Abortion rights don't matter.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Health care doesn't matter.
Civil rights don't matter.
Education doesn't matter.
Civil liberties don't matter.
The environment doesn't matter.
The gap between the rich and the poor doesn't matter.
The economy doesn't matter.
The national debt doesn't matter.
Keeping church and state separate doesn't matter.
Crime rates don't matter.
Welfare reform doesn't matter.
Darfur doesn't matter.
The war on drugs doesn't matter.

Don't agree with those statements? I certainly don't. Those certainly are not the values that form what is the Democratic party. In fact, arguing vehemently on a lot of those issues might get one tossed off of DU.

And yet that's what I'm regularly reading these days.

Those statements aren't made directly, but they are being said. Every time someone says some variation of the following, each and every one of those statements are being made:

If Democrats don't do more to end the war in Iraq, I'm not voting for them again.

Since when have we become a one-issue party? Since when is Iraq the only thing that plagues our society? Since when did all of these other issues that devastate the lives of millions of Americans become irrelevant?

Wake up, DU. We need to do a lot more than end the war in Iraq. Withdrawing your support in reaction to Democrats not following your completely unrealistic expectations sacrifices everything else on the liberal agenda. Not coincidentally, the actions you demand ALSO put at risk everything else on the liberal agenda.

There are 4 simple facts in play.

1) We cannot override a veto.
2) We cannot end a filibuster.
3) Bush has made it clear that he will continue the war through the end of his Presidency. You'd have to cut the entire Department of Defense budget to make it happen, and even then, it's far too late for that. We're already talking about FY 2008 appropriations, which puts us through the end of his Presidency.
4) The American people do NOT support defunding the war.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.poll/index.html

Democratic leaders have said they won't cut off support for the troops, and the majority of the public agrees they should not, according to the CNN poll. Sixty percent of those polled oppose a measure that would provide no additional funds for the troops and require them to withdraw by next March.

Once again, Congressional Democrats have a responsibility to our party, nay, the United States of America to be responsible in their actions and to get the ENTIRE country on a better course for the future. Playing the martyr on Iraq would be immensely irresponsible in the face of those four simple facts stated above.

I care about every single one of those issues above. If we don't tend to them, there won't be much of a nation left, regardless of what happens in Iraq. It's time you started caring about those issues again too.

[Phredicles]

1. It's not just this one issue; they've shown they can't be trusted on any

issue not to sell us out. And if they're all about cold, hard political calculus why the fucking goddamn hell did they make it sound like they were going to take a fucking stand on this point? All they've done is make themselves look cowardly AND stupid.

The Democrats should change their mascot from a donkey to an amoeba: No heart, no brains, no backbone, no guts, no balls.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. What stand do you suggest, beyond what they've already done?

To paraphrase Congressman Obey, where's the magic wand that's going to create the votes to make what you want happen?

[Heath Hatcher]

3. Oh why, because you want them to keep pushing a bill that has

no chance of passing in the WH, that's a good plan to get out of Iraq. there doing the best they can under the circumstances, I don't like it but your not going to like everything that comes out of politics.

[pat_k]

17. Primary challenges. There are powerful people. . .

. . .who know the meaning of an oath out there for the finding. There are elected officials in our States who have taken up the fight for impeachment, some who would make formidable candidates.

This is our Party.

[dmallind]

4. I agree (see the sig) but a depressing number don't

It's Naderism without Nader - the silly idea that the parties are the same because they are both "corporatist" or some other silly half-baked idea. It's downright stupid to say "I'll never vote for X" when X is the only damn choice we have to avoid more neocon end times luncacy. Yes it's absolutely criminal that probably several hundred more soldiers and thousands more Iraqis will have to die because of his stubbornness and our inability to persuade enough Republicans to override him, but that pales greatly when compared to what will doubtless happen if we just hand the reins over to another version of Bush with better speaking skills and less negative baggage.

Criticism is just fine. I think they could have handled this funding issue better myself, and doubtless other issues too, but unless we have supermajorities in both houses the purists have to get their heads around the realpolitik that it can't be anything else but an uphill struggle. Not voting for them? I guess it's the utilitarian in me, but not preventing harm is morally equivalent to causing harm in my book, and not voting for a "corporatist warmonger" like Hillary when the only other choice is say Romney who is both of those AND a theo-loon AND a social caveman AND an economic kiss of death AND guaranteed pariah status for the US for generations to come is pretty damn much the definition of not preventing harm.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Thanks dmallind.

I agree completely.

[LeFleur1]

25. Choices

So...Are you saying Hillary would be a better choice than Romney?
How do you know?
How are those Democrats who voted to give Bush this blank check for war any different from Republicans who voted for it?
There should have been some accountability especially since they are dealing with Bush who has never been accountable for anything in his life. That they let him get away with not being accountable again...without much of a fight...is a travesty.

Today I feel that there isn't a whole heck of a lot of difference between the parties. I've been a Democrat my whole life, but today I long for a good third party candidate, and even feel one would be successful in getting elected. But, of course, the two parties have made that impossible. It's the one thing they were able to work together on successfully.

As far as being a war issue voter, well, when the one issue is lives of our troops, I think that's a pretty big issue. The least that the Party could do is fight for them.

Until the war issue is resolved, and our troops are not being killed and maimed, doling out more money for domestic programs and pork just doesn't seem quite as important.

[depakid]

6. If abortion rights mattered to a certain element of the party

Then Alito wouldn't be sitting on the Supreme Court....

Here we have an unethical man whop lied to Congress in his previous confirmation testimony when he became a federal judge.

And yet the "leadership" couldn't muster the support to stop even that nomination- nor did it discipline the party member who sold EVERYONE out.

What makes anyone think that this behavior won't continue? If the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans would never have allowed this- and woe to the party member who crossed over.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. And if it HAD disciplined him, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Because we'd still be in the minority in the Senate and there wouldn't even be a chance to have this debate.

[depakid]

13. That's the same defeatist attitude that propels repeated capitualtions

It's the same thing that's allowed that certain element of the party to legitimize and enable far right policies so that they now seem "mainstream" or "centrist" when in fact, they're irrational, extremist and abusive toward the party's base- and indeed, all ordinary Americans.

Is it any wonder that so many now consider themselves independent? or that the Green Party rose so quickly in the mid to late 90's?

Perceptions mean a LOT in politics- and the leadership isn't doing the party any favors by coddling the far right or the members who repeatedly cross over to vote with them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Learn to count!

The Democrats never had the votes necessary to prevent Alito's confirmation.

There was no course of action they could have taken that would have meant that he would not now be a supreme court justice.

Politics isn't like wrestling. "How hard you fight" is irrelevant; all that matters is whether or not you have the votes beforehand, and the Democrats didn't.

[CTLawGuy]

7. I appreciate this post

I am upset by the bill because it is a capitulation, but I don't think it's the end of the world. At worst, we bring this back up in September.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Thanks Darboy

[noamnety]

21. You got a funny idea of "At worst"

At worst isn't "We bring it back up in September."

At worst is thousands of dead bodies, thousands and thousands of seriously injured men, women and children, at worst is the trauma of children seeing their parents killed in front of them, and the trauma of being raped or tortured.

At worst is not a trite 8 Ball slogan, Try Again Later.

[CTLawGuy]

22. you think there was ANY WAY IN HELL the troops were coming home before September???

keep dreaming....

[noamnety]

29. Oh, I knew the dems would continue funding the war. I'm not stupid.

And they will in September, as well, because there is nothing that will be different in September than it is now.

You think there is ANY WAY IN HELL they will cut the funds in September?

As for my point, it's insulting to say the worst that will happen is they do the same charade in September, because it trivializes the cost of war. That's the sort of comment Laura Bush would say - Nobody suffers more than us. It's offensive.

[rocktivity]

24. September will mark the beginning of the end--that's why they picked it.

The permanent military bases and the US embassy will be finished by then, and more important, the Iraq oil privatization bill will have been passed, which is why Cheney bothered to travel to Iraq to tell the parliament not to take a two-month vacation. The Bush monarchy will "declare victory" then--and they'll be right.

:headbang:
rocknation

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Since the democratic majority can't effectively press on with its program under these

circumstances, then what the hell. They've got some free time now. Impeach the assholes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I'm not following you.

Are you suggesting we should forget about being in the majority completely and relegate ourselves to minority status because our majority isn't large enough to get anything we want done? Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm being sincere in my question - i really don't understand what you mean.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. My point succinctly:

If the dems won't pass legislation and/or fight to the last of their wits, using every tactic available by the Congressional rules, Senate rules, and Robert's Rules of Order, make themselves a force to be reckoned with, they should go for "Hail Mary" pass and do SOMETHING that is so desperate, it might galvanize them. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but I don't see it that way. Either follow the program or go for all the marbles.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. That whole going nuclear type thing worked wonders for Republicans.

Actually, no, it didn't.

To wit: Lost the majority in 2006 after threatening to go nuclear.
To wit: Losing seats in 1998 and 2000 for pursuing Clinton impeachment.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. kick

[pat_k]

16. You want those things? IMPEACH.

With the exception of impeachment, there is no bill or resolution that can "make" the Bush syndicate do ANYTHING they don't want to.

Attempting to hit Bush with the Congressional purse was doomed to be an impotent gesture from the beginning. The outcome of the funding "fight" was a matter of indifference to the Bush syndicate. If the veto had been overturned, he would have nullified the bill with a signing statement or invoked the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power to raid whatever part of the budget he felt like raiding to do whatever he pleases. He'd probably even see it as a great chance to gut some government agency that actually serves the American people.

How many times do Bush, Cheney, and the minions they have installed throughout the executive branch have to prove that the laws we pass mean NOTHING to them. When will the Democratic leadership finally get that the outlaws in the WH don't play by the rules. That they don't care about being "exposed" as long as they are not forced to stop.

Whether or not articles of impeachment end up going down in the Senate (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=951592&mesg_id=959264">which is FAR from assured), impeachment is the ONLY fight worth fighting because it is the only fight that, if won, is capable of actually "making them" do something (i.e., resign and hand the keys to somebody like Danforth or be sent packing and hand the keys to Pelosi).

If they consider the law at all, Bush and Cheney view it as mere suggestions. Win or lose, with the exception of impeachment, there are no resolutions or bills that Bush and Cheney won't just steamroll over. And every single time the Congressional leadership gets "rolled" they look weaker. The weaker they look, the more they can kiss their chances of electoral victories goodbye.

Unless the Democratic caucus enjoys being ridiculed and disdained, they had better kick Nancy's ass and get serious about impeachment.

If they won't impeach to rescue the nation from the criminal insanity of Bush and Cheney, perhaps they will to rescue their political futures. If they don't wake up soon, you can bet there will be some powerful newcomers -- people who know the meaning of an oath -- challenging them in primaries.

[noamnety]

18. I'm calling BS on this post

1. I cannot morally vote for someone who finances genocide. It's a deal breaker. You know how Hitler was great on a number of social programs? Did it matter?

2. We cannot provide affordable health care, solve the gap between the poor and the rich, fix the national debt, solve crime, reform welfare, etc. if all those programs are being gutted to fund genocide in Iraq.

Number 2 is subordinate to Number 1.

There is ONE simple fact in play.

1) We do not need to override a veto or end a filibuster in order to NOT submit a bad bill.

[DerekG]

19. Over 600,000 Iraqi men, women, children and infants are DEAD

Only ONE of the aforementioned issues--environmental catastrophe--is as pertinent as ending America's war on the children of Iraq (an effort that doesn't seem to interest the majority of Democratic politicians).

By the way, why lead with abortion rights? You might want to examine your priorities.

[LBJDemocrat]

26. Thank you!

Why put abortion rights at the headline?

The bottom line is: Abortion is legal.

Bringing up the issue ad nauseum is what the Republicans do because they know it's a divisive issue. What good will it do the Democratic Party to run on it in 2008? None.

And, yeah; the idea of abortion being a higher priority than the 3000+ dead servicemen (and much more maimed or disfigured) and the 600000+ dead Iraqis is ludicrous.

Social issues are not a priority, especially not at the federal level. Period.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Point taken, but are any democrats opposing

the war on drugs?

[LBJDemocrat]

27. There are two issues that matter more than all others

1. The war.
2. Globalization/outsourcing/treason and slavery via free trade.

Maybe the environment as a third.

Cutting war spending has to be done before you can seriously fund government programs, so the war is the first priority.

The majority of the US is anti-war and anti-free trade. Regarding social issues, the US is heavily divided.

And Darfur: If we can't stabilize Iraq, why oh why would anyone believe we'd do better in Darfur? It's not America's business.

Troops out of Iraq. And troops kept out of any other world conflict that doesn't involve an attack by a sovereign state against the US or a NATO country.

[crispini]

28. .

:kick: