If we fight in the Senate, then Dems won't get elected and we can't fight?

[Democat]

I have seen numerous posts here on DU and various articles here and there that say the same thing.

Democrats can't lock up the Senate or block Goss or Gonzalez or find a way to stop Supreme Court justices or do anything else that will really piss off the Republicans because it will be a "disaster" for Dems during the 2006 or 2008 elections.

I don't understand this at all.

If it's true that Democrats fighting against Bush will cause voters to reject Democrats at the next election, then we simply aren't the party that America wants to support. What is the point of giving Bush everything he wants so that we can get more Democrats elected to give Republicans even more of everything they want?

If Democrats fighting means Democrats losing, then the game is over already. Why don't we try fighting and see what happens?

When Republicans fight, obstruct, play dirty tricks, block nominations, and everything else they do, they win more seats, they win the presidency, they take over everything. Yet, we are told time and time again that Democrats must not do any of the same things that Republicans made gains doing because Americans will punish Democrats for fighting for their values.

Look what the Republicans did for DeLay today. Can you imagine Democrats even attempting it? No way! We would never do that because we would be too scared of Republicans or of a "backlash" or whatever other bullshit. The Republicans just do what they think is right for their party and their voters and tell our side to fuck off. Our party wouldn't dare do anything like that because it might make Republicans mad. Republicans do it and they're proud of themselves.

Does anyone understand this Democratic loser logic? How can we accept that we must not fight or upset Republicans because if we do we can't get more Democrats elected? But Repulbicans do whatever they want and get more and more Republicans elected.

If the new Democrats who might be elected if we roll over and give Republicans everything they want are just going to roll over too, so that they don't lose their seats, then what the fuck is the point?

This is a lost war if what these people say is true.

When Democrats fight, then they don't get elected. When they don't fight, then they might have a chance to get elected. Is that the future of our party? If so, then there is no future for Democrats.

[ibegurpard]

1. Makes sense

I wish more people would see it like that.

[Tamyrlin79]

2. Can I get an "Amen!" from the congregation?!! n/t

[villager]

3. absolutely right -- "Nothing in the middle of the road...

..but dead armadilloes and yellow stripes," as Jim Hightower noted.

But if the mainstream Dems won't fight, the people will have to. That's what happened with the Vietnam war -- remember that Dem officeholders were all initially for it...

Also, some primary upsets from the activist wing of the party wouldn't hurt, either...

[sandnsea]

4. Pick your battles

I haven't seen anybody say Dems can't fight because of 2006. Maybe I missed them. I have seen, and I agree, that Dems need to pick their battles. Overusing the fillibuster will backfire. Using it selectively when it's absolutely critical is what we need to do. When you think about how much we're going to have to fight in the next 4 years, Condi sure isn't on the list. Gonzales could be, we'll see how the hearings go. But I'd rather fight him when Bush tries to appoint him to the Supreme Court.

[meow2u3]

5. Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don't

That's the Republican plan: abuse, demoralize, and demonize the Democrats until the entire government is 100% Rethuglican.
I can't imagine such stark evil in such high places....:grr:

[Ardee]

7. When the people lead, leaders must follow

I disagree with your point that the Dems are damned if they do. Events have shown them to be damned if they dont so why not try? You might be rather surprised.......Far from calling the Rethugs our worst enemy I might tender the suggestion that WE are our own worst enemy.......or our cowardly leadership to be precise.

[Democat]

8. It seems like they know they are damned if they don't, but they aren't...

...willing to find out if they are damned if they do.

We know we will lose by not fighting, so why don't we try to fight.

For example, and maybe this is a bad example and some won't agree, but if Kerry would have run a slash and burn campaign, at least maybe he would have undermined or damaged Bush so that he would be weaker now instead of stronger. By being nice to Bush and the Republicans, we are losing seats, losing elections, and losing respect from our fellow Americans - all the while making Republicans stronger.

What do we have to lose by trying to fight for a while?

If we always lose when we fight, then it's a pointless battle anyway, so why not go down fighting at least?

Will the Democratic Party really just fade away? Why not at least burn out if the end is near?

[Ardee]

10. Nastiness unecessary

All Kerry needed to do,imo, was clearly deliniate a difference between him and Bush. But he didnt, probably because the leadership has its collective head up the corporate butt and is more afraid of those campaign checks drying up than it is about winning elections...some strategy huh?

[distantearlywarning]

6. Amen! Can I get a hallelujah???

I don't want to be a Democrat. I want to be a person that believes in all the things the Democratic (and other non-Republican parties) stand for right now. If the Democratic party stops standing for those things I will stop standing for the Democratic party.

They can all move to the right to try to pick up votes, but I won't be moving with them. I will just find another party to join, or I will make my own party. It is not the label "Democrat" that I care about, it is the "values" that the label stands for at this point in time.

I don't care about popularity. I care about doing the right thing.

[radfringe]

9. question: If not now -- when?

Dems have been being "nice", relying on the "public doesn't like negativity, mud-slinging campaigns etc."

it's pretty obvious that whether or not the public likes it -- they vote for those who stand up and do fight and sling mud.

Making "nice" is not seen as being bi-partisan or coopertive -- it's seen as backing down-rolling over-and playing dead

[w4rma]

11. It's Repug logic. To not fight will win. To fight will lead to a loss.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Knowledge is ignorance.

That said, one tactic is to fight while not appearing to fight so that you don't fire up the opposition into fighting back. Another tactic is to go on an all out offensive with your fight, which runs the risk of firing up the opposition into fighting back harder.

That said, there is some seriously bad stuff going on right now that many folks are aware of, but not enough folks understand enough about to know whose fault it is. In addition Dems have to fight against big media all the time while Repugs ARE big media.

[LaPera]

12. They must be fucking idiots. Tom Daschle the spineless, republican

kiss ass ...Daschle played ball with the Bush admistration...and in the end they went after him with no mercy, or care and laughing about it all the way.

These fuckers are ruthless whether you play ball with them or attack them they are going to make you pay anyway they can and they fucking truly enjoy doing it and fucking you over...It's called POWER!!!!

[StopThief]

13. In the eyes of many Americans. . .

there is dissent and then there is dissent. Many do not see the filibustering of nominees as legitimate dissent, and doing so could cost several more Senate seats. Have you looked at the list of what Senators are up for reelection in 2006? There are eight dem senators that are from either red states or very close states. Filibustering might just get Republicans to the 60 votes it would take to make it obsolete anyway.

[Democat]

15. We can't filibuster because if we do we won't have enough to filibuster?

What's the point of trying to keep enough seats so we can filibuster when filibustering will make us lose seats? Either way, there is no filibuster, right?

If we can't fight with the number of Senators we do have, because it will cause us to lose more seats, then why do we care if we lose seats at all?

I do not understand the logic at all.

Maybe we need to start fighting, let the voters decide if they want a party that fights or not, and if they don't, then we'll see where the bottom really is.

Until we hit bottom, we can't start climbing back up again. As long as we play it "safe" we are slowly falling, instead of just jumping to the bottom so that we can start moving up again. How many more years do we have to keep "playing it safe' and losing before we can start fighting again?

[StopThief]

16. The point is. . . .

that many people find the use of the filibuster against Presidential appointments to be improper. The filibuster can still be used in its traditional sense without the same consequences.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The whimper version of an opposition party. DLC version.

"Roll over, roll over...gooood doggie." Worked so well in the last 3 elections.