Help solve the mystery of why there's no Dem opposition against Bush?

[Q]

"Everything has changed". "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists".


Why did everything 'need' to change because 3000 people died on 9-11? The answer is that Bush, the Neocons and the GOP did what a Democratic administration or any other leader in the 'free world' would or could never have done: use a tragic event to further their own partisan political agenda. The mystery is why the loyal opposition let them do it without a fight?

What makes this situation so dangerous to the future of America and the world is that Bush* had little or no opposition as he wrestled control of the US government away from its democratic foundation. Even before they lost the majority...the Democratic leadership worked together with the Bush Cabal to establish a 'new' government unaccountable to the Constitution or the people.

Why? What could have possibly been gained by Democrats cooperating with Bush when it was clear to most of the world that he was not only lying about his intentions...but was turning America into a dictatorship?

What was in it for the Democrats? What have they gained for the party and the people?

Why was the Democratic Leadership so anxious to dump Gore...the winner of the popular vote... in 2000?

Why did the leadership close their eyes to verifiable election fraud in 2000, 02 and 04? Why won't they even discuss it in the public forum?

Why did they help install the Patriot Act?

Tax cuts for the rich during a time of war?

Iraq War Resolution? Every Democrat knows this war is illegal and immoral.

Why is there no push within the Dem party to expose or investigate the numerous lies, scandals and wrongdoing in the Bush White House?

Something is just not right. It's difficult to pin down or identify. But even the most faithful of Democrats should be wondering why their party is cooperating with neo cons and fascists. It's no longer a valid excuse to say there is nothing they can or could have done because they're the minority party. Every individual Democrat has always had the option of simply NOT VOTING to support Bush policies.

Democrats working WITH Bush to weaken America and Democracy is an erie sight to behold. How do you explain it?

[rkc3]

1. Corporate Greed - there's enough money to go around and not all

goes to repubs. I've been writing this for weeks. Look at the bills that have passed in bush's last term. Some of these were written only to enrich certain industries - Check 21 and New Freedom Initiative are two such bills.

If these aren't corporate handouts at the expense of the citizenry they'll never be any corporate handouts.

[rman]

6. "written only to enrich certain industries"

wasn't something simmilar going on during the Great Depression?

[itzamirakul]

37. Same reason that Al From and the DLC are

fighting to hard to retain control of the party, thereby making presidential candidate selections of people that they KNOW will never win.

It's about lining one's own pocket and "DAMN THE REST OF YOU"

[Q]

70. Nah...I think they want them to win...

...and they'll keep trying. Watch for another DLC vetted candidate in 2008. What they don't seem to realize is that they swimming against the tide with an agenda that doesn't appeal to most Democrats.

[itzamirakul]

75. Hate to disagree with you, but IMO...

the top of the DLC is composed of DINOS - Republican plants. There is NO interest in winning ANYTHING other than helping to keep the GOP in power.

How much do the DLC top guys and gals earn? Where does that money come from? How many of their children, spouses, friends and relatives are employed by "friendly" coporate "donors?"

I think the DLC is a rotting fish.

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. They are bought and paid for

and owe allegiance to the same corporate masters.

[hippiechick]

20. Ding, ding ding .. we have a winner !

:toast: Correct answer!! :toast:


:hippie:

[NoSheep]

41. Here is your prize:

:nuke:

[ChiciB1]

98. As I Posted On Another Thread

Boy King is About To Meet DAVID!!! It can't go on FOREVER!!!

Love The Explosion, can't wait to see it happen!!!

[unblock]

46. nonsense!

we have DIFFERENT corporate masters!

:bounce:

[Tinoire]

60. Good one!

:spank:

[Q]

59. The thing is....

...that most Democrats know this is true...but keep their mouths shuts and pretend their party is superior.

I wonder if the party leadership understands that they're setting their party up to lose for a long time to come?

[KnowerOfLogic]

61. Most of them make the short term calculation that it won't be them who

loses in the next election. Sadly, it comes down to dem congresspeople putting self-promotion above the good of america.

[ljm2002]

89. Let me be the second to say...

..."Ding ding ding, we have a winner!"

No mystery at all. It's been going on for awhile. Because people were by and large better off during Clinton's time in office, it was not as apparent -- except to those who were paying attention. But it hasn't changed, and now things are going badly, and the economy is being decimated, and still the so-called "centrist" Democrats "lead" us into oblivion.

Just for the record, I support more of a "swing to the center" by the Democratic party. Thing is, such a swing would necessarily be a swing TO THE LEFT, since the party is now so far to the right as to be unrecognizable as what it used to be. And yes, I've been around long enough to see the difference.

[rman]

3. a majority of politicians is in on it;

bribed and/or deceived and/or intimidated and/or otherwise cohersed by the shadow government of which i think Cheney is president (or should i say CEO).

maybe there are more good guys (and gals) on the Dem side then on the Repub side, but clearly not enough.

[RawMaterials]

4. read up on Hitlers rise to power

especally after the burning of the reichstag

http://idid.essortment.com/nazireichstag_rghx.htm

On January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler, a man who had never held public office, became chancellor of Germany. President Paul von Hindenburg, who had feared that Hitler would turn the country into a dictatorship, finally gave way to pressure from bankers, army officers and right wing politicians who were demanding order and discipline. Although right wing Nationalist politicians initially thought that they would soon tame Hitler and his ‘Brownshirt’ followers, they soon discovered how futile such an ambition was. Hitler’s speeches drove his followers into a frenzy in which they would scream out “Seig Heil!” and offer unquestioned allegiance to their leader.

On the night of February 27th, Berlin was rocked by a fire that blazed through the Reichstag Building, the German House of Parliament. The building was absolutely gutted. Called out to watch the massive bonfire, Adolf Hiltler exclaimed, “This is a God-given signal.” He was, in fact, delighted with what he saw. The very next day, Hitler met with President von Hindenburg, and pressured him into giving him dictatorial powers. This was a vital step for the Nazis. Now Hitler no longer relied upon the votes of the deputies in the Reichstag, where the Nazis did not enjoy a majority.

[Verve]

5. Democrats that are in the dark about election fraud are still in shock

about being outnumbered by idiots that voted for Chimp. Dems that know about election fraud are screaming but can't get media coverage.

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. Malarkey

They have capitulated for four years. They are SPINELESS and no longer represent true Democrats.

[Verve]

15. You both have a point. It's just hard to fathom that not only do we have

a crooked government, but that NO ONE is doing anything about it.

edit: wrong placement of post. Should be under #11.

[Q]

18. That's the very issue:

The whole world knows...even many who voted FOR Bush...that his is the most corrupt government in the history of our country. Given this knowledge...why is there no concerted effort to expose the lies and corruption?

And we can no longer simply blame it on the Corporate American Media. Although we all know that they're working for Bush & Company...the Democratic Leadership isn't making much of an effort to even present a message worthy of reporting.

[Q]

11. Still in 'shock'...since 2000?

That seems like a long time to be in shock. And don't you think that ALL Democrats...especially the leadership...know about election fraud by now? Yes...there are a few Dems 'sceaming' about it...but we're hearing NOTHING from the Democratic Leadership. Isn't this why we HAVE a leadership...to lead the party against the other side and keep them honest?

[Verve]

16. see above. n/t

[itzamirakul]

38. The Democratic Leadership is too busy

screaming that "we are not the party of Michael Moore," and attacking fellow Democrats who might want an opportunity to change the helm, to waste any valuable time attacking the Republicans.

[Rockerdem]

67. Its the party pros who are fomenting the most discontent, imho

There would be very little talk of forming 3rd parties if the political hacks would just stop dissing some of our most vigorous figures. Whats to gain??? If they have nothing positive to say, just dont say it. It just alienates and pisses people off.

[Q]

73. In their world Democrats will always vote for Democrats...

...because there are no other choices available. They want us to think within the box of the two party state. They believe the 'anyone but Bush' voters will transform into 'anyone but Republican' voters when it gets down to choosing the lesser of two evils in 2008.

[AntiCoup2K4]

82. The "leadership" is involved in the goddamned fraud

This last joke of a primary season proved that beyond any reasonable doubt.

[euler]

7. Bush hypnotized everyone.

Including the house and senate.

[ClintonTyree]

17. Not Bush,

blind nationalism. At a time when our country was still in shock from a horrible event the likes of which we had not seen not seen since Pearl Harbor, "*" started the push. The blind nationalism, patriotism, and hate of the American public was the fuel that fed the "*" fire.
Bush couldn't hypnotize a gnat. However a nation full of hate and fear turned a blind eye to the skulduggery that allowed the "*" coup to evolve. An American eye so jaundiced that rational thought was book shelved in favor of revenge. At any cost.
Hate and fear; these were the main ingredients for the fascist stew we find ourselves in today.

[Q]

19. But the question remains: where was the Democratic party...

...when all of this was happening? Did they also want to use blind nationalism and hate to their own advantage? What other reason for not opposing Bush* from the outset?

[ClintonTyree]

23. Cowering in the corner.............

knowing that there was nothing they could do that wouldn't lose them votes in the future. So afraid to speak up, so afraid that they'd be branded "unpatriotic", "spineless"....that is exactly what happened from their lack of action. They followed like the rest of the sheep to the slaughter, all in the name of fear, hate and blind patriotism. Gutless worms all.

[Q]

24. How could any Democrat with a conscience...

...allow Bush* to treat the American people and the rest of the world this way? He's not only a 'bad' president...he's ruthless as he plans to eliminate any and all programs that benefit the people over corporations.

Why aren't more Democrats disgusted that their party could be part of this?

[ljm2002]

90. "Where was the Democratic party..."

Better yet, where *is* the Democratic party? 'Cuz I don't see anything that I recognize as such.

They have not been the opposition party. They have not espoused their own ideas for reform. They seem embarrassed to acknowledge the support they get from unions, as well as what support they get from actual progressives -- to the point where they take pains to badmouth (e.g.) Michael Moore, whose biggest sin is to expose public figures to the world, using *actual footage* of their *actual words and actions*. For this, he gets the cold shoulder from our so-called Democratic "leadership". When was the last time you heard a Republican badmouth, say, Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Hannity? Yet the Dems roll over time and again, and stifle any voice within the party that might "rock the boat"... or that might energize the base.

Face it. Corporations are the masters now. And the entire world is a landscape of haves and have-nots. The U.S. is sliding quickly down that slope, it won't be long before we recognize it, but it will probably be too late to stop the slide.

It's a damn shame.

[mother earth]

9. New wave of McCarthyism is engulfing our country...

Fear...is what is weakening this country, and now with Repubs in majority where are the checks & balances?

[RawMaterials]

10. it started right after 911

and has just gotten worse every day.

[Q]

13. Did it really start after 911?

Or was it when the Democrats were railroaded into accepting the corrupt election of 2000? It seems to me that's what emboldened the Bushies to take advantage of 9-11. After literally TAKING the election away from weak Democrats...they knew that all they had to do was say BOO and their opponents would either fall into line or silence.

[Osamasux]

12. They won the Senate one seat at a time

They won the House through a variety of tactics, most unethical, several illegal, all effective. Most of that was well underway while Clinton was in office and didn't rely on Bush or 9/11. They held a House majority back then and the Senate was basically 50/50.

[Q]

14. But can we agree that 911 was the...

...pivotal event that gave the Bushies the opportunity to finally take full control of our government? And doesn't this make it even more important to know all the facts surrounding 9-11 and Bush's* push for an aggressvie war?

[Osamasux]

21. Agreed, 9/11 was the catalyst.

The foundation was there in the House and Senate. Without control of either body, it made it near impossible to hold effective public investigations into much of the goings on. We lost the ability to control the committee agendas, the right to hold hearings and the power of subpoena. We got the 9/11 Commission from the work of the Widows and Families, or we would not even have gotten that. Still, Chimp weaseled out of his interview (off the record with Uncle Cheney by his side? Please!) and shortened the focus.

As an example of what we could do if we had control of either house, Rumsfeld would be under so much congressional heat right now that Bush/Rove would overrule Cheney and retire him just to get attention away.

We need to focus on taking back the House and Senate. That is how we can be effective again.

[Q]

22. Sorry...but I just won't accept that 'we could do more' if...

...we were in the majority. This is simply an excuse for individual Democrats who are doing nothing to help restore America to some semblence of sanity.

I'm not convinced that anything would have been different if the Dems had held the majority longer. They have demonstrated that as a party...they have willingly gone along with the worst of Bush* policies. From the Patriot Act to the Iraq invasion and occupation...they have given him everything he wanted. Why?

[Osamasux]

29. The short answers to those two are

Patriot Act:
Something was needed. Much of what was needed was in there. Much of what is in there is good. Then there is the unethical sludge that went along with it. Most of it was all prepared in advance and they just used the act as an excuse and a cover.

The act was presented in its entirety. There was no reasonable time to review it. Debate was limited. The handshake agreement was 'let's pass it and then we'll fix it later'. The country was united at the time and I don't think the Dems realized that A) the Right would just flat out lie about that agreement and B) they could have packed all of that crap in there so fast.


Iraq Invasion:
Outmaneuvered. Nothing to be proud of. We took to the streets. Some of our representatives (Rush Holt and Robert Byrd come proudly to mind) were extremely vocal against it. Others, especially in the Senate, worried about how their votes against Dessert Storm came back to haunt them, caved in. Some voted for it after figuring it would pass with or without them. Others truly believed the WMD lies.

How could a majority have helped? This war was railroaded through. Debate was limited, especially considering the magnitude of what they were voting on. There was no opportunity to modify the language of the resolution. It was an artificial rush to a predetermined end. If we had a majority, we could have stiffened a few more spines, slowed and maybe prevented it.

[itzamirakul]

39. Perhaps what you say is true...

I don't agree with all of it...but nevertheless...if ALL of the Democrats in the House and Senate would stand together and make a joint statement about the criminal activities being perpetrated by this administration, at least it would make the evening news and we would feel that they were TRYING. I can't see how this would lose them any votes. They don't even have the guts to stand together about the election fraud debacle.

[Q]

57. 'Something' was needed? Why not just stamp a number on everyone's

...forehead to keep track of people and separate them from the terrorists? That would have been 'something'.

You write that 'much' of what's in the Patriot Act is 'good'. Would you mind pointing those out for us? And whether or not they 'shook hands' and agreed to change the 'bad stuff' later on...the RWingers already had shown they couldn't be trusted. It wasn't a matter of trust...it was about collusion. And the ONLY reason that many (most) representatives didn't read it was because those trustworthy Republicans rushed it through and threatened to call anyone that objected traitors and worse. Democrats COULD HAVE stalled the vote for enough time to read it...but they were chickenshits who were more worried about looking 'patriotic' and staying off Bush's* shit list.

Democrats weren't 'outmanuvered'. They WANTED a war with Iraq. And 'we' didn't take to the streets. The Democratic party disavowed the marches and protests against the war.

And I've grown weary of hearing that the IWR would have passed without them. What about voting against it because it was the right thing to do? What about ethics? What about not wanting to have anything to do with unnecessarily sending soldiers into harm's way to kill and be killed for a LIE?

No offense intended...but that you can excuse and rationalize Democrats voting for an illegal and immoral war is one of the reasons they believe they can get away with sleeping with the enemy and not suffer for it at the polls.

[leesa]

25. Money...money...money...

[Q]

26. Would you sell out your family for money?

Isn't this what the Bushies and their Democratic enablers are doing to our country?

[itzamirakul]

40. "WE" are NOT their family. n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Wolf]

28. IMO... Our political system is the reason

Our political system tends to favor parties or people who have or that can raise the most cash. In other to raise the most cash efficiently, political parties have to curry favor with those (wealthy individuals, corporations, PACs, etc...) who have large amounts to give. If you look at who donates much of the money to the Democratic Party, you will see two notable sectors: Wall Street and high technology companies. In order to keep this gravy train flowing, the Democratic leadership make their decisions based on the best interests of these sectors. For example, if you look at the Patriot Act, there are some provisions that make it easier for banks to gather personal inforamtion about you.

I know that many people view the Democratic Party as a progressive party, but IMO, this label is wrongly deserved or perhaps derived at only by default. Now the Democratic Party has some very good progressive people in it. Unfortunately, this does not make it a progressive political party. By looking at what issues the leaders of the leaders of the Democratic Party have supported over the last ten or so years (Gulf War II, The Patriot Act, welfare reform, free trade agreements, etc.), we can see that the Democratic Party is moderate on social issues and actually QUITE conservative on economic issues. Looking at this, I have to wonder why progressives waste their time and energy in the Democratic Party. Lord knows that I did for years before I saw the light.

Luckily, nature provides a useful way to look at the relationship between progressives and the Democratic Party:

In nature, a parasite is defined as an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Typically, as time goes on, the host becomes weaker and weaker. In a similar way, many progressives are the host to the Democratic Party. We waste our time, money, and energy and don’t get anything in return. What’s more is this keeps us from participating fully in other political parties that are truly progressive (like the Green Party).

In many ways, the Democratic Party, is like the Washington Generals in a Harlem Globetrotters game. They are both the perennial losers in a rigged game. Nobody in their right mind cheers or shows support for the Washington Generals. Curiously, we do this for the Democratic Party and it’s leaders. Think about it

[Q]

30. Well said...but it has been shown that neither party has to curry favor...

...with corporations or the wealthy. For example...Dean and others have demonstrated that money for campaigns CAN be raised from the party base...a dollar or two at a time. But the greedy politicians see a problem with doing it this way because they would be beholden to the people instead of the 'ruling class'.

Americans need to start asking where all these millions in campaign cash ends up. Most of it is given back to the very corporations who donated it in the first place...in the form of advertising dollars and 'consulting' fees.

This is no longer about liberals, progressives, moderates and conservatives. It's about right and wrong. Honesty and dishonesty. Ethics and corruption. America will NOT be given back to us...we're going to have to take it back by demanding that both parties be accountable to the Constitution and the people.

[mstrsplinter326]

32. Right and well said, but....

If the rulers don't pander to the corporations, the corporations will leave, causing obvious economic problems. The solution lies in a wholesale societal change that is not plausable because of how imbedded capitalism is now.

People's History of the United States is a great resource for understanding the realities of the modern ruling class and how they've taken and maintained power, all the while making people to believe they are in control or at least are having their interest served.

The whole foundation is wrong, not just who's getting what money from whom. We founded our country on the unabaded accumulation of wealth and called patriotism, then sold people the idea that corporate owners will necessarily have the populous's best interest in mind.

[Lone_Wolf]

36. Agreed...

I read A People's History, I concur that it is excellent. I have also found much of Noam Chomsky's and Michael Parenti's writings useful and informative.

I came across this the other day at the revamped Zmag website:

http://www.zmag.org/introtopol.htm


I found it useful, so hopefully others will at well.

[Q]

45. It seems that the corporations are 'leaving' anyway...

...with their sending jobs overseas and tax-sheltered Cayman Island accounts.

Perhaps many of these problems could be fixed by the people demanding that THEY fund campaigns instead of corporations looking for custom fit legislation?

We could also call all the cash from LOBBYISTS going to our representatives what it really is: Payoffs. Paybacks. Bribery.

[mstrsplinter326]

50. The outsourcing is part of the plan

You're right, but the changes need to be much more sweeping than that.

The problem is we fight these battles so fervently sometimes that we lose sight of the bigger picture. I hear you, I swear: campaign finance reform, to me, should mean that corporations are not allowed to donate to 527's, PAC, parties or candidates. They should be foreced to put their name behind the commericals they fund, just like everyone/thing else.

We've got a very distracted populus who are doing so much in-fighting and are so engrossed in the things and ideas that are sold to them that bigger pictures are missed.

For example:
The obvious: Scott Peterson is not news outside of his home town. His trial is NOT news. It has NO newsvalues to a national audience.
The no obvious: White collar criminals are not the problem! The system that bred and encourged them is the problem. But our reactions are such that we attack the dividends of the real problem; it's we're like putting a band aid on an cancer patient, expecting that to make them wholly better.

[Lone_Wolf]

34. I agree, but....

It is probably easier for the Dem Leadership to concentrate their fund raising efforts on a relatively small number of people who can give large amounts instead of a large number of people who will give small amounts. Hell, I'm sure the rich donors look at it as an investment that they'll get back a few hundred fold...

Ulimately, greed is to blame. I'm sure the Dem leaders are addicted to their lavish lifestyles and will do what they can to maintain it.

You bring up an interesting point about Dean... he has a proven ability to raise a large amount of money at the grassroot level. This is why the Establishment is so scared of him and probably why we saw the attack on Dean (Dean Scream) when he looked like a threat to win the Dem nomination. If Dean wins the DNC chair, I'll consider coming back to the Dem Party (I'm a Green now).

It sounds like you are proposing revolution. Since, the problem exists at the system level, I think revolution certainly has merits.

[Q]

42. At least a revolution of the mind...

...where we STOP giving either party a break when it comes to them accepting their responsibility as PUBLIC SERVANTS. It can't be an OPTION that they respect and follow the 'rule of law' or that they protect and defend the Constitution. And we can't honestly criticize the GOPers as 'corporate whores' when many of our own are doing the same thing.

[ljm2002]

91. "STOP giving [them] a break"...

..."when it comes to them accepting their responsibility as PUBLIC SERVANTS."

Yes, we need to recognize that our public servants are not serving us. And we need to "reward" them accordingly.

One example: During the run-up to the Iraq war, Diane Feinstein was one of my Senators. I marched against the invasion as did millions of others. I mailed her office with my opposition to the IWR, as did many, many of her constituents. She acknowledged that the communications that her office received ran *100 to 1* *against* the resolution. And the result? She voted *for* the resolution.

Pffft. Public servants, my ass. One thing I'll say for GWB, at least he said out loud the words that they all live by: "Who cares what you think?"

[KnowerOfLogic]

63. You are right. Dem incumbents should be challenged and defeated;

i voted gore in 2000, Nader in 2004, and certainly the third parties are where the real progressive movement is, but i think the best way regain power in the shortest time is to remake the Dem party and purge it of the corporate whores. Dean showed that money can be raised w/o the corporate bribery.

[Lone_Wolf]

64. I admire that stance...

but why fight two battles: first the battle with the DINOs in the primaries and then the RNC in the general election? Wouldn't it be easier for progressives to leave the Dems and join a more progressive party?

Also, how would you go about purging the DINO's from the Party when they control it?

I agree that Dean showed an amazing capacity to raise money from his grassroot supporters. I think this fundraising ability scared the Establishment. They did everything in their power to take him down with the infamous "Dean Scream" which was showed like 50 million times on TV. Make no mistake about it: the media sabotaged his campaign.

[forgethell]

31. Because

a significant number of our Democratic leadership are cowardly careerists who would vote with Satan if it guaranteed their re-election???

[Q]

33. Just as we can't blame all of this on the corporate media...

...we shouldn't put all the blame on the leadership. There are too many rank and file Democrats willing to apologize for and excuse their party's lack of fight against the most dangerous White House in our history.

We seem to have many excuses for why our leadership is cooperating or enabling neocon fascists. Rarely do we come up with reasons why they shouldn't.

[forgethell]

35. I can agree

with that statement.

[Q]

43. Here's part of the answer to the 'mystery':

Published on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

Lobbying Tab Is $1.1 Billion for Half a Year
Special interest groups report expenditures for the first half of 2004. Chamber of Commerce and AMA top the list, with $39 million.

by Peter Wallsten

WASHINGTON — As President Bush campaigned for reelection pledging to protect doctors and insurance companies from patient lawsuits while easing the tax burden on businesses, industry groups spent record amounts of money lobbying to influence the White House, Congress and their constituents.

"Cash flow to lobbying firms on Washington's K Street is accelerating — up from an average of $128 million a month during the first half of 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, to the 2004 monthly average of $176 million."

Special interests spent $1.1 billion during the first half of 2004 on lobbyists and advertising campaigns, according to public records that interest groups are required to file with the Senate. Topping the list of spenders were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Assn., which spent a combined $39 million during the six-month period to appeal for medical liability limits, according to politicalmoneyline.com. The independent group tracks spending on political campaigns and lobbying.

Reports tallying lobbyist expenditures for the rest of the year are due in February — and industry insiders expect the yearly total to exceed last year's record of roughly $2 billion.

Continues:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1229-02.htm

[Race4Peace]

44. AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO SEES THIS 9/11PATTERN:

Washington D.C. is blue. it was struck.
New York was struck. it's blue
pennsylvannia is blue. it was struck.

so why do the red-state dickheads say" they attacked us"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. It's not the "leadership" at fault. It's the Democrats.

Politicians invented "Cover Your Own Ass". They go where the votes are.
As has been pointed out so many times, the majority of the voters in this country are conservative or center right. If most politicans want to stay in office that's where they go for their votes. As long as the Democratic politicians can rely on the left wing to vote for them because they have a (D) after their name, they will go right to capture the "moderate" vote.

Solution? Make your vote hard to get. Make them come to you. That's why I'm switching to Green.

[Q]

48. Indeed...they should have to EARN our votes...

...by actually representing us. This 'sports mentality' to voting has to stop. Democrats can't continue to vote for politicians simply because they 'say' they're on 'our team' and have a (D) attached to their name.

[Threedifferentones]

49. I also wonder about many of the Republicans in office.

Presumably not all of them are part of Bush's master plan...don't any of them feel threatened? Do any of them care about our country at all? I guess it really boils down to the fact that they don't: most politicians seem to be more concerned with their career than the public they were elected to serve.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Q, I have been asking myself this very question since 1980

First I watched Reagan pass most of his agenda with the Democratic majority in the House and Senate going along "in a spirit of bipartisanship." Only a few rugged individualists fought back, and the DLC came into being, led by such "elephants in donkey jackets" as Sam Nunn.

Then came the utterly inept presidential campaign of Walter Mondale. I asked myself, "Have the Democrats been paid off to throw this election?"

The Dems lost the Senate.

Then came the 1988 campaign season. Jesse Jackson and Mario Cuomo were bringing crowds to their feet with populist messages. Jackson won the Michigan primary and took 39% in Oregon, but we ended up running Michael Dukakis, who astonished me by being even a worse campaigner than Mondale.

More capitulation, this time on the Gulf War.

Clinton finally won in 1992, but immediately started caving in to the Republicans and consulting corporatists, even though the Democrats still held the House.

His first term was the reason I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996.

In 2000, I was still less than enamored of Al Gore, because I remembered him as a supporter of the Contras and of Reagan's military buildup, but Bush was scary, so in the last few days before the election, I grimaced and decided to vote for Gore, despite his unwillingness to differentiate himself from Bush. When the Dems failed to fight back in the face of obvious fraud, I was despondent.

It was a few months after that that I joined DU.

Democratic capitulation is nothing new. The reason I supported Dennis Kucinich was that it was so refreshing to hear a politician tell the truth about the state of this country and propose solutions that seem "far left" but are actually par for the course in other countries.

But Dennis was marginalized (even before Howard Dean was), and so I reluctantly supported Kerry. I and the people I know were driven more by our disgust with Bush than with any love for Kerry. Even though we could see that he is more competent and principled than Bush, we were not so much for him as against Bush.

Then last month we went into the election all hopeful, only to find that our candidate conceded before the votes were counted and our party seemed uninterested in investigating obvious fraud.

Okay, so it's been 24 years of continual disappointment. If this were a marriage, most people would tell me to get a divorce, that my partner was never going to meet my needs.

So far, I'm sticking with the people here in Minnesota (many of them DUers) who are trying to carry out a bottom-up reform of the party's structure and focus.

But I absolutely do not blame anyone who decides to leave the country or vote Green.

[Q]

55. Looks like the ABB vote didn't work out for Kerry and the DLC...

...and that has started a process of introspection for many Democrats. But really...what did they expect? You had Kerry supporting an invasion and occupation so criminal in nature that it would have made Stalin blush. He ran away from any hint that he was a 'liberal'...giving the Bushies one more round of ammunition to call him a 'flip-flopper'. He made sure the business groups and CEOs knew that he wasn't a 'redistributionist'. (codeword for supporting corporate over social welfare.) And he pissed off countless numbers of Democrats when he 'hinted' that he simply expected their vote and had no intention of trying to earn it. Instead he went after the phantom 'swing voters' that would most likely appeal to the 'new' Democrats.

As all of the 'old' DUers know...when I first came here I was a first class apologist for the Democratic party. But after four years of Bush* and Democratic appeasement...I'm at a point where I'm looking for a reason to stay in the party.

[David Zephyr]

52. M-O-N-E-Y. That's the Answer, Q.

[KoKo]

53. Money and Cowardice. Let's see who stands up on Jan. 6th.... That's

the D-DAY.... (pun intended)

[NVMojo]

there are some I question and their ties ....

[NVMojo]

54. there are some I question and their ties ....

[sampsonblk]

56. Cowardice in the garb of moderation

They are cowards. To justify their positions, they call themselves moderates. Turning a blind eye to war crimes is not moderate. Spending what's left of our nation's wealth on illegal misadventures, etc is not moderate. Its pathetic. Now they are participating in reforming the intelligence community, helping Bush cover up the fact that he lied to everyone about the WMDs.

[Q]

71. Four years ago I would have found those statements to be...

...absurd. But now we can see it with our own eyes.

When Bush* first 'took' office we thought that lack of Dem opposition was nothing more than a strategy to 'choose the right battles'. But four year later we're witness to a rubber stamp congress using the guise of 'moderation' to explain away their complicity.

And they don't have to 'explain themselves' to the people because everything they do is cloaked in a 'homeland security' blanket of secrecy.

[Q]

72. Four years ago I would have found those statements to be...

...absurd. But now we can see it with our own eyes.

When Bush* first 'took' office we thought that lack of Dem opposition was nothing more than a strategy to 'choose the right battles'. But four years later we're witness to a rubber stamp congress using the guise of 'moderation' to explain away their complicity.

And they don't have to 'explain themselves' to the people because everything they do is cloaked in a 'homeland security' blanket of secrecy.

[spanone]

You've heard the expression 'crooked as a politician'.

They all have their price.

[Disturbed]

62. We have been warned...

many times about Corp. allignment with Govt. (Fascism)
Now it is here.

The Dem Party is done in my view. Dean will not be DNC Chair.

As a Green since Gore got robbed, I still don't see why so many real progressive Dems keep saying that the Green Party is not relevant. Yeah, it won't be if Dems keep running of the Dem wheel. Amerika is now a Neo Fascist State and will become a Neo Fascist Police State within a couple of years and the Dem Party is complicit in that march to Ameriika becoming a 3rd world Fascist Police State with China becoming the Super Power. Multi-Natl.Capitalists in Amerika no longer need the populace and it is apparent that the Govt. agrees.

[Q]

69. The weird thing about Gore getting robbed...

...is that behind the masks of the thieves were both Republicans and Democrats. The Dems who helped weren't as obvious about it as the GOPers. They praised him before they stuck a knife in his back. All of us knew Gore was gone as soon as he went populist and said 'bad things' about corporations.

We have to stop believing it's a coincidence that no progressives or 'liberals' are given a shot at the White House. Progressives scare New Democrats as much as they do the Neocons because they threaten their plans for a corporate state. Of course they won't CALL it a corporate state...but that's what it will be in form and function.

Lately I've been studying the DLC website to search for a hint that they 'get' what's going on. I had to conclude that they're either very naive or working with the Neocons. The only difference that I can see between the Neocons and Neodems is that the Neodems are still pretending to be part of their party. But it's clear that they both have the same plans when it comes to using the military to dominate America and other countries. Both believe in 'supply-side' economics...aka trickle-down corporate welfare.

I can imagine that many of us lifelong Democrats are just as surprised as lifelong conservatives when their party was taken over by outside forces like the Neocons and religiious Right.

[spanone]

58. You've heard the expression 'crooked as a politician'.

They all have their price.

[slay]

65. It's Good Cop/Bad Cop. Dems may be good cops, but they are working togeth

er on the same team. Just like the interrogation method used by police to break criminals, they are breaking our society. Which may actually turn out to be a good thing. Regardless - If the Dems do not stand up against election fraud, my vote goes Green. Period.

[Lone_Wolf]

66. Excellent analogy!

Great way to put it!

[Q]

68. Just so you understand...

...that the party leadership and many of the more conservative posters on this board either don't care that you're thinking of leaving or think you're bluffing.

Perhaps they're trying to drive the more 'liberal' voters out of the party so they don't have to feel guilty about not representing them?

[Disturbed]

74. it seems...

that either the DLC and their supporters actually believe a further move toward the right will help in getting more Dems in Congress and the WH or they don't believe it but wish to keep their jobs and power.It sure seems that they don't care about progressives and shrug at the notion of many leaving the Dem party to form a new party or join the Greens. Maybe they see progressives as liablities. The next two years will be rough and the two after that may be even more so. I really am dreading them.

[Q]

76. The DLC intends to move to the right...but NOT to help the party...

They work for the corporate, ruling class. That became clear when they disavowed the 'New Deal' and began their campaign to work together with the Bushie Neocons while helping them discredit their mutual enemies.

Moore became a target when he exposed their complicity in F911. The film not only showed the relationship between Saudi terrorists and the Bush family...but also a connection with the RWing of the Dem party.

But Moore is not alone. The Neocons and Neodems have also targeted liberal and progressive politicians that get too close to gaining popular support among disenfranchised voters. They'll do anything they can...including character assassination...to prevent anyone to the left of them from getting a leadership position.

[slay]

94. I'm liberal and proud. If the Dems want me to leave, I'll leave.

And if they don't investigate the election fraud, I'm leaving no matter what.

[bklyncowgirl]

77. "One party with two right wings." Gore Vidal

Since the election this year I'm going back to agreeing more and more with Gore Vidal.

The idea is that there is freedom in this country in that you or a politican for that matter can say pretty much whatever they want but on the issues that matter--the economic issues--there are only a few acceptable positions. Stray beyond them such as seriously questioning free trade or corporate media monopolies and on the national level you will be quickly and efficiently marginalized.

The function of the political donor class and the media is to insure that no one who could represent a threat to these interests gets into a position of real power. They prefer Republicans but will allow from time to time a Democrat who will work for their agenda. Is it really a surprise that stories about Clinton's private life began reaching a fever pitch AFTER not before NAFTA and GATT were passed. Poppy Bush wouldn't have been able to pass these trade agreements in his wildest dreams.

The interesting thing about this election was that discontent with the leadership of the Democratic party led to the rise of Howard Dean--a candidate who would have been as marginal a player as Dennis Kucinich (no slam against Dennis here I love the guy Dean too for that matter) had he not found the key to the mint and a new way of political organizing on the Internet.

Dean was not acceptable to the powers that be. Dean had to go, but the Democrats had a problem in that their pissed off rank and file were not going to tamely vote for a safe corporatist candidate such as Lieberman. The Democratic leadership--the money men--settled on Kerry as the best compromise candidate--they hadn't really expected to win this one anyway--and helped revive his candidacy and knock off Dean. Kerry in turn was somewhat crippled in his campeign because the people who helped him win the nomination weren't too keen on him going all out to win. In their eyes it was better to lose than to rock any boats.

Now that Kerry lost under circumstances that to many of the Democratic base seem suspicious, the Democrats are facing another rebellion of the masses centering around the issue of the DNC chair. My personal guess is that I probably have a better chance of being named DNC chair than Howard Dean. Probably, the best we can hope for is some compromise candidate who'll bring in some new ideas and won't totally cave to the right on social issues and will put up some resistance on tax reform and social security. Their idea will be to try and hold the existing coalition together without offending the powers that be.

This has been a long post but these ideas have been brewing so they just kind of came out when I saw this thread.

[Q]

78. Have you read Vidal's 'The Second American Revolution'?

In this book he talks about essentially the same thing: both parties work for the 'BanksParty'.

Your post wasn't long at all...and well stated.

But it looks like the charade is about to fall. I can't see that many rank and file Democrats going along with the ruse much longer. The 'new' Democrats can do only so much to beguile the people into believing that a hammer up the side of their head is actually good for them.

But you're right about Dean and other progressives like him. He could put an end to their game in one fell swoop just by showing what a real Democrat (used to) look like. Dean joins Gore and Kucinich in exile...thrown away for daring to contradict the BanksParty.

[bklyncowgirl]

79. I haven't gotten around to reading it.

I usually catch his essays when I can. Brilliant man and usually turns out to be right.

Personally, I wish he wasn't and frankly, this year I was hoping that maybe his analysis was wrong.

Maybe you're right. I do think that something is happening. I talked to a non-political friend yesterday about Bush's tax reform plans and she went apoplectic about possibly losing the state income tax deduction. Alot of people believe that they are trying to destroy the middle class. There's room for a movement there if someone can figure out how to say these things without being labled an advocate of class warfare. I think Dean showed how to get around the money barrier. Now we have to figure out how to bypass the media.

[Q]

80. Actually...the 'Second American Revolution' is a collection of essays...

...but I'm not sure if it's widely available. Perhaps your local library?

It could be 'wishful thinking' on my part that something is happening. I do know that the ABB vote was the only reason that Kerry attracted many otherwise progressive voters.

We'll see what happens in 2006...when the DLC centrists will probably be given their last shot at running the party. We'll know much more by 2008...when Democrats will either demand a progressive candidate, find a third party or simply stay home.

[donsu]

81. Fear

they have been BBBT&Med

Bullied

Bribed

Blackmailed

Threatened

Murdered

[Q]

83. Lieberman doesn't look 'afraid'...

...and neither do many of the happy camper centrists. Although I'm sure some of your descriptions apply...it's more than likely that many of them are simply going along for the ride and sharing the loot with the pirates.

[donsu]

84. Is Lieb really a dem.?

nt

[Q]

85. Well...that's debatable...

...he's more like Zelly Miller...but knows how to play the game and pretend he's a Democrat while concurrently pushing Bush's agenda.

[jswordy]

86. There is a very simple answer.

Members of Congress are elected every two years. To not have done the things the Dems did would have meant losses. I mean, look what they did in Georgia to Max Cleland, a patriot and national hero if ever there was one?

[Q]

87. The Democratic party has never been in this sorry of shape...

...and it seems that for all their compromising and concessions...they lost anyway.

Daschle actually used pictures of Bush* in his campaign advertizing...bragging about how well they worked together.

Well...we know what happened to Daschle.

The point is that the Democratic leadership keeps moving to the right and selling off bits and pieces of party principles and values and they STILL LOSE. Isn't there a lesson in this somewhere?

[KoKo]

92. After watching all this closely

since Clinton Impeachment, and hearing excuse afer excuse for why our Democrats haven't stood up (which started the day Clinton was elected, btw) and went on during Carter (if one looks back at the pattern)...I've come to the conclusion that "excuses" are all that's ever been offered for our party leaderships failure to support our own Democratic Candidates and our elected Democratic Presidents. I've been watching this since the Nixon days...I've made the same excuses myself over and over for why they haven't stood up.

But, it wasn't until Selection 2000 that I became active and joined in on the ground in the new "grassroots" effort to try to fix what seemed to be wrong that we were so "clueless" and "spineless" in supporting our own.

Now that I see what's happened with this November 2nd " Second Selection" and having been here on DU for over three years...reading it all, watching it all and working within the system for this election, I have to say there is a "planned quality" to it. Blaming a shift in the country from Blue States to Red with the rise of the Fundamental Christians is just the latest excuse. Why did that happen? What did our Democrats ever do to be a counterbalance. Why did Clinton support NAFTA as his first Presidential act..and why did he allow the Telecommunications Act of 1997 to occurr which put the final nail in the coffin for any balance of opinion in the US by taking away what little balanced media we had after Reagan deep sixed the "Fairness Doctrine." Why did Lieberman and Dodd of Connecticut get away with loosening SEC Regulations put in after the Great Depression which Clinton did veto but they over-rode his veto. These three "give aways" are what is most telling to me. And then that Clinton was hounded to give up documents and persecuted with WhiteWater (where they LOST money) which then went on to be Monica Gate and Impeachment. He gave them what they wanted, but they wanted him out. Yet, Bush did illegal stock deals where he MADE MONEY, had cronies who were involved in deals that would make a Mafia Don blush....and he's never had to give up any of his documents because of Executive Privilege/National Security.

Whatever this is...it's been going on since JFK...and I'm not being "tinfoilhat" or getting carried away with NeoCon plots, Strausian indoctrination, etc. (Although the evidence is there that all of this is a strong probability, in the absense of being able to explain our Democrats strange behavior all this time).

Just look around "Q" it's everywhere. The undermining of any Democratic Activism...and it's really venomous since Kerry Conceded. It's heavy on the internet in "activist organizing forums" even under our own beds.

It's a puzzle. I don't think we will find the answer...just the pieces that keep falling into place. I don't think we even know the Picture that we are trying to create with the pieces of the puzzle and that's why we can't correct what's wrong.

It's pretty much out of our hands now, though. We activists have have started an "awareness." Hopefully the questions will begin to be asked in places that have more influence than we here will have from now on. Maybe starting the "ball rolling" was more important than finding out where it needs to go, in the end. :shrug:

Thanks for asking this. It needed to be asked.

[Q]

95. "The undermining of any Democratic Activism..."

I really don't consider myself an 'activist'...just a Democrat wondering where it all went wrong. I came to DU a Democratic Apologist and now I just can't defend them anymore.

Four years of Bush. Four years of Bush...and we watch in horror as the Mighty War President herds Democrats like cattle to the slaughter. And to top it off...when we had a chance to redeem our party in 2004...the party bosses nominates Mr. Reporting for Duty who didn't seem to get it as he pledged to 'kill' more terrorists than Bush and continue to perpetuate the lie which is the war on terror in Iraq.

Bush called the millions who braved the scorn of the false patriots and marched against the Iraq war a 'focus group'. Hundreds of thousands of women demonstrated in DC against Bush's policies weakening women's reproductive rights. It made me proud that so many Americans still cared. But the Democratic party leadership couldn't run away fast enough so as not to be associated with these great Americans. They turned their backs on these people...just as they have turned their backs on what made the Democratic party the closest thing to the party of the people this country has ever seen.

No more voting for Democrats unwilling to earn those votes by representing the People or honoring their duty to protect and defend the Constitution.

[KoKo]

96. Oh yes...all of what you say and what I said. But WHY....that's what

plagues us...always asking why. Not speaking for you...here..just myself. WHY...what is this all about?

Third Parties haven't had the ability to survive in US in the past. Maybe a NEW FUTURE for America built on "new values" is in the cards in the 21'st Century.

BUT...if this goes on unless you are "Independently Weathy" Q...some of us are going to be faced with HARD decisions. Giving up the activism to pass a torch to those who still want and believe in doing it...or Protecting Ourselves from what's to come.

I'm drawing closer to the "Protecting Ourselves from What's to Come" column. I've been there, seen it, tried to stop it, worked my butt off, opened my wallet...and it's still the same old...same old...

I think at some point one just has to "preserve one's self" and act in "one's own interest." Where ever that "interest" is.

Knocking one's head against brick walls repeatedly does lead to mega headaches...in the end. And, doing all one could do and not having any success at it leads to demoralization. :shrug:

[Q]

97. I have few answers...

...I'm still trying to figure out why some of our party split off into a separate faction...calling themselves 'new' Democrats. My guess is that the party wouldn't go corporate fast enough for them so they decided to create a powerful, monied group to pull the rest of the party along against their will.

The 2000 election. 9-11. John Ashcroft. Patriot Act. Iraq invasion and occupation. Tax cuts for the rich. Homeland security war profiteering. What have we become?

[KoKo]

99. Yes, Indeed....."What Have We Become?"

We have become a spineless "0" is what we've become. I have "Pride" I pick up my skirt (as a female) and hold it up over the waste and disgust I feel our Dems have led us to....I look on our Party as Vermin in Bed with the Bushies from Joe Biden (Mr. Hair Transplant) to Pelosi (Ms. BoTox of the giggles and pop eyes)...(hate to say this but, my Party has led me on my "unguarded moments" to use speech that just a few years ago I would never have done...yet, I know that what's wrong is SO WRONG...and that THEY don't listen...means for some of us: "the cusp of
move on." :shrug:

[Q]

100. I think we've become...

...just like the other side but can't seem to admit it...even to ourselves.

We know there are Democrats taking payoffs and kickbacks and trading cash for legislation. We know there are Democrats agreeing to keep their mouth shut about corruption as long as they get part of the 'take'.

But here we are still pretending to be superior because there aren't as many of us taking payoffs or committing crimes as there are in the GOP.

America deserves more than this.

[jswordy]

93. AGREED. And I assume yer ??? is RHETORICAL? LOL

ROFL!!!!!!!

[John_H]

102. Easy. A gross misunderstanding of what the american people want.

The people want a government that promotes real American values. Clinton understood this perfectly and provided a government which exemplefied them--and as a result he was the most successful president since the last president that understood real American values, FDR.

Rove has bambooz;ed Americans believe chimp is providing them too, under the guise of holiness, when he's doing quite the opposite.

The bad news: Current Dem leadership and the people that work for them have absolutely no clue how to point this out to the American people. No clue.

Is it because they're dopey or bought and paid for? Who knows? And it doesn't matter.

The good news: There are plenty of Dem electeds, strategists, and staffers who understand what Clinton understood and who know how to articulate it to the people. It's up to rank and file Dems to get rid of the current crop and bring in people who know how to fight.

I'll say it, and say it again till I'm blue in the face: Cut off the donations, write letters, make calls. As long as the people who have been in charge, from top to bottom, since 2000 stay in charge, their record of failure will lay before us as long as the eye can see.

[TrustingDog]

88. they all feed from the same trough - we the people...

dems aren't Quite as gluttoness, but they're not going to give up that wonderful gravy train either, for what? fairness and justice?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[tngledwebb]

101. Good points.

Many Dem leaders must have been co-opted by a corporate agenda, or bought outright.

Saying they are just incompetent, ignorant or impotent is even less acceptable.

This logic also helps to explain the complicity of MSM, and a number of other unsolved mysteries of the last few decades.

[Q]

103. Many Democrats seem to be of the same opinion...

...so why do we continue to excuse their behavior and vote for them? If they KNEW they had to actually earn our votes...wouldn't that be a motivation for them to 'pander' to us instead of the moneychangers?

Perhaps it's not as complicated as we thing? We just might be electing the wrong type of people into high office. We should vote for public servants...not servants to corporations.