In Which I Stand Up For Democrats In Congress.

[cali]

Every day on DU i see posts about how the dems in Congress are useless, or tools or cowards, or they're broad brush painted with some other deprecatory label. Frequently there are posts about how is the only dem worth his or her salt, in the entire Congress.

Such assertions are patently untrue, but they get widespread endorsement. There are many good dems in Congress. Let me say that again: There are many good dems in Congress, and many are in positions of leadership or are prominent members of the party. I'm not going to name them all here, but if you can't name dozens and dozens of dems who are fighting for us in Congress, you haven't been paying attention and you're just buying into a line.

We seem to forget what an uphill battle they're fighting. They're in the minority in a Congress run by republican rules. Many say that the rules instituted under this majority are the least respectful of minority rights of any congress. This is far truer in the House than in the Senate. Castigating dems because they can't stop the republican juggernaut most of the time is unfair. If you watch C-SPAN, you know they've tried on many occasions.

I'm not sure what people expect: More fiery rhetoric? Walkouts? More demands for impeachment?

I'm not suggesting that there aren't a lot of useless dems. Of course there are. As in any institution, there are a significant number of people who are, well, louses or cowards, or only focused on their own interests.

If we gain the majority in the House, and dems don't introduce legislation rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy and don't initiate investigations into bushco, then I'll be willing to utter a full throated condemnation. Until then, I'll recognize that riddled as the dems may be with reps that don't serve us well, there are still many that don't deserve the condemnations we're so free to hand out.

[Adelante]

1. Agreed

Thanks, cali.

[Skinner]

2. Thank you.

Even I must admit that the amount of vitriol aimed at Democrsts here on DU can be quite frustrating. It has always been that way, but I have never gotten used to it.

The expectation that all or most elected Dems are going to closely mirror one's own views seems unrealistic to me. Particularly in light of the fact that the US has a two-party system.

[stepnw1f]

3. Neither Have I

and I have a hard time holding my tongue. I'm trying though Skinner. Great site, even though yall delete me now and then. I know, I know... rules. :P

[HereSince1628]

4. Dozens and dozens?

Dozens is plural so at least 24. So dozens plus dozens is at least 48.

Personally, I think most of us couldn't name said 48. Actually I doubt most DUer's could name 48 democrats in Congress from memory regardless of whether or not they are "fighting for us."

[cali]

12. You may have got me, but let's see how I do

I promise not to cheat.

In the Senate:

Kerry, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski, Kennedy, Leahy, Reid, Reed, Boxer,

In the House:

Conyers, Jackson Lee, Levin, Waters, Lewis, Van Holland, Delahunt, Engels, Waxman, Murtha, Markey, Capps, Lofgren, Tierney, Wexler, Brown, Wasserman -Schultz, McDermott, Franks,Hoyer, Meehan,

OK I give up, I couldn't name 48, but I do know they're are at least that many. I should have written, "If you can't find dozens, and dozens."

[HereSince1628]

14. Don't feel bad, you did better than most of us would do.

I think all of us tend to forget there are many things happening in Congress, there are many struggles in committee and statements on the floor we never read about.

We tend to pay much more attention to the issues that get high profile, and tend to let our sentiments on those issues dominate our perceptions.

[wryter2000]

45. In the house

Your forgot Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich On edit: Charlie Rangle

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Well that's unfortunate.

Because that means "most of us" aren't paying attention at all.

[HereSince1628]

19. Not really, I think you'd have to be an avid Congress watcher to

be able to name 48.

What I disagree with your is "aren't paying attention at all." I think it is just a bit too strong. You can be paying some attention without being deeply into tracking the committee voting records of every democrat.

In many ways it's not unlike being able to name players and their records on baseball teams. Many folks know thier favorite ball teams team standings and when the next game is etc, but fewer will be able to name all the pitchers in the order they are used in rotation and relief and way fewer will be able to tell you their amateur, minor league, current and life-time earned run averages.

For those of us who come from small population states we might be able to name all the names of our delegation, but I suspect most of us would find it very difficult to name the congressional delegations of a state bordering our own.

We _are_ susceptible to only noticing the message the various media feed us, because most of us don't read the congressional record and committee transcripts. BTW, that would consume most of the waking life of a very dedicated Congress watcher.

Someone other than us is typically making choices to place things in the media we do engage. The OP is correct in saying we need to be careful and fair in our broad brushing of democrats based on publishers and producers choices of what they present to us.

[mdmc]

5. yeah cali, the dems are better then the gop

[seabeyond]

6. many dems i would love to see president. we have an excellent

group of people that i would love to see run this country. i have watched cspan so i know what the dems are doing and saying. i also am aware of what the repug majority are doing. in the past if majority dem even tried this shit it would be plastered on the news.

i couldnt agree with you more. i have spent more time trying to counter the most outrageous posts that are simply not even factual adn is such a waste of time, because the people in this post refuse fact, a lot like the repug that still stands behind bush.

appreciate this thread

[boobooday]

7. We need to really get behind the ones who fight for us

Support them, and we'll get more like them, I bet.

[acmejack]

8. What do do you expect, total adulation?

You must admit that voting for things such as that Bankruptcy Bill, the various Free Trade Acts, the Alito, things that are so strongly opposed by the bulk of their constituents should get them some well earned invective. I expect a legislator to vote the interests of his or her constituency, period. They should be that person's only special interest group.

I'm just an old fool that way.

[cali]

17. Did you even read my OP?

No one actually reading it could possibly state with a straight face that I was suggesting anything close to total adulation.

You say that you expect a legislator to vothe the interests of his or her constituency. Well, constituencies vary. My Senator, Pat Leahy represents a different constituency than Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. In addition, there are times when I expect Sen. Leahy or Jeffords to vote their conscience, not what I or others think they should vote.

[bowens43]

9. Agreed. All one has to do is look at the polls

to see that they are doing something right. Bush at an all time low, Dems as trusted with national security as repugs and Americans prefer Congress to be controlled by Democrats by a margin of over 15 points. It's working and it's working well. For Dems to push for impeachment etc when they can't possibly succeed would be foolish. Our only hope is to win in November. People need to keep in mind that we here at DU are not representative of the general population. We are as far left (for the most part) as Freepers are right. The people in the middle decide elections. Politicians have to consider the effect of their actions on these people.

[Dr.Phool]

10. I would suggest the use of more fiery rhetoric

Rule under this Republican junta has been brutal to be sure. The Dems can't even get a room in the capitol to hold a meeting or hearing, even during a recess.

But, think back to the late '80's and early '90's. When the republicans were still a minority, they used every tool at their disposal to promote their agenda. Long speeches in front of the cameras on c-span to an empty house (which according to the rules, c-span couldn't show the house being empty). Press conferences, and Contracts on America. Ideas, distilled down to a sound bite. Everything framed to make the working class feel oppressed because rich people were taxed too much.

Our Dems should concentrate on Healthcare for all, living wages, not minimum wages. Back Kerry's plan to leave Iraq to the hilt.

How many times did we hear Clinton was a liar? Well Duh.

Dems have a historic oportunity this fall, and I'm afraid many of them are doing everything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Where is the outrage over the continuing purges of voter rolls? The GAO report on electronic voting machines?

[ProfessorGAC]

22. You Got My Vote

Call the liars "LIARS". Call the criminals "CRIMINALS" Make the connections to slime to Abramhof clear, loud, and unambiguous.

No more mincing words. Soundbite politics requires SOUNDBITES. Bodyslam the bad guys by calling them what they are.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Double Post

At least it didn't post three times!

[MadHound]

11. I expect the Democratic party to act like an opposition party

Instead we have seen them roll over on issue after issue. The IWR, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, Roberts nomination, Alito nomination, the list of their failures is a long one.

I am fully cognizant that they are in the minority. However, they can still fight, they still have options open to them with which to oppose the most egrigous matters(hint, hint, filibuster SC appointments).

I'm not expecting miracles, but I do expect them to at least put up a fight. Instead, time and again we are forced to witness the spectacle of the Dems caving in on vital issues and appointments.

You may be willing to forgive them, but I'm not. There is no excuse for failure to at least try to oppose this administration. And the Democrats in Congress have failed us all, badly. Time to remove them from office and put people in who will at least fight.

[cali]

16. wrong.

They often put up a fight. They try and offer amendments, they speak out on the floor. More dems voted against the IWR than voted for it. Over and over again, many dems have opposed the repub agenda: on social security, the medicare drug bill, cuts to Community Block Grants, Education, tax cuts for the wealthy, and environmental issues, to name just some. Aren't those vital issues?

It's not a matter of forgiving them. There are those I support, and others I don't support. But simply doing as you're doing, and painting them with the same broad brush, is shallow, and doesn't accurately reflect reality.

[MadHound]

24. I would suggest that you go back and check out your history

Over half the Democratic Senators at the time voted for the IWR. The Patriot Act was overwhelmingly supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and it's renewal was also supported by a majority of Dems. The last tax cut, in Sept. '04, was passed in the Senate by a margin of 92-3, and with similar bipartisan support in the House, with a vote of 339-65.

This pattern of support for Bush and his policies is quite large and significant. Giving a pass to Bush for ALL of his nominees is absolutely insane. And now, we're saddled with a Supreme Court which has shifted dramatically to the right. With Roberts, they were afraid of the nuclear option, and wanted to "keep their powder dry" for even more contreversial nominations coming down the road. But hell, there wasn't even a pretext of an excuse with their support of Alito. A last ditch effort was thrown together in order to try and put up a fight, but this was undercut by members of their own party.

Sorry, but the widespread lack of opposition by the Democrats isn't something isolated to one or two votes. It has been pervasive and systematic throughout the past five plus years, even back when Dems had the majority in Congress. This isn't a broad brush attack, this is reality. And yes, while there are those who have fought the noble fight, and are deserving of our continued support, many many more have folded time and again, and as such, they should be removed from their position of power and replaced with somebody who will actually fight. Is this too much to ask?

[cali]

26. Sure it's a broad brush attack and

it's selective. I'm aware that more Senate dems voted for the IWR than against it, and that's deplorable, but what about the 22 + Jeffords who voted against it? And it is accurate to say that more dems in the house voted against it than for it. I honestly can't comment on the last tax cut vote, but I will go look at it so that I can comment. As far as the Patriot Act goes, regrettable as the first vote may have been, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I find it somewhat understandable. I'm with you when it comes to the recent renewal. You didn't address any of the areas which I listed where dems did stand up and fight.

Let me ask you something; my Senator voted for Roberts. I wish he hadn't. He voted against Alito, against the Patriot Act renewal and against the IWR. He's been outspoken in his opposition to bushco. Does Leahy pass your litmus test, or is he one of those that you see as having folded? Should he be removed from office? (I realize the hypothetical nature of the question as he isn't up for re-election until 2010.)

[MadHound]

29. Then let's just call it an attack,

Since you are saying that what I'm doing is both broad brush AND selective:shrug:

And as far as what you bring up, well, the biggest attack on public education, NCLB, it passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, with a majority of Democrats voting for it. And while the majority of Democrats didn't vote for the prescrition drug bill, enough voted(11) for it that they enabled it's passing. Time and again, enough Democrats cross the aisle in order to assist Bushco's agenda. This has got to stop.

And I'm sorry, but while you may find the first passing of the Patriot Act understandable, I certainly don't. Here is a bill, some 400 plus pages, that gets handed to them one day and is then voted on before anybody has a chance to read it. C'mon, is that sort of sloppy legislating really "understandable"? I don't think so, our so called leaders should at least read what they're passing before they rubber stamp it.

As far as Leahy goes, on the balance, given what I know of his record, I would probably vote to retain him if I was a constituent. However for somebody like Clinton, Lieberman, Biden, etc., I would be getting them out of there as fast as possible. This is what primaries are for, I think that we should start using them to hold our reps accountable for their actions.

Giving somebody a pass because they have a D behind their name is foolish and irresponsible. It is part of what got us into this situation that we now find ourselves in, doing more of the same will not get us out.

[dogday]

13. I think the Dem's strategy to sit and do nothing and

let the right screw up is being misconstrued as they are not doing anything.

Having said that, I was disappointed at the lack of Dem Senators at the Censure Hearing.. That upset me....

[Armstead]

15. There are a lot of Great Democrats in both houses

But there are two problems.

1)The good ones tend to get drowned out by the mealy-mouthed ones or the DINOs.

2)There is not a coherent and unified front against not only Bush and the gop but against the whole Corporate Oligarchy.

A whole Congress of Dems speaking like Bernie Sanders and Barbara Lee and Pete Defazio and Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy would be a start. Even out of power, a truly Liberal/Progressive/Populist Demnocratic Party would kick butt.

[CrazyForKucinich]

20. I wouldn't call 50 dems "many"

Cuz that's about how many good ones there are...about 45 of them are in the house.

[bvar22]

21. I agree, and its easy to find out who they are:

...Simply check the list of Dems who voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[gordianot]

25. At this point I just hope votes are counted in November 2006.

The condemnation and almost betrayal of those Democrats who speak out is troubling. After November 2006 I do expect some fiery rhetoric and action. It would also be nice at some point to build up a little anticipation among Democrats as critical dates approach.

[welshTerrier2]

27. sorry to be negative on your sunshiny post but ...

first, let me say that there are plenty of good Dems in Congress ... but overall, i have been deeply disappointed in elected Democrats ...

and this is not about "demanding perfection or purity" and it is not about having every Democrat seeing the issues exactly as i do ... those who use such tactics in debate are just not listening ...

the overriding frustration i've had with the Party has been the war in Iraq ... Democrats have criticized bush's tactics but they never seem to question his motives ... that's where i think the real confrontation should be ... as a way over-the-top analogy only to make the point, bush is building concentration camps all over the country and Democrats are arguing about whether he's building the walls high enough or whether he's using the right kinds of hammers ... the Party has criticized bush's tactics and his failures but has failed to "tell it like it is" ... and, of course, they keep voting to give bush more funds to continue the war ... that's just not acceptable to me ...

there are two key issues where i see the Party's major shortcomings ... the first, as stated above, is a failure to question bush's MOTIVES for invading Iraq and doing all they can to end the war ... and the second, and perhaps the worse of the two, is that the Party has failed to "create a theme" that bush is systematically eroding the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties of Americans ... we are stuck with a bunch of "ad hoc tacticians" and this is driving a wedge between the Party and the progressive left ... and it's very unnecessary ...

yes, Democrats criticized bush for the NSA spying ... they criticized abusive lobbying ... they criticized flawed Diebold machines ... they criticized holding prisoners without providing access to counsel and on and on and on ... Party loyalists point to the speeches that prove Democrats have spoken out on almost all of bush's abuses ... I don't disagree ... but they have failed to connect the dots; they have failed to make the case that bush is waging war against the American people and our Constitutional liberties ... the Party's message can never be an effective opposition to bush when presented in this ad hoc manner ... failure to connect the dots comes across to me as either wimpy or perhaps not seeing the threat to our liberties as real ... i'm not sure which is the case ...

one last point - a little off topic ... you make a very valid point that Dems, as the minority party, have their hands tied because they don't control the Congress ... when the Dems return to power, I think it is critical to try to pass legislation to allow the minority party to hold hearings and to have subpoena power ... democracy demands this ... minority parties are the best source of oversight on the executive branch; to restrict their power in the Congress does a disservice to the American people ... I hope Democrats remember this when they regain control ...

[cali]

28. I actually agree with virtually

everything you wrote. It's a good analysis. The frustrations you enumerate are ones I share.

[welshTerrier2]

33. i'm trying to put together a coherent post on this topic

it hasn't quite gelled yet ...

i may call it something like: "Losing the left" or maybe "Message Building 101" ...

here's the basic idea ... it MAY be the case that there is NOT a significant difference between "the left" and the Party's mainstream with regard to OBJECTIVES ... it MAY be the case that we disagree only over tactics ... I believe, if that is indeed the case, the Party could be far more effective in winning support from "the left" ... I believe "the left" would be far more supportive of the Party if they saw their differences more as one of "pace" rather than "direction" ... it's much easier to be patient when you know you agree on the ultimate goals ... right now, that's just not the case because the Party refuses to state the objectives as a COHESIVE message ...

the core platform should be:
1. our democracy is under attack - we need a "revolution of reforms" to restore our country to the vision on which it was founded
2. our democratic institutions have been badly corrupted by the abuses of big money into the political and legislative processes - lobby reform about whether a lobbyist can buy a meal for a Congressman for up to $50 versus $75 is a dog and pony show - our country and our government is under attack - PERIOD!! real reforms are needed.
3. American foreign policy has, for generations, been conducted for the profit of a narrow few and has done tremendous damage to US prestige and credibility. We cannot, in the name of security and patriotism, continue to weaken our nation with unnecessary defense appropriations to cater to lobbyists, the corporations and shareholders they represent and selected Congressional districts. Such spending and policy abuses weaken the nation. A strong defense is absolutely necessary; wasteful defense spending coupled with an imperialist foreign policy that caters to corporate profits fails to achieve the objective.
4. No citizen, corporation or organization should have disproportionate access to or influence on any elected government official. For every private meeting elected officials hold with those seeking to petition the government, they should have to hold free, public meetings in their districts of equal or greater duration.

The above platform is an "objective" ... it's a goal or a target ... we will find wide disagreement over pace and tactics ... but there is just no excuse for failing to layout a vision of where the Party wants to go ... there's been way too much "policy wonkiness" (e.g. healthcare, tax reform, Iraq) but there's been too little CONTEXT for these policies ... it's not that the Dems have NO MESSAGE; it's not that I disagree with many of the policies they've espoused; it's that they have failed to speak to the underlying themes and values ... and when that happens, the message is weak and support from "the left" is weaker ... it doesn't need to be this way ...

[mzmolly]

35. WE have laid out a vision.

And we're covering points 1,2 and 3 - "Culture of corruption" is one message that says alot, for example.

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/honest_government/abuse_of_power/


The vision/agenda

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm

WE had a say in that vision

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php

Again, what we need to work on is getting an organized message out in spite of the media.

:hi:

[welshTerrier2]

38. yes, i've read all that ...

does this sound like a party that wants to make a case that our democracy has been corrupted by Big Money:

"Our nation stands as a shining example to all the world of freedom and democracy, a unique honor that comes with a responsibility to lead."

and I read the part about "corporate welfare" that also fails to make the case that our entire foreign policy is directed for corporate gain ...

"culture of corruption" is much too narrow it focusses only on lawbreakers rather than on the underlying shortcomings of our institutions and our laws ... we need far more than a "policing action" to round up the lawbreakers; we need to educate and lead on the issue of restoring our democracy ...

if you're happy with the Democratic vision as stated, that's fine ... i'm not ...

[mzmolly]

39. Dean has refused to court "big money"

so yeah, it does sound like such a party.

"if you're happy with the Democratic vision as stated, that's fine ... i'm not"

No matter what Democrats do, it will never be enough for some.

[welshTerrier2]

41. i've stated what would be "enough" for me

to portray me, if that was the intent of your comment, as someone who will never be satisfied ignores the terms i've stated under which i could support the Party as a whole ...

[mzmolly]

44. The terms keep changing.

Peace out.

[welshTerrier2]

47. my terms?

really? i'm shocked that anyone might have opinions that migrate over time ... of course, i don't think mine have on the core issues i've cited ... perhaps you know otherwise ?????

since you keep making these unsubstantiated accusations, allow me to return the favor based on my own suspicions ... think of how incredibly hypocritical it is for someone to have been a Dean supporter complete with his "renegade candidacy" and now to be a blind party loyalist just because Dean is the Chair ... truly, there is no honor in that ...

[mzmolly]

49. Blind party loyalist?

Another unsubstantiated claim. How bout "blind party critic" - like that term? I think I'll fling it around a bit.

BTW, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not blind.

[mzmolly]

31. Bull crap.

the overriding frustration i've had with the Party has been the war in Iraq ... Democrats have criticized bush's tactics but they never seem to question his motives?

Bologna.

Here are some of the motives mentioned time and time again by Democrats:

Oil
Personal vendetta
Halliburton


"they have failed to connect the dots; they have failed to make the case that bush is waging war against the American people and our Constitutional liberties"

Again, more BS. I can find many, many quotes from DEMOCRATS saying that Bush is violating the constitution.

The problem with Democrats is not what you note above, their issues are what they've always been - a failure to organize,a failure to fight the same battle as the other guy week after week, a failure to "catapult the propaganda" as well as the Republo-bots do.

Democrats are often independent in their thoughts/actions. The Feingold censure resolution demonstrates perfectly what our failures are. Democrats would love to hold Bush accountable ala censure, but they disagree on the strategy and what takes priority in doing so.

[welshTerrier2]

34. bullcrap to your bullcrap

it's hard to believe you actually read my post ... did i not say Democrats have criticized bush on each and every issue i cited?

actually, in you objection to my post you're actually saying almost exactly what i said ... the whole approach is ad hoc ... go look at www.democrats.org ... tons of issues on their home page ... not a word on foreign policy ... not one word (at least the last time i looked) ...

and let's go back to the issue of themes, i.e. themes consistently applied ... i'm not talking about individual congress people; i'm talking about the Democratic Party as a whole ... it sounds like you're saying the same thing ... show me where the Party has suggested bush is waging a war on the Bill of Rights ... it's issue by issue and the broader case is never asserted ... show me where the Party says we are in Iraq to pump up profits for Big Oil and the war has little to do with building democracy - it has to do with building puppet governments that will cave in on oil deals (which has already happened, btw) ...

you cited 3 examples to make your point on Iraq: Oil
Personal vendetta
Halliburton

Do you believe the Democratic Party's message is that bush went into Iraq for oil or for personal vendetta or for Halliburton? Does the Party's website suggest that was the real motivation? I fully agree with your point that the Party has virtually no message discipline whatsoever ... I strongly endorsed Kerry's recent Iraq plan (although I have some differences with it) but what was the Party's reaction??????? virtually no reaction at all ... that's a hell of a way to stand up to bush's war and be an opposition party ...

and if the elected Dems are so convinced it's about oil, personal vendetta or Halliburton, what sense does it make voting more and more funding for the war to help bush achieve those objectives???

[mzmolly]

36. See my links in the other response for foreign policy specifics.

"show me where the Party has suggested bush is waging a war on the Bill of Rights"

Show me what constitutes "the party" first.

Further, regarding funding the war - we have soldiers without body armor as it is, do you suggest the Casey Sheehans in Iraq be left without any protection? Democrats can't stop funding the war as a minority anyhow, I assume you know that as well? So - you suggest we wage a "protest vote?" That'll go over well huh? You do understand that with soldiers dying daily in Iraq, voting no to fund the war effort would be completely absurd, right? Bush isn't going to cut Halliburton profits - even if we don't adequately fund the war. Kerry tried the protest war funding vote thing, look where that got him.

[welshTerrier2]

40. "Show me what constitutes "the party" first.

well that's a very interesting point ... i could ask you the very same question ... my best shot would be that the Party Chair and the Party's website and perhaps its most prominent media representatives are the public face of the party ...

so let's list some of the people: Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Kerry, Warner, Biden, Clark, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi and probably a few others ... and again, the Party's website ...

does the overriding message from this group seem to suggest that our foreign policy is not just inept but corrupt????? do these people, as a group, seem to speak out regularly that the Bill of Rights is being intentionally dismantled by the bush administration????? maybe i just missed it ... please provide a convincing overall picture that this is the message the party is sending to the American people ... or do you think we should view what constitutes "the Party" in a different way ... the thing is, that i agree with a point i thought you were making that essentially, the Party has failed to exist as a central, cohesive entity ... that is exactly part of the problem here ...

and as for cutting off funding for the war, you create a very interesting problem for those of us who oppose the war ... would it be your contention that once any war begins, it's inappropriate to use the ONLY POWER CONGRESS HAS to cutoff funds for the war ????? that seems to be implicit in your argument that once the war started, we have to continue to fund it because we have to ensure the safety of the troops ... essentially then, once a President goes to war, NOTHING can be done to stop him until he next stands for election ... is that your position on the role of Congressional oversight?????

funding for the war should be cut off NOW ... without a budget to continue this endless idiocy, bush would be forced to withdraw the troops ... your argument seems predicated on the idea that he would keep the troops in Iraq and they would be defenseless because there would be no funding to provide them with the necessary protection ... i think the case is an unrealistic scenario ... they'll be much safer when they are taken out of the country and out of a situation that can NEVER be won militarily ...

[mzmolly]

43. So the media portrayal of Democrats = the party?

No wonder your not satisfied.

Re: corruption and foreign policy - Does the term "Culture of Corruption" ring a bell? That corruption does not stop at domestic policy. The name Halliburton alone IS about corruption in foreign policy for goodness sakes.

As for Dean and the website, I think he's doing a remarkable job. After all, he's not going after that big money you take issue with right?

"funding for the war should be cut off NOW ... without a budget to continue this endless idiocy, bush would be forced to withdraw the troops ... "

Goodness, you don't expect the Republican majority to support this do you? "The party" ie. MY party, did make such an attempt however: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04232:

"your argument seems predicated on the idea that he would keep the troops in Iraq and they would be defenseless because there would be no funding to provide them with the necessary protection ..."

My argument is about public perception of such a venture actually. It's a nice notion to think that all we'd have to do is vote to stop funding the war but in our current reality it's an iffy protest vote at best.

I'm out

:hi:

Have a nice day WT.

[welshTerrier2]

46. your arguments are shoddy

first of all, i don't believe i used the term "media portrayal" to define my definition of the Party - a definition you conveniently chose not to offer btw ...

you also conveniently did not respond to my point that there is NO MENTION of foreign policy on the Dem website's home page ... i think that stinks ... home pages show where the emphasis is being put ...

and you also conveniently sidestepped my argument that Congress has no other means to stop a war other than to cut off funding ... you failed to respond to the point that absent a cut-off of funds, all wars could be continued until a President next faces election ... does this seem like a good solution to you??

and yes, Halliburton is about corruption ... but the Democratic Party chooses to frame the issue about "missing funds" rather than Halliburton being the motivation for the war in the first place ... the implicit argument is that once we catch the bad guys, we'll be fine ... the truth is that corporate infestation of our government and our foreign policy is systemic and that's what we need to stand up to ... it's not about outing the crooks; it's about repairing our defective institutions ...

btw, fwiw, the link you provided in your last post didn't work ...

[mzmolly]

48. There is no mention of foreign policy? Check the links I provided

in post #35. What specific verbiage do you require in regard to "Foreign Policy?"

On the DNC website see:

Keeping America Safe at Home
Strength Overseas
and Honest Government

Here's another link: http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

and you also conveniently sidestepped my argument that Congress has no other means to stop a war other than to cut off funding ... you failed to respond to the point that absent a cut-off of funds, all wars could be continued until a President next faces election ... does this seem like a good solution to you??

It seems like pie in the sky to me. I'm not side stepping, I'm just not wasting much time on impossible notions. I don't know what Bush would do without war funding, and neither do you. Regardless - aint.gonna.happen - ESPECIALLY with a Republican majority.

"and yes, Halliburton is about corruption ... but the Democratic Party chooses to frame the issue about "missing funds" rather than Halliburton being the motivation for the war in the first place ..."

Halliburton was not the sole motivation. And, you keep moving the goal posts. PNAC, the Bush vendetta, Oil etc. all played a role in motivating Bush.

I'll check back later.

[welshTerrier2]

51. i specifically have referred to the HOME PAGE

but you keep providing references that are NOT on the HOME PAGE ... Page 1 is generally used to highlight the most important issues ... that's where most websites get the most hits ...

[mzmolly]

52. Look again.

See the home page under "national" there are references to corruption, Iraq, security etc. all on the HOME page.

[mzmolly]

30. It is frustrating.

Thanks for the post.

:hi:

[mopinko]

32. you apparently do not understand the checks and balances

of our system. it is designed to allow for power to the minority. those checks and balances have been quietly squashed under this regime, and the dems have not used the power that they do have to stop it.
just as one for instance- where is the outrage that the system of requiring that any expenditure have both a legislative approval and then a separate appropriations bill? this is the way it always been the procedure. that is no longer done. major policy changes have occurred without hearing by simply slipping them into appropriations bills. to say nothing of line items, verified by nothing, that are just plain theft. this is how randy cunningham funneled millions to his friends, and himself. this is where the trillions are going. and yet these people are voting on these appropriations bills. they could refuse to give them their votes. they will pass anyway, but without our corrupt dems adding their imprimatur.
this system is beautifully designed to allow the minority to have power. they have rolled over. there are a few good, brave, honorable dems. but we would not be in the mess we are in if so many of them were not CORRUPT. and it is our job as citizens to hold their feet to the fire, and not give them the kind of bootlicking loyalty that has destroyed the republican party.
sorry, i do not support the 2 legged party of greedy, corrupt corporate america. blind loyalty is not the way, even when our backs are to the wall.

[hfojvt]

37. In which an OP does not live up to its title

Rum-tum-tiddle pum
Bother, I cannot say 'ho ho!!' because of its current conflations or conniptions or insinuations. I think one of those is the right word.
Perhaps I shall go ask wol. He'll know since he's a clever fellow being the only one in our group who can spell 'Tuesday' even on a Monday.
Hmmm...but first I should have a little smackerel of something, maybe some HONEY to fortify me for this expotition.
:dem:

[cali]

42. Nothing like posting a little....word salad n/t

[hfojvt]

50. roughage is good for ya

Especially in your salad days.
In our salad days perhaps we read two books by A.A. Milne about a bear of very little brain. The two books "Winnie the Pooh" and "The House at Pooh Corner" contain 20 chapters, all of which have titles which begin with the two words "in which".
Thus your OP, the salutariousness of which I attempted to acknowledge with a kicking donkey, did not sound like my favorite silly old bear, which style I thereby attempted to emulate or demonstrate for the express purpose of eliciting a smile or chuckle from those who remember Heffalumps that say "ho ho!" and bears that say "bother" and owls who cannot spell. Unfortunately for others it becomes a "joke that makes you go :wtf: