Someone please explain to me....

[WildEyedLiberal]

... why Bolton's recess appointment by Bush is causing the lot of you to call Democrats weak and spineless. Excuse me all to hell, but Bolton is going to the UN through a weak loophole - without the Senate's support, and implicitly, without America's support. He's been seriously undermined before he even starts the job, THANKS to the Senate Democrats (and a few Repubs like Voinovich) who didn't back down and just let him slide through on confirmation.

But here comes DU, whining and screeching about how Dems are spineless. What the in the serious hell? Bush demonstrates once and for all that he has NO respect for the Constitution and no respect for world opinion, and some idiots here are attacking Democrats. I fail to understand what else the Dems could have done short of, I don't know, hiring out a contract on John Bolton. You think if they'd filibustered Bolton, Bush wouldn't have appointed him through this backdoor method? You don't think his backup nominee would have been just as odious? You think the Democrats are going to blow up the Capitol or fucking pretend they're radical 60's revolutionaries like so many here would have them do, marching in the street and leading the people to a mass overthrow of the White House?

Get real. The Dems railroaded Bolton's nomination and forced Bush's hand, forcing him to demonstrate openly his contempt for the U.S. Constitution. There are people here who need a crash course in Real World Politics 101, and who need to understand that, when you're a significant minority in the government, every small victory counts, instead of whining about how the Democrats didn't start a bloody revolution in DC to prevent Bolton's nomination.

[wli]

1. Bolton's apptmt. even plays into our hands

As the booing demonstrates, he's already a laughingstock.

Then again, that borders on party-over-country.

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. Exactly, he's neutered before he starts the job

The Senate Dems did a great job of derailing his nomination. Now he's damaged goods, and no one will take him seriously. I just don't understand the sturm und drang and wringing of hands at DU, at all.

[GetTheRightVote]

3. This is a victory for the Dems, that stood together against the machine

* and his crime bosses, I take my hat off to them, atleast this time they stood together and thank God for it, I hope it continues into the future, take heart from this knowledge, all good things come to those who wait and then act ........ our time is close at hand.

:kick:

[Kelvin Mace]

4. They didn't have to start a "bloody revolution"

They just had to tell Bush, "OK, you want to play that way, we'll convene on Roberts in January AFTER we dispose of the Bolton nomination."

Simple.

But I would have settled for one of them simply calling Bolton a "liar". But they won't do that 'cause someone might get mad at them.

As long as the Dems keep playing this way, Bush wins.

Not all the Vichy Dems are spineless. Some are willing collaborators like Lieberman and Biden.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Biden did a hell of a lot to stop Bolton

I guess you missed the SFRC hearings where he started yelling about how unqualified Bolton was.

I don't LIKE Biden, but he certainly didn't lay down and die on Bolton.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Please...

Biden loves the sound of his own voice, but when push comes to shove, it's what'll get him re-elected. Biden sold us out to the credit card companies with his vote on the bankruptcy bill.

Already covered this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4237727

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. I said I didn't like Biden

And the Bankruptcy Bill demonstrates why. He IS an egomaniac. But let's give credit where credit is due - he did vigorously oppose Bolton.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. We seem to disagree

on vigorous. Since it has become clear that Bolton perjured himself on the affidavit, has Biden called him a "liar"?

Anything short of this is not "vigorous" in my book.

I was just over a Kos and they have a great post on this:

I suggest that we DID have a litmus test, and that Paul Hackett met every important point. It's just not any of the litmus tests that we usually hear about. While I am sure that all of us would have our favorite elements, they would have to include some or all of the following:

Does 'distance himself' from the party or its leaders, or is he proud to be a Democrat?

Does he talk like a bureaucrat or like a regular person?

Does he make it clear that he opposes Bush and the Republicans?

Does he back down when the corporate press/media or Republican pundits attack him, or does he stand by his words?

Does he respond to the nationwide reaction of the left blogosphere, or does he assign it to a junior staff member?

Does he sleepwalk through the campaign, or does he act like he wants to win?

I don't know all of Paul Hackett's positions and, since I am an old school lefty I am sure I don't agree with all of them. But he passed the litmus test I have set out for Democratic candidate I will support with time and donations.

Biden and many Vichy Dems flunk this test outright. They keep insisting they adhere to the Queensbury Rules when we are in a no holds barred knife fight.

I don't give credit to Biden for acting like a Democrat when the mood hits him.

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. For the last time, I don't think Biden is a shining example of a good Dem

But I also don't buy that "litmus test" BS that you need to namecall Republicans in order to "fight" them. Trash talking isn't my idea of fighting - rhetoric is just that.

Saying "he perjured himself" as opposed to saying he's a "liar" is a nonissue. Lobbying to postpone the vote on Bolton from reaching the floor, on the other hand, is a substantial and tangible victory. I have no idea why this became about Biden specifically.

[karynnj]

26. In fact, saying he perjured himself is STRONGER

than saying he is a liar. He actually did commit perjury - his answers to the committee (under oath) contained statements that were not true - as very clearly pointed out by Kerry, Dodd and Biden in the committee hearings. The Republicans (other than Voinivich) opted to ignore this.

[bejammin075]

43. Biden: always talks very tough, but his votes...

OK, after you watch Biden for a while, you realize he is one hell of a tough talker, or can be when he wants to.

HOWEVER,

you have to watch how he VOTES. Biden can give a scorching speech about how you'd be the worst appointment ever, undermining national security and everything, but then still vote for you. WTF?

It's because of shit like that that I don't trust Biden. You have to watch his voting pattern.

[Cocoa]

30. Biden didn't call Bolton a liar

he PROVED Bolton to be a liar.

I'll take that any day over the dems just going around calling people names. :bounce:

[Mr_Spock]

5. I agree - Bolton is simply another shit stain on Bush's shirt

...though the disgrace to our country due to the arrogance of the Chimpanus really tics me off.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. Oh I'm completely ashamed of Bolton AND Bush

But I reserve my fury for the Bush Administration, not the Democrats who didn't cause this shit.

[uppityperson]

8. Thank you for this entire message

I have been on DU little the last few days due to other oblgations, so have missed much of this round of DU yelling about democrats and each other. I checked in this am to see DU news and found Bolton installation. BAH! Have you read the bush press release? The lies, the arrogance that they can think they can pull this off! As I said this last winter, it must get worse before the sheeple will wake up and this is the only thing I can see remotely positive about the bolton installation. Mr.bush is getting more and more outrageous, perhaps sheeple will notice. At any rate, no complaints to the dems from me. Thank you for this entire topic.

[Mr_Spock]

14. I've got over 5000 posts and have only a handful criticizing Dems

I'm not a person who thinks that this is a productive way to spend my time here. In fact, I'm surprised about topics like this because I choose not to read the sorry ass screeds from grumpy people here. I appreciate people (like you) who read the garbage some here post and challenge their negative thinking.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Well, thanks!

And I appreciate YOUR positivity. I, too, think that being a DEMOCRATIC activist means vigorously opposing the Republican/neocon agenda instead of bitching and moaning about what the Democrats didn't do perfectly. I obviously like some Democrats a lot better than others. But you know what? I like them ALL a LOT better than even the least odious Republicans.

[Mr_Spock]

17. I agree - well, except for Lieberman - lol - just kidding

It's true I can't figure him out sometimes though I don't like to bash him either - he's a tool - but we need a tool like him at times. It takes all types - it all depends on the circumstances.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Lieberman is lame

And votes for a lot of bad shit. The worst I'll say about him is that I wish an electable, more liberal Dem would challenge him in CT, since a liberal Dem COULD win in CT. Even so, I still prefer Lieberman to, well, any Repub senator.

[Mr_Spock]

20. There ya go

:D - Lieberman is the bottom of the barrel but we'll take him over a mindless Repuke moron any day :D

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Indeed

:D Nice to see some true Democratic spirit around here! :toast:

[emulatorloo]

28. You forgot Zell Miller ------ EOM

[Mr_Spock]

34. Zell isn't a Democrat any more - he's a Nazi sympathizer

I flush Zell down the toilet once a day.

[emulatorloo]

38. lol - n/t

[holboz]

9. Well pointed out

In fact, I almost hate to say this but Bush's second term was probably good for the Democrats in the long run.

Arrogance and ignorance are dangerous when mixed.


:dem:

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Honestly

I am kind of glad, in retrospect, that Kerry didn't have to deal with the Iraq mess and the divided populace (in addition to a loss of Congressional seats). The MSM whores would've of course found a way to pin the entire Iraq quagmire on him, and Congressional gridlock would prevent any of his ideas from becoming law. Instead, we have Bush, who is rapidly slipping in popularity as people begin to wake up and realize what a fucking dangerous clown is governing our country. AND, Iraq is once and forever known as Bush's war. Not to mention that Bush going down in flames is a lot better way to shut up the Bushbots and neocons.

[Anywho6]

10. Amen and a kick!

:kick:

[tavalon]

22. Yeah, I'm not getting this one either

not that I'm saying the Dems haven't given us plenty of evidence of their spinelessness but this isn't one of those times, methinks.

Now, if there isn't a howling complaint in the next few days, I'll wonder but damn, this looks bad on the administration, not on the Dems.

[Andromeda]

23. Kick!

:kick:

[emanymton]

24. Use This To Block All Senate Business, Requires Dems ...

to stay together as a group.

Given there is no name the shrub Junta has not already called the Democrats, the Democrats can go ahead together and stop all Senate business anyway!


Bush Lied. People Died. Media Cheered.

[Burried News]

25. You are right on this one. Dems did a good job with Bolton and

got further than I thought they would. They did it by playing a very good game of chess. As a result the GOP was not able to score any hits. They are also dealing with and having to react to, multiple crises and so far I don't see that they have made any critical mistakes.

I have never been a revolutionary and don't consider myself one now. Your take on "Marching in the Streets" is wrong and needs to be reconsidered. You need to ask yourself - who had a vested interest in portraying the 60's demonstrations as a revolution? They were initially an outcry and protest against injustice. The perceptions most of us have of them have been greatly shaped by a media that is an agent for the creation of a passive America - a mission accomplished.

The 60's were the result of the murder of a President and a Presidential candidate - murders which were not successfully prosecuted. They were the result of murders of Martin Luther King and other civil rights workers which by and large were not successfully prosecuted. A civil rights movement whose aims have not yet been completely fulfilled.

Who has a vested interest in preventing protest marches? Who is threatened by them and why?

PS I was never in the streets in the 60's - I was on the other side -I was wrong.

[Inland]

27. I agree, they did what they could. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. As a matter of interest, how many DUers did call Democrats 'spineless'?

I can find one quote like that in GD, and I suppose there may be a few synonyms, but are they really so widespread that a 'the lot of you' thread is appropriate? Wouldn't you be better off telling the fools (I agree with you that 'spineless' is a grap accusation) to their faces, by replying to their posts?

[Lerkfish]

31. well, if you overstretch the definition, I might be the one he's talking

about, because I started a thread saying that the DLC strategy of compromise and appeasement did little to forestall this from happening.
although I didn't use the word "spineless', I WAS pointing out that generally, we were told that making compromises would garner us some influence and power, and I was pointing out that this proves that strategy is ineffective.

Of course, that's a bit different from saying there was a DIRECT causal link from the filibuster deal to this appt., but my point is that I have said all along that compromising accomplishes nothing. All along, however, DLC apologists have said it WOULD accomplish something, and only now, they are claiming nothing could be accomplished.

I was more pointing out the contradictory justifications for complicity with a corrupt regime. you cannot compromise or broker a deal with fascists. They'll just take your end and then refuse to do theirs.

"spineless"? no, I think more tragically naive.

so, it may have been me the OP was referring to, and if you define it a certain way, yes, I look at this bolton appt. as symptomatic of a larger problem of deciding to appear to cooperate with people who have no honor. Better to stand on principle and lose than to side with corrupt people, hoping for some crumbs.

[Bridget Burke]

40. I've missed all those threads as well.

Why must every DUer be chastised?

[paulk]

32. the Bolton recess nomination is a victory for Dems

I have to question the motives of those spinning it any other way.

thanks for this thread

[blm]

33. Alot of people are new to govt. procedure and unfamiliar with its rules.

But, some DO know and are looking to take advantage of the ignorance of the newer activists to alienate them further from Dem lawmakers.

It's the old tried and true David Horowitz method of stirring up the left against the left.

[bigtree]

37. yeah, probably true in some cases

but some are just frustrated with these procedures which can be very undemocratic if you take into account that the republicans, who were elected in numbers that give them control over the body, changed a lot of the rules to allow them to roll over the minority.

[dogday]

35. I agree, he already goes in with zero credibility

and it will only get worse from there. I think we did our jobs stopping it in the Senate. The Democratic hands are clean on this one, it is all Bush, if Bolton goes down, so goes Bush....

[ginnyinWI]

36. great post, WEL n/t

[jillan]

39. Those of you bashing the dems on this are missing one thing

Biden could have called Bolton a fcking liar, and Bush still would have appointed him. There is nothing that we could have done to stop this.
Lets save the revolution for the supreme court, where it will really matter. Bolton is going in as 'damaged goods'.

And I have to give kudos to Biden and Dodd. They put up a great fight.
AND BOLTON IS GOING TO THE UN WITHOUT SENATE CONFIRMATION. And that during this gop controlled world is something to be proud of.

Besides, they do have to have some civility in Congress.
We don't really want our senators to be as offensive as Cheney, telling someone to go fck themselves!?

Great post W.E.L.:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

41. "the lot of you to call Democrats weak and spineless"

Rather broad brush you swing there, WildEyedLiberal.

I read DU daily, and don't remember "the lot of you" calling the Dem Party spineless over THIS issue. In fact, my impression was that most of DU agreed with the consensus you post today as your own.
I'm going to have to call bullshit unless you support your statement.

[bejammin075]

42. Dems should have insisted on getting documents

I am one of those who bitched. Here's why:

In the Senate hearing they agreed that Bush would provide more documents and then Dems would go for the up-or-down vote and the chairman (luger?) was asked the question again to make it very crystal clear (i think Boxer asked the qwuestion) that the Bush admin would cooperate wit the docs, right?

Soooooo....

then nothing happened. after that, i never heard (and i WAS listening!) for Dems to reiterate that they would give the up-or-down vote AFTER getting the documents. In my opinion, the Dems should have brought up, over and over, between then and yesterday, that they were eagerly awaiting the delivery of Bush's Bolton documkents so they could give the up-or-down vote.

yesterday, Bush spun it as obstructionist democrats. and even after that, i didn't see any dems on TV talking about hte fact that Bush withheld the documents needed for the up-or-down vote. the dem's counter-spin was very weak.

overall, it is not the most disappointing thing ever, but it's disappointing. i agree that the recess appointment option leaved Bolton weaker. HOWEVER, it's been clear to me that the Bush admin is on fire to get Bolton at the UN ASAP, and that the Bush admin has some plan ready to hatch and Bolton is central to that plan. I'm not sure what the plan is, but it's scary, and involves nukes and iran, escalating tensions. get ready for some serious shit to start happening.

I couldn't sleep the night after Bolton's appointment because I kept thinking about what it would be like to die in the nuclear exchange that's coming down the pipeline.

[globalvillage]

44. Thank you WEL

Credit where credit is due. Bolton and bush* are both weakened by this appointment, and it took a lot of hard work by Senate Dems to make that happen.
Nice post.

[frazzledmom]

45. Agreed.. Clinton did the same thing.. only with better results:

"Richard Holbrooke, who Republicans delayed for 14 months as Bill Clinton's nominee to the U.N., refused to bypass the Senate with a recess appointment, saying that it would introduce him to the world body with no credibility or authority."