope even after all legitimate reason for clinging to hope is long gone.

The psychology of human beings is quite simply astonishing. No wonder the psychopaths and their Authoritarian Followers have ruled the 88% of us who aren't psychopaths for nearly the entirety of human history (with some very brief and scattered exceptions).

They understand us better than we understand ourselves, that much is quite clear. And they use us as we use trained circus lions.

I wonder (if circus lions are capable of cognition at all) whether some of the lions sitting on their pedestal before the cheering crowd and taking whip cracks on the ass and ribs also deny to themselves that they are enslaved. Maybe they, too, pretend they are racing through the jungle pursuing springbok, to save themselves from the realization (if circus lions are capable of cognition on any level, though it makes a great analogy) of where they live and what their lives have become.

Because it's quite clear that HUGE numbers of we humans do that, and the evidence can pile miles high and there will ALWAYS be a huge number of people who deny because it hurts too much to do anything else.

Sigh.

[Echo In Light]

66. "Look ahead! Look ahead!" will be the prevailing mantra/directive/instruction

[Fovea]

18. Making Bush use that pardon again and again

and again and again and again and again sends a message to the American people about Bush and Neocons that destroys the last fantasies that they were a legitimate government.

[Warpy]

19. Look at Democratic primary voting numbers

even discounting the dittoheads.

I think people have already gotten that message. 8 years of war, economic bungling, and the loss of a major US city have convinced people that the GOP is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

I would prefer to see Congress hold off so that we can put these men into prison. That's a much better lesson than watching the boy emperor pardon all his enablers.

[JackRiddler]

30. You really believe that?

The Democrats who yay-ed for the PATRIOT Act, barely squeaked over Iraq or torture and took impeachment off the table are going to suddenly remember the Bush regime's crimes next year once a Democrat is president?

We've already seen this comedy before - 1993. Move on. Don't dwell. Let's get things done. Blah blah, drift. Cue Jeb in 2012.

[Greyhound]

38. I'll bet you $1000 right now that there will be no prosecution of either GWB

of Cheney once they get away with the loot. The ruling class protects the ruling class above all.

[Warpy]

39. I think enough of the underlings will be investigated

that the big boys will find it very uncomfortable and decamp for the duration.

I do sincerely hope investigations will go on. Hope springs eternal, you know.

[tom_paine]

48. You mean like Gonzales?

Guy perjures himself more than a dozen times on live TV, even contradicted by the sworn testimony of the Director of the FBI, and he's free FREE FREE!

And you know as well as I do that he will continue to be FREE FREE FREE from now until the day he dies.

I'd bet a whole lot of money on that, too. He went out and hired a Defense Attorney, but I could've told him to save his stolen loot for his child prostitute habit.

He probably knew it was a waste of money, but it never hurts to be prepared for every contingency, even one so very very VERY unlikely as him being brought to trial.

[Greyhound]

95. So we have no wager.

I can't under stand where this attitude comes from, it is un-American. Let the criminals go free if they're high enough up the chain.

Dude, Where's my Country?

[bean fidhleir]

109. "Hope springs eternal, you know." = battered-spouse syndrome

Would you really recommend to a friend that she continue to hope rather than honestly acknowledge her situation and take decisive, even if painful, action?

[Fovea]

49. Nothing about pardoning his minions and cronies

will immunize them from prosecution in the international criminal court.

We will see them in prison, just not a U.S. prison. In essence, I can see a future president trading their hides for some economic cooperation-- a reverse Marshall program where we regain a public housing and transit system that is energy efficient, and maybe a bit of help rebuilding our industrial base around low energy consumption and minimal use of petro feedstocks.

We will gain a lot of international cred by throwing them under the UN bus.

After our defeat, we will lose our military superiority for a self defense force.

I say this because Shrub is going to bomb Iran. That is a given. What happens after that will be swift and unpleasant, because not Russia, China, or the EU is going to sign on for Armageddon.


They neither want to see holy war, nor do they want to pay for ours.

We will be flooded with dollars, some even genuine. Our oil based civilian infrastructure will be shut down as we get no imports. We will have to turn the taps wide open at the strategic petroleum reserve to fight and our military burns more oil per day than Sweden currently. We will have a draft with a thirty day basic training 98% of inductees will survive PT. With rationing, we could keep it up for what, thirty days?

Because we will have to invade Mexico Venezuela and Brazil to secure oil for whatever economy the CinC commands operate. The only export coming out of the middle east will be trinitite.

In the aftermath, we will lose our economy. We will lose a lot of bases and property around the globe. We will barbeque the CEO of Exxon on a spit. We will swear that America will never descend into neocon fascism again, and believe it. What's left of America in 2010 will be ready for a peaceful role in the future, and when the UN peacekeepers liberate Obama from Leavenworth and restore the presidency, somehow we the people will be a phrase with more resonance to the average citizen.

Making them show their criminality to the American people early and often through a wonderland of pardons will make the transition from public figure to solitary confinement more humiliating, less deniable.

They will do the perp walk, we will rejoin the community of nations.
Several former metropolitan areas will continue to glow at night.

That's my take on it.

[curlyred]

6. In Colorado they DO knuckle under

With a clear majority in both state houses and the governorship, it was a dismal legislative season with very little acccomplished.

I can't wait until the State Dems call me for another donation so I can tell them what wimps my donations elected.

[tom_paine]

50. Montana, too. I remember, about 18 years ago, being very involved

with the Montana State Legislature.

It was a time when the Reptiles had taken full control of all branches ofthe state governemnt for the first time in decades.

They ran like a STEAMROLLER over the Democrats.

One evening after session, I am sitting in the bar having a drink with a Reptile State Senator and him marvelling to me, "I don't understand it. When we were in the minority, we did everything we could throw sand in the Democratic gears, to slow them and their agenda up. Now that we are in the majority, they do almost nothing to oppose us. It's puzzling."

This even from a Reptile State Senator who was directly benefitting from Democratic Cowardice. As a human being, he was repulsed, though, and I was and am, too.

So this is nothing new.

We let Nixon and Bush go during Watergate (you can bet your ass Bush and Cheney were deeply involved).

We let Reagan, Bush and Cheney go during Iran-Contra, when we had them dead to rights for what was pretty much treason.

And a dozen other things, before, after an in between. With every Democratic shying away from doing their duty, the criminal element of the Bushies waxed stronger until now the Bushies ARE the Reptile Party.

Hell, I am going to commit DU sacrilege and criticize FDR (a great man and president, don't get me wrong...one of our three or four greatest, I think) and say this behavior goes all the way back to the breaking up and foiling of the attempt by Prescott Bush and his pals to overthrow FDR and emulate Nazi Germany (we will never know if the Bushies planned to FULLY emulate Nazi Germany, because they were thwarted by American Hero Marine Gen. Smedly Butler before we had the chance to find out, Thank God). had the coup succeeded, Prescott Bush was going to be the Ambassador to Nazi Germany due to his warm, close and personal ties with the Nazis through the Hamburg-America Shipping Lines and his money laundering operation for stolen Jewish loot which ran through Grandpa Prsecott's Union Banking Corporation.

But, when the thing had been blown wide open, and all of Butler's allegations corroborated, what did the Congress and FDR do?

THEY buried it "for the good of the nation". They sealed the documents and made sure no one (or very very FEW, who would not be believed with the evidence sealed) knew anything.

As a result, Prescott Bush was thought to be a patriotic American, when in fact he was one of the most heinous traitors this country has ever known.

Don't believe me? I understand. Even now, media would rather cut off their right arms than discuss these facts in a public forum, even 75 years later.

But the documents have been unsealed (70 years too late, of course) and the information is out there. It's 100% true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

So, not only is this crazy dynamic nothing new, even our greatest Democratic President of all time followed it and let the treasonous Bushies go "for the good of the nation".

Witness how well that has worked out for American freedom and democracy.

[bunkerbuster1]

8. I'd say "f*ck them", while understandable, is not an option.

We are not powerful enough to cast aside a big chunk of Democrats who are nervous as hell about supporting progressive causes. When folks like you and me and a lot of the rest of DU vent about wimpy, spineless Dems, we're not considering what it's like to be in a district where Operation Rescue and the local Right to Life thugs will target you if you're not sufficiently opposed to "Baby-Killing" (their term.)

We've been banged around by corporate media for years and are only now starting to pick ourselves up. We don't get the luxury of abandoning the moderates and conservatives amongst the Democratic representatives; we have to support them and make them understand we progressives are far more numerous and powerful than the corporate media would have them believe.

And we've gotta put our money where our mouths are and continue to make people like Obama the best-backed candidates out there today.

(Put it this way--You think the Goopers are terrified of how much money Obama's raking in?)

[AndyTiedye]

9. Blackmail and Death Threats

The NSA scans everything they say for stuff that would be useful to the Repiglicans, or that can be cut-and-pasted into something useful.

If that doesn't work, they've got this anthrax, and you may have also noticed what happens to airplanes carrying troublesome Democratic Senators:

[smoogatz]

10. What you do: Win bigger majorities. Then elect better Democrats.

And try to face up to the fact that the affable dumbass sitting across the aisle from you is, in fact, a fascist in everything but name. It's that last cognitive leap they'll have the most trouble with. Democrats want people to like them; Republicans play a different game altogether, which is all about money and power. We don't have to be like them, but we do have to recognize what we're up against.

[Habibi]

55. I agree.

Of course, this wouldn't be the fast-track, sexy way to do it. But nothing that will last is really ever done quickly or easily.

Bigger majorities. Better Democrats. 'Cause then the issue will be "Who *are* the better Democrats?" When we aren't scratching out a tiny majority, there will be a bigger line to toe. Dems will actually have to start paying attention to us, the voters.

Er, or something like that.

[joefree1]

13. Party of the Big tent

The democratic party is very diverse and most represents the American People.

Democracy is messy.

So unless this "former Democrat" is now a fascist I would tell him/her to quit knocking down the American people get off they're lazy butt and go out there and change some minds.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[endarkenment]

14. Can't find very much to disagree with there.

If we do go down in flames in November, we might as well seriously consider building a new party.

[coriolis]

15. I would say "Not True! ... sometimes we bend over!"

:shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

112. LOL You better get your asbestos suit on

[T Monk]

17. I'd say oh those are congressional democrats

[Perry Logan]

20. It's a common statement by 1) wingers and 2) Democrats with self-esteem problems.

Take the current Congress as an example.

I'm sure you've heard people say they didn't stand up to the Republicans, etc.

But the opposite is true. The Democrats in this Congress showed the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years.

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

I recommend you eschew the corporate media, which exists solely to make you think bad things about your own party--i.e., that they always cave.

[JackRiddler]

21. Lies, damned lies, statistics.

Peddle the ratings bullshit elsewhere. What were these 76 roll call votes on which Bush took a position? Which were the 14 that passed? List, please. (I was looking for the list at your link, but it's not there. No info, no faith. Sorry.)

Not all votes are of equal importance. They stopped some bridge in Alaska but let through the Military Commissions Act.

They also censured Moveon.org for telling the obvious truth in plain language! (That wouldn't have been one of the 76 votes on which Bush took a position, by the way, which further underlines the irrelevance of cherrypicked cumulative measures.)

Most of all, how did they vote on funding the criminal occupation of Iraq? What have they done to bring justice for the crimes of the Bush regime, or even to raise the issue that the regime is, in fact, criminal: in violation of the US constitution, US and international law, engaged in the daily commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. The end of constitutional government is not a minor issue, or one that serious people say only matters once the Democrats have the White House.

[JHB]

How old are you, Perry?

You're arguing with people who've noted, been dismayed by, and fought rank, naked captiulationism on key issues and on Republican criminality for three decades (a few even more). You'll need to do more than quote statistics for one year and admonish against watching the corporate media. Counting beans with minor procedural votes while missing the big ones is the stuff of Joe Lieberman. Don't play that game.

Was Alito confirmed? Is Gonzo cooling his heels in jail for Contempt of Congress? Are Bush and Cheney being impeached?
Yes, no, and no. That's not the way it should be.

Who was the Democratic chair of the 911 Commission?
Lee "Representative Rollover" Hamilton, a guy who when faced with investigating criminality by Republican administrations can be counted on to never actually get to the bottom of things.

It's happened over and over: when presented a chance to go for the jugular, national Democrats have opted to show throat instead, to maintain "bipartisanship", for "the good of the country". And some of us are sick of it.

You don't have to agree, but by god do a better job of defening your position.

[JackRiddler]

81. Thanks for the better response, very to the point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. Amen!!!

:applause:

[tom_paine]

97. Right ON! Excellent post! I wish I could recommend it.

NO...MORE...EXCUSES!

[JHB]

78. dupe

double-clicked by accident

[ColbertWatcher]

22. I would say: "You're break's over, Ralph. Go back up front and greet the people." n/t

[Schema Thing]

23. I'd scream "you're a....a.... bastard person!" and then cry and run away.

then I'd go back and tell them I was sorry for saying that, and that they were probably right, and can we still be friends?

[tom_paine]

33. LOL. Good one!

:rofl:

[ColbertWatcher]

45. I hate you and your ass face!

[otherlander]

24. The leadership does.

But not the average citizen who's a Democrat.

[CrispyQ]

25. Mr. Fish & I agree.

In my opinion, too many dems are 'moderate.' I place that word in quotes, because I think they are actually more to the right than center. We need more Dennis Kucinich & Russ Feingold types -- Wellstone dems. Our party is dying because of lack of true liberal dems. I will vote dem in November, but not with my heart.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. I would reply...

GET RID OF THE FUCKING DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL AND ALL OF ITS MEMBERS...

Then, maybe then, will the Democratic Party embrace its principles.

The DLC has cost us election after election since the mid-1990s. Its attempt to be Republican-lite has caused many of us traditional Democrats to abandon the party or not vote at all.

NO MORE REPUBLICAN-LITE, MILQUETOAST DINO'S!!!

[Individualist]

36. Hear, hear!

Nothing will change as long as voters keep voting for enablers simply because they have a D after their names.

[Canuckistanian]

51. That's it!

That's the perfect response!

Sweet Jesus, indeed....

[slipslidingaway]

26. The Feingold Resolution and the Sound of Silence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401519.html

"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). "I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."

Dodd must not have checked with Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa). "The president broke the law and he needs to be held accountable," he said. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors!" Harkin said he'll vote for the Feingold resolution -- if it comes up.

That gives Feingold two solid votes, including his own. The rest: avowedly undecided.

Schumer, leaving the lunch, still hadn't found his voice. " He's gonna talk about it," Schumer said, pointing to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.).

Reporters, as instructed, asked Reid where he stood. "It's a question that's been asked 33 times in the last few hours," he said. "And so, for the 34th time, I'm going to say the same thing: I'm going to wait . . ."



Why the Beltway class can't comprehend the Russ Feingolds of the world

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-beltway-class-cant-comprehend-russ.html

"When Russ Feingold announced in March that he would introduce a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law by eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, a clear two-pronged consensus immediately arose among Beltway pundits and politicians -- including Republicans and many Democrats as well: ..."

[IronLionZion]

28. Sometimes Democratic voters need to stand strong too

and elect more Democrats. Strengthen those majorities, put a Dem in the white house, strengthen the party, expand the base, swing that pendulum left.

Democrats who think we need fewer Democrats, simply can NOT be taken seriously. Those people's problems are more serious and more personal than they'd like to admit. They are the same ones who insulted me for posting the list of accomplishments and initiatives put forward by our Democratic congress.

[tom_paine]

53. I do agree with you that we need to elect more Democrats, regardless.

I certainly will be voting straight D this Phony Election and I would advise others to do so, as well.

But ILZ, does that invalidate the truth of the OP's friend's statement?

I think not.

[IronLionZion]

61. I'm not sure about the OP's friend's statement

but I do know that our Dems need help - both an increase in numbers as well as an increase in responsibility to those who elected them.

There are primary elections where we can choose the best Dem. There is the option of running for office ourselves. And of course we need to find a way to hold them accountable to us rather than the lobbyists and corporate interests. There are many issues involved in this like public financing of campaigns as well as ethics and lobbying reform. But things can and will be better with more Democrats in office. What good is progressive legislation without the votes to pass it and a president to sign/enforce it?

[Winterblues]

29. What's to disagree with?

If Democrats in Congress had any spine at all we would have Universal Health Care, and we would not be funding a war of agression in Iraq and Afghanistan. We would not still have a criminal enterprise running the country.. BUT we still have killing daily and we still have the criminals in charge....Democrats have taken on the mantle of complicity with the Cabal.

[calmblueocean]

31. Changing the party always makes more sense than trying to start your own.

It's easier to change the party from the inside than it is to try to get the whole country to abandon it and vote for a new one. It's why Kucinich is a better man -- and more powerful -- than Nader.

[slackmaster]

32. No, they only do that when they haven't anihilated each other in a circular firing squad

:argh:

[Greyhound]

34. This brought us Nixon, Carter (a great man, but no liberal), Raygun,

and all that has followed. People don't vote for Republiks because they like their stands, but because they make stands and and fight for them.

[eShirl]

35. republicans have spine, democrats have brain and heart

yes, I'm over-generalizing and exaggerating

[tom_paine]

37. I could do nothing but reluctantly agree with this person 100%. He is absolutely right.

And he is especially correct in that our representatives really dislike us almost as much as the Bushies do.

THAT is the revelation that truly stunned me. THEY DON'T LIKE US, they don't want us, except how they want African-Americans, which is vote for us and then STFU. nancy Pelosi just wishes she could sweep us off the street for vagrancy, with our "Impeach Bush" t-shirts pretending to be protected by the First Amendment when all we are doing is simple vagrancy.

She said so, and I believe that is how she feels, considering this was not a canned speech but impromptu remarks to a DEMOCRATIC crowd, if I recall correctly.

I mean, I am not naive enough to think that everything was peaches and cream prior to 1980, but I do think that the mentality that drove our Founding Fathers was still alive in people's minds back then, and as such our representatives might not like us, but they had to respect us as We the People.

That, quite obviously, is no more. Now, they see us as stupid Joe Sixpacks, serfs unworthy of even speaking to their royal munificences (it goes without saying that the Bushie Party, who are leading us back to a pre-1776 condition, is 1000 times worse...but their monstrous unAmericanism doesn't make the "German Social Democrat"-style cowardice of our Democratic Leadership any better). Given what we have collectively allowed, I'm not sure they aren't correct, butthat is another topic for another post.

One more thing, and I cannot stress this enough. I might agree with this individual, but I would do EVERYTHING in my persuasive power to make this person see that, even so, they STILL need to pull that D lever in November for reasons like the Supreme "Court" or the DeBushification/DeNazification of our Executive Branch and LE agencies, to name two.

But the statement in the original post? 100% correct. 100%. There's no getting around that. To ignore it is to do ourselves and our nation great disservice.

[Blarch]

40. I agree. They cave every chance they have.

[baby_mouse]

41. Difficult to criticise.

Actually, its just true.

[Individualist]

42. I would say that's stating the obvious

[KaptBunnyPants]

43. I would argue that the spineless faction of the Democratic Party seems to be losing influence.

Democrats who trash their supporters to score points are facing consequences. Lieberman was ejected from the Party, and now Democratic politicians fear betraying the values of their voters. The Clintons were always dismissive of grassroots political activism, and their surrogates were often arrogant and rude when dismissing liberals as cranks. I was not looking forward to the Democratic Party portraying me as a rube again, and luckily enough that opinion was shared by many others. In desperation, Hillary turned her campaign into the "stop the liberal Blogo-commu-sphere" movement and was crushed. But in the process they were also exposed. She tried every anti-liberal slur in the book - anti-American, atheistic, college educated, latte drinking, Anti-American, Volvo driving, Birkenstock wearing, elitist, and Anti American. It all blew up in her face. The anti-liberal faction just got it's ass handed to it; now's the time to get active if you want to see a resurgent liberal Democratic Party.

[varelse]

44. Your friend has a point

This is why I am no longer a Democrat. I'm voting for the Democratic Presidential nominee in November, but I will probably re-join the Green party after the state Democratic primary here in June, although I will vote for progressive Democrats if any opportunity presents itself in the future. The Green party's platform is a closer match for my values and political beliefs than the Democratic party.

[samsingh]

46. we do

[Juche]

52. Could just be fear of losing again

Dems held congress for something like 50 years, then lost it from 1994-2006. Maybe they are terrified any wrong move will cost them control again. If by 2011 they are still total pussies I will be upset.

Clinton did stand up to the GOP once when he let the gov. go into shutdown mode because he wouldn't allow the GOP to propose a budget that cut social programs.

This is why I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out. His opinion on the war was 'write a war bill calling for timetables. After Bush vetoes it write another. After that veto write another.'

[Iggo]

54. I'd punch him in the fuckin head.

And say something oh so clever like, "How's that for knuckling under, Sparky?"

[JackRiddler]

57. That would totally win the argument.

The admins. Punch the admins!

[Rockholm]

82. With a knuckle sandwich?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. If you can't even BLOCK bad initiatives, you're useless

The Democrats had a majority in both the House and the Senate during Reagan's first term, and yet they failed to block any significant parts of his agenda. In fact, the DLC was formed to ENABLE the Reagan agenda, to create a bunch of what Al Sharpton memorably called "elephants in donkey jackets."

That's what the DLC apologists forget. Yes, it's true that you may not have a veto-proof majority to pass your own initiatives. Fine. But you can still BLOCK bad legislation, bad nominees, or bad resolutions instead of meekly voting for them "because they're going to pass anyway."

Whatever happened to taking a stand?

It seems that Dems who DO take a stand are considered an embarrassment to the party.

[struggle4progress]

59. I say: "Stop expecting other people to do your work for you." If you want to win long term, here's

what you have to do: you have to make a long-term commitment to regular political activity. You have to pay attention to local, state, and federal government. You actually have to go to town hall and the state legislature and Congress from time to time to lobby in person. You have to call friends and neighbors and ask them to call the legislature to support or oppose particular pieces of legislation. If the news media isn't working in your town, you have to get the news out by mail, and fliers, and email. You have to know something about some issues important to you and you have to keep your knowledge current. You have to keep any eye out for people who might be good in state or federal office ten years from now, and you have to get them to run for local office now. You have to talk to people on your side and to people who oppose your side, so you know what's being said and what works. You have to stop expecting other people to carry the load.

[JackRiddler]

104. Hey, that's a great idea...

I think I'll just take a million dollars from a big corporation to do exactly what you describe - spend my entire life lobbying - and just do it on behalf of whatever cause my masters prefer.

Actually, I agree with you: it's on those of us who CAN do what you describe, to do it. But by no means is it one's obligation, as you imply, or something realistic for most people to do. Or, sadly, something that's (usually) going to get much traction against those who powers who can hire well-paid full-time lobbyists and armies of peons, and who can dispense campaign funding out of a hat.

Get real.

Do you think it's right that one can't be heard by one's representatives simply by speaking once? Do you think it's right that the only way to get anything other than the corporate agenda is to impoverish yourself and dedicate every minute to a self-organized crusade? It's a shameful situation, and you are only confirming that the system is so corrupt that it can only be moved in this way.

It should be enough when the Democrats claim, for example, they're going to implement a universal health plan (or withdraw from Iraq). In a democracy, they would do that when they receive a majority of the votes from people who come to power. They would do that as soon as they come to power, and not knuckle under, and not need a spine injection from a citizens' phone bank. It shouldn't require the French Revolution, either, since that's what your idea logically comes to: Once the hundred million calls and letters fail to move shit, what else will work?

So by your reckoning anyone who wants change should be stuck living the hellish life of the unpaid lobbyist you seem to think is such a noble duty.

[struggle4progress]

105. If you want change, work for change. Nobody said it would be easy

[JackRiddler]

106. Do you really not see the game is rigged, or are you just pretending?

The systems of corporate and concentrated media, access to politicians, lobbies and think tanks, campaign finance, two-party duopoly and non-proportional representation have already fixed the game. The letter-writing, just-keep-trying, squeaky-wheel "grassroots" strategy you describe is guaranteed to lose nine times out of ten, even when the groups doing it outnumber the lobbyists and elites by ten to one.

So if that's all of your strategy, then it's analogous to the market ideology's myth that consumers can change the world. Sure, they can, sort of, sometimes, maybe. Why do citizens pursuing your way of being noisy have to compete with (and almost always lose to) outfits that have tens of millions to spare for political influence, outfits that in turn are so rich in no small part thanks to the corporate welfare they get through political influence?

The system is rigged to make a mockery of its democratic or even republican pretensions. You fail to address that with your call to optimistic self-sacrifice.

And what about people who aren't in a position to do what you're describing because they're too busy working for shit wages to survive? Tough shit on them for not being of the educated middle class, right? So if that's all you've got to offer, you are in reality a dreadful cynic.

[struggle4progress]

108. Biko said, "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed":

and one of the most common examples of this is the Deadly Sin called sloth -- which is the attitude that the situation is hopeless, that nothing will work, and that it is therefore pointless to try

Asserting, that one cannot win, is nothing but deciding to lose. I would gain no advantage by making such a decision but merely strengthen the status quo: that is why the defenders of the status quo spend so much time and money trying to convince their opponents that Resistance is futile.

Of course the game is rigged! But resistance is not futile. The way in which the game is rigged merits thorough scientific study: one needs to examine in practice exactly how the game has been rigged, not merely theorizing about the methods by which political power is developed and consolidated and maintained, but actively experimenting with methods for changing the balance of power. The only one way to gain the necessary knowledge about those who are in power, those who support them, the ideological processes that they use to maintain their power, and so on -- is to actively work against them. Then one learns practical details about their weaknesses

Here is a good saying: "you have to get your ticket punched, if you want to ride the train." Of course, it has happened (and will continue to happen) that people board the train with a perfectly good ticket, are unfairly thrown off between towns, and then have to walk. Someone who complains about walking between towns, never having bought a ticket, has no credible complaint. But when a number of people, who previously believed their tickets were perfectly good, are unexpectedly thrown off, some of them learn from it. Gandhi, for example, once had a perfectly good ticket but wasn't allowed to ride the train in South Africa: he thought productively about that experience, learned from it, and continued to "experiment with truth" until he was assassinated years later

If you're concerned about "corporate and concentrated media" (say) nothing prevents you from trying to educate people around you by other means -- by leaflets or telephone calls or by bringing speakers to town, while asking people to call Congress about whatever the current issue is. Get folks to buy those train tickets: many will be ready for something more when they find themselves dumped off between towns

[JackRiddler]

110. We're talking past each other.

You are playing with a strawman:

"nothing prevents you from trying to educate people around you by other means -- by leaflets or telephone calls or by bringing speakers to town"

and absolutely nothing I say implies I don't agree with you. Which is why I have passed out thousands of leaflets, made calls, brought speakers, spoke myself. Over and over.

Many people don't have my time or perhaps the same skills. They are not slothful. They should be heard too.

When I say the game is rigged, I do not say it is hopeless. Rather, I say the truth:

THIS MACHINE NEEDS TO BE SMASHED DOWN UNTIL YOU CAN NO LONGER RECOGNIZE IT.

That's not a call to violence, by the way, the only revolution that will ever work will be a peaceful one.

Calling your Congresspeople is not going to change this system. We should also be focusing on ending the reign of money in elections, otherwise all this effort you're talking about is futile. That's the physics of money.

All these people working as you say, and things have been getting worse continuously for 30 years. Figure it out.

[Two Americas]

60. the battle

The Republicans know exactly where the battle lines are drawn and what the battle is about. They are relentless and are focused on achieving goals, unlike us. We are worried about "being right" - and being right is the consolation prize in politics.

The Republicans fight and fight hard to promote and defend the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few. They destroy everything that is in the way - public education, government regulation, public resources, public transportation, unions - everything that benefits the rest of us - 99% of the population.

The right wing propagandists have succeeded in luring us away from the battle field and into a phony and futile fight over "values" and various culture war issues, none of which the Republicans care about in the least. They just use those "issues" to divert and confuse us, and to deceive the public. We oblige them by taking up our assigned role in this phony fight over cultural values.

Politics is about power and economics, not about "personal choices" or "belief systems." While the Republicans ruthlessly move all power and wealth into the hands of the few, we bicker and squabble about issues that are not political at all.

We cannot win a battle if we never show up on the battlefield, or fail to even perceive what the battle is about.

The Republicans haven't changed - they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and doing an excellent job. What has changed is that we are no longer in opposition to them. It is a decades-old dream come true for the Republicans - weak and divided opposition that does not even know what their own interests are.

[Freedom Train]

62. How would I answer?

Three short words: It is true.

And it is just as sad as it is true. If we could just get away from winner-take-all elections, I'd be all for splitting up and forming a new party. I think the Republicans would also instantly split into at least two parties. And then there would be the Greens, Libertarians etcetera who would also get an honest chance. Aside from the people getting better representation, politics would also be a lot more fun than with this rigid system we have now!

[graywarrior]

63. With a knuckle sandwich

[Echo In Light]

64. Buckle like a belt, although I suspect it's due to institutional complicity, by design

[Enrique]

65. I would ask him what good does the hyperbole do?

the democrats of course have successfully opposed the republicans at times, so to say they never do is hyperbole.

Does it really help not to acknowledge the dems' successes?

[Echo In Light]

68. Dissent is healthy. Mindless obedience and groupthink are trademarks of rightists

[Enrique]

70. the dissent is what seems mindless to me

like when the Senate passes the immunity version and the dissenters yell "Nancy Pelosi has to go" even though Pelosi is not in the Senate and even though Pelosi's version has no immunity.

edit: regarding groupthink, take a look at the responses in this thread.

[Echo In Light]

71. It's due to her stated "off the table" position in handling the crimes of Bushco, and Iraq

The sentiment is quite understandable.

[Enrique]

72. that's so weak you should be embarrassed

sorry to make it personal but I take that answer as an insult to me. In fact you should apologize to me.

I would add there's some sexism going on here too. Pelosi and Reid are in conflict over this. Pelosi is on our side and she gets very little credit and in fact still gets the bulk of the criticism. Makes no sense.

[Echo In Light]

74. To reiterate, I find the commonly held sentiment understandable. No apology forthcoming

[Enrique]

76. of course not

I said you should apologize, which is true, not that you would.

Also, when I suggested you review the responses in this thread with the term "groupthink" in mind, I never expected you would, and I would be surprised if you did.

[Echo In Light]

79. Guess I'm unaccustomed to demands of an apology over opinions

Don't like it? Lump it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Which is something that Democrats do too readily

A Democrat says something that is unfavorable to Republicans, something that happens to be TRUE, the right-wing spin machine goes into Code Red Indignation Alert, and soon the Democrat is "apologizing."

When have the Republicans ever apologized for their LIES?

[Runcible Spoon]

93. .......

:rofl: is your argument some exercise in extreme farce? PLEASE don't give us feminists a bad name.

[Enrique]

67. Pelosi fighting right now on FISA

an issue that some critics only are interested in if the dems cave on it.

For months, she has been resisting pressure from republicans and from skittish dems. Mostly silence on this conflict except for predictions that she'll cave.

[JHB]

80. Good! Wonderful! Outstanding!

The point is that we don't see enough of this, and the view that the entire reason we even have to fight THIS battle is because we DON'T see enough of it.

[Enrique]

84. but when it does happen we don't support it

we ignore it, or spin it away, or predict they'll cave, or even in the case of Pelosi and FISA continue to claim that she already has caved.

We certainly don't support it.

Well, she's fighting without our support. Maybe she'll win, maybe she'll lose, either way it's without our support.

[Perry Logan]

69. The question implies that Republicans are tough. If you think Repubs are tough, you're a pansy.

[Echo In Light]

75. It's not a matter of cowardice, but complicity

[mdmc]

73. true

[Unvanguard]

77. That while they have a point, they're going to fail.

US politics doesn't work that way. You can't magically conceive a new party out of nowhere when the first-past-the-post system locks the two parties in place.

So if they want a progressive agenda to go forward, one way or another they simply must work with the Democrats.

[JackRiddler]

83. Points for FISA and telcom immunity...

After the decision not to confront an openly criminal government, giving up enough votes to pass the equivalent of a war authorization on Iran, approving Alito, allowing ex-officials to snub Congressional subpoenas with impunity (really the end - total capitulation of the legislature before executive majesty), I shall give the House Democrats this: they passed a FISA bill without telcom immunity. For now. And I did call my reps before and after said vote.

I'm not blind to the occasional good thing they do, it's just infuriating to see them pursue a losing long-term strategy by never formulating a strong program and sticking to it.

For example, everyone should look at the Democrats and know instantly they would implement universal health care like in Europe. That alone might be enough to make them a majority party for good. But the leaders are not interested in winning, or in representing the people.

[LanternWaste]

86. I think that generally Democrats value long-term, viable results

I think that generally Democrats value long-term, viable results over short-term political gains-- choosing the relevant confrontations over sound-bite battles.

I think that can easily be misinterpreted as 'giving up' if one merely looks at a handful of pre-chosen issues over the broad results.

But that's just my opinion...

[JackRiddler]

87. A harmless little generality that anyone could agree with...

until you specify which details matter and which don't.

To you, what is a "handful of pre-chosen issues" (that do not matter much, apparently), and what are the "broad results"? As far as I am concerned, the broad results are disastrous, but if you don't talk specifics, you say nothing.

[LanternWaste]

88. And "Democrats always knuckle under?" is a specific question?

And "Democrats always knuckle under?" is a specific question worthy of full analysis? Naw-- I answer general, interpretive questions with general interpretive answers.

I don't happen to think that the broad results are disastrous. Sorry if you feel that's not saying anything...

But if you have specific questions about specific policies of specific politicians with specific agenda's, start a thread about them and give me a head's up-- I'd be happy to give specific answers...

"but if you don't talk specifics, you say nothing."

I'm sure you've applied that to every post that didn't have "talk specifics", yes? Even the ones that read along the lines of "a do-nothing congress"-- you requested specifics from them also, yes...?


(Sheesh)

[JackRiddler]

100. If you go beyond the headline you find, yes, that there were specifics in the OP

Case in point-Russ Feingold tried to censure Bush for illegal domestic spying and Dems went on tv and took to the Senate floor to denounce him. Hardly any of these same ones went on tv to denounce the censure of MoveOn.org with the enthusiasitic support of a good number Senate Democrats.

For example.

If you go down the length of this thread, you'll find those appalled by the Democrats' knuckle-under behavior full of specific examples, while those trying to equivocate on it offer generalities.

Questions of truth of factuality can often be settled through examination, if one is willing to drop preconceptions about what "should" be.

[blindpig]

89. It's their role

in the dog and pony show called democratic politics in the U S of A. Never mind that man behind the curtain.

[bobbolink]

90. "How would you answer?" You Got That Right.

The party of the spineless donkey.

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. Well since they have impeached bush and cheney,

ended the war, and

Oh wait ...

[BeHereNow]

94. "Democrats knuckle under and Republicans FUCK you over!"

Same end results-
We, the people, get screwed either way.

BHN

[zonmoy]

99. I concur completely.

[frogmarch]

96. Congressional Dems are wusses. Too bad they

don't have the fire in them that many DUers do.

[depakid]

98. No real answer for that- because he's right

[LWolf]

101. The answer: "You're right."

What do I do? I continue to piss into the wind, pointing out things like this, asking Democrats to hold the party accountable so that this doesn't happen, supporting Democrats who DON'T knuckle under...

while too many accept it as "politics as usual."

[JackRiddler]

102. The writer of the OP is a she, by the way...

Interesting how so many people automatically assumed a he.

[stimbox]

103. She's right.

Which is why I am no longer registered as a Democrat.

[JackRiddler]

107. kick

[spanone]

113. two words joined together to make one: HORSESHIT

[JackRiddler]

114. Thanks for that, most edifying.

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

115. indubitably.

[BlooInBloo]

116. That's why we need *more* and *better* Democrats.