Skip to main content

What is wrong with us?!

The top recommended diary is one that smacks Nancy Pelosi around because she refuses to come and listen to our petulent demands.  

Kos takes Obama and Clinton to task for not jumping up right now, right now, I say and disclosing to us and the American public everything they are thinking about Iraq.

Kid Oakland mopes that nobody listens to us anymore and that we've been used by our guys.  

The most stupid and pointless use of our time right now (other than creating this diary) is to beat up on our side.  Why?  

Because it isn't ALL their fault.  
 

Let's look at the big picture:

Kos is calling them out. And he should.  Hillary and Obama need to make statements and soon.  But attacking fellow Democrats is not the way to go and Edwards' statement did a masterful job of laying it all the Dem's feet.  Oh, I'm not saying he doesn't have a point but this is not a problem Democrats can solve all on their own. Whatever Clinton's and Obama's plans are for Iraq if one of them becomes president, they have to be somewhat vague to avoid the shredding that the GOP would give them. Edwards is taking a risk in this regard.  More power to him, especially if they are good ideas. But let us acknowledge that the dearth of publicity of Edwards' campaign has forced him to be less cautious than Clinton or Obama might be.    

And now the White House is rolling out the big guns: a new Osama bin Laden video, just in time for 9/11.  Just the thing to reinforce the association of Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, World Trade Center, falling bodies, falling buildings, falling debris, while at the same time presenting the Petraeus Report, followed by "give me more money or the troops die!" request.

Coincidence?  

Democrats don't have the frickin' numbers.  You can't squeeze blood from a stone. I love to pound my head on the wall because it feels so good when I stop. All this venting might feel good but it doesn't get us anywhere and it looks really bad in the media. It makes Democrats look weak and divided and it makes the Republican stubborness look strong.  

Don't forget that earlier this year, the Democratically lead House and Senate managed to send the President a fairly stern funding bill and he vetoed it.  And there is no way to overturn a veto without Republican help.  So, Congress opted to start diluting the bills  with the expectation that one of them would be acceptable to the GOP.  

But the GOP reason for being until 2008 is to frustrate Democrats in any way possible.  The president will ALWAYS veto and the Republicans will ALWAYS back him up.  They announced this as their intended modus operandi on Fox News right after the 2006 election.  Their base LOVES it because they think Democrats are the enemy.

So, why are you beating up on Democrats for at least trying to compromise?  The media has been on their case to compromise for months now.  The GOP wurlitzer rolls out the "support the troops" meme until every stay-at-home mom knows what it means.  And now, the White House has another OBL tape to pull out just at the convergence of funding bills and surge reports and 9/11.  

And we're getting on the Democrats case?!

I'm just as disgusted with the Blue Dogs as anyone but the mixed messages their constituents are sending them probably has a lot to do with their reticence.  "Stop the War!  Stop it right now!  Bring them home!  But don't do anything that would hurt the troops."  What's a congressperson to do?

When I think about why Democrats are holding back, I keep coming back to the same place: constituents are still fearful.  It is no coincidence that Osama is making a reappearance next week.  It is a perfect syzygy of fear, surge, 9/11.  The argument that is being made is that the surge is the only thing that stands between Al Qaeda and defenseless Americans.  We need to continue the war to protect ourselves.  And if we pull out the troops now, we leave ourselves and THEM vulnerable to attack.  

So, how is attacking Democrats going to help the situation?  What we need to do is:

1.) Put pressure on Republicans, especially ones in vulnerable districts like the one I live in, NJ-07.  Mike Ferguson claims to be disgusted with the war but votes with his party all of the time.  Why is that?  Well, as far as I can tell, no one is attacking Ferguson.  They're too busy throwing stones at the Democrats. That's got to change.

2.) Someone in our party has to assume a leadership position and say we will not be afraid of our enemies at home or our political operative enemies in the White House.  It is time to stop being afraid and do the right thing even if the GOP has a royal hissy fit.  And it is time for the GOP congresspeople who have been intimidated by their leadership to wake up and smell the coffee and join us.  

3.) If you must beat up on a Democrat, direct your ire towards Steny Hoyer.  It is small minds like his and the other Blue Dogs that are undermining Pelosi.  This really pisses me off.  She is the Speaker but they are acting like she doesn't count.  This is just typical male behavior (you women out there know what I'm talking about) but it has no place in Congress.  If she is Speaker, they'd better fall into line.  It's hard enough keeping 220+ Congresscritters in order without Steny and his middle aged white male attitude f$%^*ing things up.  They act like they can just ignore her whenever they feel like the 'support the troops' crap is ruffling their feathers. Steny's and the other Blue Dog's behavior shows absolutely no respect for her and I really resent it.  So, get Steny on the hot seat.  

Please, people, stop shooting each other.  It is just so typical of our side to start eating its own and throwing blame around whenever we run into an obstacle.  It looks like panic and indecision.  It's looks really baaaaad.  If I didn't know better, I'd think there was a political operative or two among us, subverting our support for Congressional Democrats.  The Blue Dogs sure as hell have a lot of explaining to do but let's not put this all on the Congressional Democrats.  Up to this point, they've tried to do the right thing and they've tried compromise. They've been good little Broderites because the Beltway demanded it.  They are looking at another year of stalemate no matter WHAT they do.  Give them encouragement, not a bash on the head.  

Originally posted to goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:06 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (204+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Colorado Luis, Aexia, al Fubar, RobertInWisconsin, Ed in Montana, JWC, chuck utzman, PLS, LarryInNYC, Jonathan, Radiowalla, taylormattd, ultrageek, wystler, assyrian64, ghost2, talex, Dump Terry McAuliffe, rashomon, marcvstraianvs, TrueBlueMajority, catfish, sarac, madmsf, Yoshimi, VetGrl, adkay, ablington, Midwest Meg, seeker, John Campanelli, jsmdlawyer, azale, zenbowl, SallyCat, Norwegian Chef, Nuisance Industry, bumblebums, exNYinTX, Poika, Caneel, Geotpf, Noah Jenda, Paulie200, queen, loudGizmo, rasbobbo, Makeda, dadanation, gerbbils, PaintyKat, dianem, profmatt, highacidity, CalvinV, boilerman10, vmibran, otto, Swordsmith, lilnubber, diana04, splashy, dmsilev, worldwideellen, psnyder, campskunk, Chicago Lulu, BarnBabe, YellowDogBlue, joemcginnissjr, Caldonia, Dale Read, EuroDem, ohiolibrarian, 42, tabbycat in tenn, beachmom, Eddie Haskell, inclusiveheart, ChiGirl88, MH in PA, jj32, randallt, kfred, Dormaphaea, dnta, Schwede, Pozzo, vcmvo2, Bluesee, radarlady, beagledad, capelza, Elise, Alegre, LisaZ, Lying eyes, indycam, ejmw, Dave from Oregon, Luetta, randken, chingchongchinaman, Clem Yeobright, Cynical Copper, stagemom, Gary Norton, michaelmas, WinSmith, bleeding blue, LNK, Sharon in MD, ivorybill, hilltopper, swissffun, onanyes, Rosemary, Blue Generalist, dsteffen, LisainNYC, Ekaterin, hcc in VA, simplicio, Asinus Asinum Fricat, kovie, Major Danby, gwilson, PatsBard, Black Knight, BlueInARedState, Ellicatt, victoria2dc, smokeymonkey, InsultComicDog, dougymi, mcartri, play jurist, campdurning, OhioCav, HairyTrueMan, DiesIrae, justalittlebitcrazy, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Jjc2006, Potus2020, Island Blue, Andy30tx, doinaheckuvanutjob, MBNYC, Something the Dog Said, Hey BB, zhimbo, PoliOperative, philimus, means are the ends, scoff0165, Temmoku, cpresley, GoldnI, tourist305, Noor B, drmah, SouthernFried, suburi, TruthOfAngels, dotcommodity, LillithMc, tigercourse, Crisitunity, shruticounseling, lurks a lot, Molly Martinez, phoenixdreamz, Orange County Liberal, fallina7, Biologist, A Person, extradish, chicago minx, gizmo59, Hairy Legs, Cornfeddem, MyBrainWorks, gzodik, dragoneyes, gimmebooks, bythesea, Pegasus, Residentcynic, Greasy Grant, moose67, smartdemmg, VirginiaBlue, nsaneone, Taget, jalenth, joy sinha, a night owl, Fallon, slathe, Yoshi En Son, watercarrier4diogenes, scrubjay

    Just pour me a drink already.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:01:49 PM PDT

        •  And yet the approval for Democrats in (25+ / 0-)

          Congress is rising. The people realize that Republicans are the main roadblock.

          Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

          by tigercourse on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:09:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If they are the main roadblock (11+ / 0-)

            and not the only one, that still makes the democrats to a certain degree roadblocks.

          •  That's funny. I don't get a sense of that from (31+ / 0-)

            the latest in Gallup.

            And Gallup isn't the only one to trend downward.

            If it's true that the Democrats lead in generics, this does not necessarily mean folks approve of actual living and breathing Democratic office-holders. The Gallup poll, in fact, would imply the opposite. Democratic leads in generics probably indicate folks want people and a congress which fights for what they see as values typically associated with the Democratic party, but that they do not see any actual Democratic leaders representing those values in any meaningful way.

            Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

            by redstar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:22:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The latest poll numbers show generic Democrats (14+ / 0-)

              opening up a wider lead in the 2008 elections. Recent polls show us clobbering Republicans in California and beating 1 in WA-8.

              Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

              by tigercourse on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:24:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, that's generic Democratic. Not living, (15+ / 0-)

                breathing Democrats. There's a disconnect between values people associate with the Democratic party, and actual Democratic office holders, which is why the generic lead is always wider than the actual vote. If memory serves, the generics in 2004 had Dems up 6 and they lost by 2, for instance.

                And they'll probably win (that generic lead is damn big) but that doesn't mean folks are satisfied with actual Democratic party leaders or actual Democratic party office-holders.

                Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                by redstar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I will change my name to Democrat and run. n/t (4+ / 0-)

                  We shall overcome, someday.

                  by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:56:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Perhaps but I would rather that the "R" on the (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ChiGirl88, Molly Martinez

                  ticket be a liability rather than an asset. This seems to be the case. Remember, the last time our numbers were strongly ahead of the republicans, we took the house and senate. I expect to gain more seats in both houses next time.  

                  11/7/06. America won. The Republicans lost. Our duty is to earn that trust.

                  by Dave from Oregon on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:27:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey, that's great. But it would be nice to think (5+ / 0-)

                    they might accomplish positive things other than getting elected.

                    So far, I'm not seeing much of that, just like I didn't see much of that back in the '90's when we even had the Presidency on top of the Congress. So I'll add heavy doses of caution to my optimism, thank you.

                    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

                    by redstar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:35:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And This Is Why I'm Not A Democrat Anymore (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      redstar

                      When a Democratic president dismantled the welfare safety net, signed onto NAFTA and the WTO, made "regime change" in Iraq the national policy, and do forth, I realized that the fact that the GOP was even worse was simply no longer sufficient reason to support this party.  "Elect Democrats: We Screw Up the Country More Slowly and Sensibly" is not exactly an inspiring slogan.

                      I have no doubt that the leadership of the Democratic Party would have run this war rather differently from Bush. But they wanted--and want--this war. And since the war itself, not merely the way it's being fought, is the problem, electing a party that thinks they can do a better job fighting it misses the point.

                      This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

                      by GreenSooner on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:23:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  You're right it isn't living breathing Democrats, (10+ / 0-)

                  but the people around here aren't done yet.  Once every living, breathing Democrat's name is completely sullied and destroyed fairly or unfairly by the liberal blogospere they will move on to the destruction of the party.  There is plenty of time to get the job of imploding done between now and November 2008.  Plenty - trust me.

                  There is plenty of time to lose the next election and lose it embarassingly.

                  Losing will be great too because we will all remain pure having done everything in our power not to win the election so that we could claim that our efforts to end the war or impeach or whatever were unsullied by "politics".  Because most of the time participants on political blogs are just too good for politics.  LOL

                  So in 2009 we will be looking at a new Republican President; another Republican majority in Congress; no end in sight for the war; and feeling so very smug about our-pure-selves because we know everything that all of those "evil" elected Democrats don't - had they just done everything we told them to even if it wasn't possible or legal they - the EVIL Dems - would never have lost the election.  But we'll get to bitch some more!!! Yay!!!  God forbid any one of us would wake up one morning and not feel angry and have someone to yell at.

                  •  Bleh. (11+ / 0-)

                    I am not in agreement with this diary or this comment.

                    Holding Dems accountable is not the same thing as bashing them or being "pure."

                    If they capitulate on bad legislation that affects us all, they must be called on it.  That's not bashing them.  That's just telling the truth.

                    I like Nancy Pelsoi and I like Harry Reid.  But they are not doing their jobs in unifying the Democratic caucus.  And I don't think ignoring that fact is of any value at all.

                    •  Holding accountable and character assasination (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PaintyKat

                      are totally different.  I expected you to know the difference between the two.

                      Guess I expected too much.  Bleh.

                      •  Nope. (5+ / 0-)

                        You are wrong.

                        Folks have every right to scream as loud as they can to pressure our elected Dems on this issue.  For me, no, I don't name-call.  But I won't bash anyone who does.  Getting a little grandoise calling it "character assassination," imo.

                        We aren't going to make policy, we aren't going to do the negotiating in Congress.  The ONLY thing we have the power to do as Democrats is pressure our reps and not back down no matter what.

                        You don't get that.  You're concerned about name calling.  Bleh.

                        •  It really doesn't matter as I said before. (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Jonathan, kpardue, dadanation, PaintyKat

                          It is over.  Cynicism rules the day and probably the cycle.  Democrats will lose; the war will continue; and you'll still have people to pressure.

                          As for character assasination - calling Pelosi a "traitor" etc. is way over the top and it feeds the cynicism that you and so many others crave.  Why would you object to that name calling as you feed on it as if it is a fetish?  God forbid you didn't wake up every morning without someone to villify and destroy.

                          Finally, the assertion rights aren't always in line with "responsiblity", but that is way too subtle for most people around here to comprehend at this point.  There really is so little difference between people who say whatever the hell they feel like saying regardless of accuracy and some asshole drunk waiving around a gun.  Everybody has the "right", but that doesn't make the use of the right responsible or smart.

                          •  The cynicism ... (6+ / 0-)

                            ... is all yours.  You don't realize how far behind the times you are.

                            I'd rather have folks calling Pelosi a traitor then muck about in your nonsensical defense of the indefensible.  Calling Pelosi a traitor is ugly, but not as ugly as people dying because she made the wrong decision.

                            I doubt you'll ever understand that, I guess it's not subtle enough.

                          •  No matter how much you stamp your feet, (0+ / 0-)

                            call people names and make your demands, no Speaker of the House is going to be the Commander-in-Chief.  The war can be defunded, but without the call from the C-in-C to pull the troops out, they won't be redeployed - it really is that simple.  Destroying Pelosi isn't going to do a damn thing to end this war.  Destorying her will be much more likely to help to prolong it because the more conservative wing of the Democratic caucus will become more powerful as a result.  There is no other of the 70 or so liberal members of the Democratic Caucus that will be elected Speaker in her stead - that is a part of the political process that you completely ignore in your analysis of the situation.  

                          •  lol (0+ / 0-)

                            The only one "stamping your feet" here is, you, inclusiveheart.

                            You say:

                            The war can be defunded ...

                            That's exactly right, it can be.  I'm not asking for miracles here.  And as far as your foolish notion that I wish to "destroy Pelosi," well please do show me where I advocate that.

                            But again, your gift for hyperbole is showing.  You equate political pressure from Democrats with "destroying."  Oh, and your other great exaggeration -- "character assassination."

                            Give it up, won't ya?  We have every right to put pressure on our elected Democratic leaders now that they are in the majority, and we helped put them there.  Unless, of course, you think Pelosi is doing a great job.  If so, I suggest you write a diary showing that.  I don't think this is the case.

                            Defunding would go a long way towards inspiring Democrats and Americans generally, and giving us hope to continue the fight.  Your pessimism and hyperbole are just plain pointless.

                          •  If you aren't part of the problem to which (0+ / 0-)

                            I refer then why are you so defensive about what I have been saying?

                            Of course you have every right and you refuse to take any responsiblity for the outcome.

                            I was dead serious when I said that I thought more of you earlier.

                          •  I am not ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... being defensive.  I am defending those posters who are saying what they feel about our Dem leadership.  If they are sometimes incoherent and sometimes over the top, I have no problem with that and I do not think it hurts the party in any way.

                            Folks are hurting and they are angry, and lots of them have good reason to be.  If our Dem leadership is too foolish to pay attention to that, I blame the leadership, not those who are crying out.

                            inclusiveheart, I don't comment in order to gain anyone's opinion, good or bad.  I completely disagree with your stance here -- I think you are wrong.  And yes, I will defend those who yell loudly, even as it offends your delicate sensibilities.

                            You're the one who ought to be aware of the responsibility of your own position here.  You want to follow the Dems blindly and only politely criticise them, go ahead.  It hasn't worked up until now and it won't work in the future.

                          •  I have serious criticisms for the Dems and I have (0+ / 0-)

                            not held back on those criticisms, but I think it is way over the top to make the liberal anti-war Democrats the targets of the most extreme vitriol and to subject them to ad hominem attacks in order to destroy them - when they are done then we're really fucked.  I believe that they are considerably weakened already and the proof of that is this new rush to the middle.  Damn it by all right the Blue Dogs and Republicans shouls have been pressured to move to the left, but because they haven't taken any heat and its all been on the Out of Iraq caucus the Blue Dogs and GOP have safely held their ground.  

                            I tend to reserve my most intense criticism for the people who started this war - Bush & the Republicans - and the people who have intentionally enabled their quest - the Blue Dogs.  Weakening the liberal wing of the party doesn't serve any good purpose because they are the only people who do really want to do something about a plethora of problems - and not just the war.  Bush & the Republicans should have started a draw down after the 2006 election - a normal politician would have - but this guy and these Republicans are nuts - the only way that we can combat them is to be strong and together not fractured because of in-fighting.  At the end of the day, the President really is the only person who can pull the troops out and he has successfully insolated himself from the bulk of the criticism because the real majority of the House is a coalition between Republicans and Blue Dogs.  Unless and until that coalition is fractured, we will continue this war.  Pelosi simply does not hold the key to that shift - only the people can move that needle at this point.  There is no way that she can end this war or impeach anyone if the people standing in the way do not feel the pressure.

                            In any case, your way is gaining traction.  I was watching Fox News Sunday this morning and you'll be pleased to know that Chris Wallace talked about how Code Pink says that the Democrats are caving into Bush and deemed it a "win" for the President whilst interviewing Dianne Feinstein.  So there you go...  Democrats are "weak" and the President is "strong".  Through that filter in a nation where perceived strength is a key to power, the Democrats are further weakened and thus so are their positions on things like the war.  The problem is that - and this is probably one place where we really differ - the Democrats simply do not have the power derived from Congress that many people believe they do.  Particularly, given the fact that this President has amassed as much power as he has - in "unitary executive" powers and in the Republican and Blue Dog coalition.

                            Anyhow, carry on.  You're getting your way with the aid of Fox News so we'll see how quickly your strategy gets us where we'd like to go.  Wallace closed the program with Kristol proclaiming the big win for the President; explaining that the "sensible Democrats" are realizing that we must stay in Iraq; and finished saying we'll stay in Iraq through this Presidency and hopefully (for him) much, much longer.

                          •  I don't think ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... this argument is doing any good -- we are talking past each other.

                            First, I am an individual -- I don't speak for anyone but myself and I am not part of any group.  Period.  So much of what you have said simply does not apply to me.  In any event, I don't feel I'm getting "my way" on anything -- I am deeply saddened by what is happening in our country.

                            I think you have it backward.  The reason the pundits are able to criticise the Dems for being "weak" is not because anyone on the left is bashing the Dems -- it is due to their own actions.  They caved on the Iraq Supplemental, they caved on FISA.  There are hard consequences to all of us from that action.

                            You say the Dems don't have the power that we think they do.  They have plenty of power and they are not using it.  At the very least they could have been more honest and engaged with us, with the base, in explaining their actions.  Were you satified by their explanations over the Iraq Suppemental?  Over FISA?  Because I wasn't.

                            Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the house.  I'm not asking miracles from her.  But she is not doing a good job, and that has been the case from the beginning, when she foolishly made the claim that impeachment was "off the table."  This was at a time when the Dem majority had the full support of the base -- and your explanation of her actions doesn't take that into account.

                            You seem to think that if we all just limit ourselves to constructive criticism (a utopian notion at any time, much less these troubled times) that somehow that would help the Dems fight for us.  I don't agree.  I think it is the other way around.  We have the right as citizens to hold our reps accountable.

                            I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect real opposition from the Dem caucus.  And I have yet to see that in anything they have done.  I don't think that's because our leaders in Congress have no choice.  They have plenty of choices and haven't used them.

                            I simply do not agree with any of your reasoning.  I think that they are not listening to us, and not because we are criticizing them.  I think they didn't listen to us from the beginning.  And we have a right to say so.  That doesn't preclude us from attacking the Republicans or Bush -- I have done both and will continue to do so.

                          •  You won't understand this, but I'll say it anyway (0+ / 0-)

                            because it is the fact that you refuse to face:

                            In politics when you create a power vacuum it will be filled quickly by another entity.  So when you decide to take someone down if you don't anticipate who or what will fill the vacuum you are creating and how to fill it to your liking, you're odds of getting what you really want are reduced considerably.

                            You've made a lot of emotional statements about why this or that is the "right" thing to do, but done zero on the front of what the real outcomes would be.  You've failed to outline the magical powers that you ascribe to Pelosi probably because you ain't got much beyond what you've already seen her try to do.

                            BushCult invaded Iraq and created a vacuum without any sort of serious plan for filling it - you see where that has gotten us.  

                            I contend that if you bring down Pelosi at this stage you will create a vacuum that will be filled by the Blue Dogs resulting in having the caucus pulled rightward.  It is already happening.

                            What might have happened if we had as a group moved to support the liberal wing's efforts rather than punishing them for failing is not absolute, but I don't think that Levin, Hoyer and the other real capitulators would have as much power as they do today.  But you and others seem to have an emotional need for punishment more than you have a strategic desire to win in the long run.  It is your perogative, but I don't think it is a smart or effective use of your power in this situation because I really believe that by weakening Pelosi and Reid through these assaults we've lost the best hope we had.  Are they perfect - hell no - but they are what we have and they are both interested in ending this war which is better than alternatives in the 110th Congress.  Whether they are the best people in the whole wide world to do the job is another question - but the thing is that the 435 members of the 110th Congress are what we have to work with or against until the 111th Congress takes over.

                            So who would you have replace Pelosi?  Which member would do what you want and be able to be elected as Speaker?  The second part would have to be your first consideration.  Hoyer is the only person I can think of who could challenge Pelosi and win - that would be a step backwards.

                            I come down on the side of protecting the liberals in the 110th Congress primarily because they are as good as it gets in this term and I really don't like the alternatives at all.  Doesn't mean I won't throw them over somewhere down the line of a better alternative emerges - in reality I'm much colder than you are about these people - but for now they are all I have and I'm going to invest in them in hopes of making some progress.

                          •  Bleh. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your arguments stem just as much from emotion as anything else.  We all have emotions about this, and rightfully so.  Stop trying to suggest you are being only logical -- you are not and your rhetoric shows that.

                            I am not trying to "bring down" anyone.  Again you throw up this strawman.  It's foolish.

                            What I am saying is that the vitriol you are seeing is not the cause of the Dems' poor performance when it comes to opposition.  It is the result of that poor performance.  You are making excuses for the Dem caucus, and I won't be a party to that.

                            You want to see it otherwise.  Good luck with that.

                          •  I've made no excuses for what has gone on. (0+ / 0-)

                            Find an excuse that I've made.  

                            I said that we have the team that we have and that undermining them further is not necessarily in our best interest at this point because other people will come in and fill the void and if you don't like these people - you are going to be really unhappy with the people who will fill that void.

                            If you give me a better alternative to Pelosi who is electable within the House; who will do better than she has and who is more dedicated to ending the war - I'm happy to ditch her.  I don't think such a person exists so I'm not interested in destroying her.

                          •  Well ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... let's first clear something up.  I am not advocating to have Pelosi replaced.  I am a Democrat.  I support Democrats.

                            As far as your giving "excuses," you are going on and on saying the usual version of "we don't have the votes," "we have the reps we have," basically implying this is the best we can hope for.  I disagree with that.

                            What I am saying is that the folks who are railing against Pelosi, Reid and the Blue Dogs have every right to do so and to say they somehow are not as good a Democrat as you is just plain wrong.

                            And Pelosi is wrong not to come here and speak to us -- many folks here have said the reason is because she'll get bashed.  I don't think that's why.  She's a tough cookie -- and I have rarely seen any threads where politicians post here that truly offensive posts aren't TR'd immediately.  But regardless -- she made a promise to continue to speak with us and she has broken that promise.  Don't make excuses for her.

                            There's plenty our Dem leaders can do.  Why you can't understand the absolute outrage over their latest pre-capitulation, their latest bad strategies of finding some mythical "compromise" with Repubs is beyond me.

                            I can support our Dems in Congress and I can also sympathize with and respect those who are angry and feel betrayed.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

                        •  I think people should do what works... (4+ / 0-)

                          ...and thus far, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that screaming invectives at Democratic lawmakers has made a lick of difference.  In fact, all I've seen is that the lines of communication we used to have (where lawmakers would come here and speak with us) are now closed.

                          I'm not saying anything else will guarantee success, but it's pretty obvious this isn't working, and given human nature, that's not terribly surprising.

                          •  Eh. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, dus7, redstar, BentLiberal

                            I don't advocate screaming invectives as a strategy.  What I am saying is that it doesn't hurt, either.

                            What I do advocate is constant pressure on our Democratic representatives.  And even bashing, if that's necessary.  Why is everyone forgetting 2005, how we bashed the Dems to do what was right and we ended up taking back the Congress?  Frankly, I don't give a damn if they come here to Daily Kos or not.  That's not the point.

                            If I have to choose between screaming invectives and blind, meaningless loyalty, I'll choose the invectives.  We can't let up and we can't compromise on this.  And I'm not just talking about the netroots.

                            Funny, when Markos started this site, he showed the Dems how to bash the Republicans.  And he bashed the Dems, too, when it was necessary.  Maybe we should remember that.

                            Believe me, they can take it.  They're not fragile blossoms.

                          •  Bashing didn't win 2006 (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat, Aaron Bonn

                            We never convinced the Dems of our point-of-view.  The Lamont victory did that.

                            And really, I don't think the tone of the commentary on the Dems from activists at the time was nearly as invective-laden as it is now.  Perhaps that's the difference between being an opposition party and being in the majority, but it has to make a difference.

                            I've been on the receiving end of really nasty exhortions, both working as a customer service rep and in government service.  I've seen (over and over) those who scream loudest and nastiest get the least results, and frequently poison future chances to get good service, as well.  It's really not a surprising thing, IMHO.

                          •  You are so wrong. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, redstar, BentLiberal

                            This isn't about working in the private sector or in civil service, the comparison isn't applicable.

                            But even so, I've seen just the opposite, so many times.  There's even a cliche about it, the wheel that squeaks loudest ... I'm sure you know the rest.

                            Sad you have forgotten what it was like then.  You bring up Lamont and you forget how our Dem reps were so appalled with us for bashing Lieberman and the invective was exactly as bad as folks like you claim it is now.

                            Sad.  It wasn't that long ago.

                          •  Which part? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kpardue, dadanation, PaintyKat

                            Which part isn't applicable?  You must believe Congresspeople, and their staff, are superhuman and simply don't get insulted, or make calculations that trying to please some people isn't worth the effort.

                            I'm not sure where you'd get such an impression, but in my experience it doesn't really reflect human nature.

                            And I have a pretty good recollection of the situation leading up to the 2006 election, thanks.  I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about the nature of the invective: I've never seen as much vicious "Nader-esque" sentiment on this site as I see now.

                            I know of several longtime Kossacks--valuable members of the community--who have never before felt like writing off dKos, but are considering doing that right now, due to how bad things have gotten.  

                            So perhaps it's not my recollection which is faulty.

                  •  is your priority seeing your "team" (8+ / 0-)

                    win or getting the country fixed? If you're into seeing your team win, perhaps your efforts would be better directed towards finding a football team that usually wins and staging tailgate parties to "support" it.

                    Many people into the "game" of politics have lost sight of the purpose of the "game".

                    I expect the Democratic Party to pick up the White House and extend control of Congress regardless of what we or the politicians do or don't do.

                    Elected Democrats doing as they appear to be doing now, rolling over for Bush using the excuse "we only have a majority" will work for one more election cycle.

                    After that, if they continue to produce for K Street instead of the nation as a whole ("real people" represented by HRC's lobbyists aside), the American people as a whole will have the same sense of betrayal as the activist community does.

                    If the Democrats deliver at least one of the "expensive" (in terms of corporate donor support) and conspicuous items people are looking for:

                    • out of Iraq
                    • major alternative energy - anti global warming initiative
                    • national health care
                    • either control of job losses due to offshoring or a new program that will result in increasing the number of "good" jobs (note: a good alternative energy program should work

                    Democratic control of the Federal government gets extended another election cycle.

                    Continued delivery on big-ticket items probably means a generation of dominance and either the GOP getting pushed to the left or its relegation to effective third-party status.

                    Failure to deliver on "We'll help you if you give us the power!" means that it's over for the Democratic Party. Nobody will believe Democratic politicians when they say this. And at that point, I won't be making excuses for them. Will you?

                    Watching what the Democrats are doing with majority control of both houses of Congress leaves me less than optimistic.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:18:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah my priority is seeing "my team" win (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jonathan, kpardue, dadanation, PaintyKat

                      because you haven't a chance in hell of ending the war or stopping the corruption if they don't.  It may not be a slam dunk, but it is a damn sight better chance than what you'd get from the Republican Party.  Why aren't you at some Nader party tonight anyway instead of wasting your time here?  Or is it your job tonight to make sure your team amasses some support for his agenda?

                      •  The very definition of insanity... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PaintyKat

                        ...is doing the same thing over and over, under the same conditions, expecting different results.

                        We've tried the "screaming insults at the Democratic lawmakers" route.  It's gotten us nowhere.  It's really time we tried something else.

                        •  no, we've tried (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Nightprowlkitty

                          supporting them with our money, time, and votes.

                          And it's gotten them power, and gotten us and the welfare of the nation as a whole ignored.

                          Continuing to do this over and over and over is the definition of insanity.

                          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                          by alizard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:15:54 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  so (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        redstar, Nightprowlkitty
                        • out of Iraq
                        • major alternative energy - anti global warming initiative
                        • national health care
                        • either control of job losses due to offshoring or a new program that will result in increasing the number of "good" jobs

                        is a dirty hippie Nader/Green agenda unworthy of the support of any reasonable Democrat?

                        It's sad enough when a mainstream Democratic politician internalizes the advice of the "Democratic" party consultants. It's worse when a Democratic activist makes the same mistake.

                        One would think someone into politics would be able to read public opinion polls. These tell me that my laundry list is firmly within the American mainstream.

                        And that you aren't.

                        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                        by alizard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:22:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  If we are (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dus7, Nightprowlkitty, khereva

                    it will be because Democrats did not act, out of fear.

                    So in 2009 we will be looking at a new Republican President; another Republican majority in Congress; no end in sight for the war;

                    Holding Dems accountable is smart and necessary. It's not a purity test.

                    Dems need to stand up for what's right. Now. Not 30 years from now when they have their mythic 100 percent majority.

                    Now,

                    "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                    by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:42:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So far my theory that beating (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jonathan, kpardue, PaintyKat

                      the Democrats up for losing on the supplemental after having passed it and having it vetoed is proving out - they have no safe place to run on the left and they are going for the middle.  You go ahead and continue to beat the shit out of them and we'll see who is right on the outcome in November, but I won't let you off the hook for the outcome no matter how much you'd like to play the "not me!?!" game.  If you really believe that you are a part of this democracy, it will be your fault too whatever the outcome is.  This pathetic claim that it is all the elected officials' fault is well it is pathetic.

                      •  Do you see ... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Rebecca, redstar, BentLiberal

                        ... how ridiculous your arguments are becoming?

                        Yeah, right.  Our Dem reps are just being beaten up by those awful netroots!  Oh I'm sure that's what's driving their decisions.  And I'm sure that's why they caved on FISA, why they caved on the Iraq Supplemental.  It's all our fault.

                        Yep, bash the netroots.  What a laugh.

                        •  Pfft - it isn't all your fault, but I'd say (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PaintyKat

                          you've been extremely helpful.  The fact that you can't take responsibility for your role or even see what your effect has been is the ridiculous part.  It is always the people most critical of others who haven't the slightest ability to see what negative role they've played in a situation.  Always.

                        •  Is it ridiculous? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PaintyKat

                          If I were a lawmaker, even if I realized I'd made a mistake on FISA, for example, I'd look at the across-the-board condemnation all Democratic lawmakers received on that topic regardless of how they voted, and say "screw trying to please those guys".  And my Wormtongue-esque consultants would agree, and advise tacking right to achieve electoral success, rather than trying to work with "out-of-touch leftists".  

                          And you know what?  After the invective the left has hurled of late, that would sound like awfully appealing advice.

                          •  Yes, it is ridiculous. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, redstar, BentLiberal

                            Do you really believe that's how decisions are made in Congress?  That lawmakers look at who called them names and then base their votes on that?

                            Unbelievable.

                          •  Not exactly (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            I believe what I'm saying is this: Congresscritters will do what they believe is right, and they will do what they believe will win them votes,.  Too often, they'll kind of sacrifice the former for the latter; "doing what's right" can take on a lot of shades of gray, including simply doing what keeps them in office.  If consultants tell them they have a certain path to votes, they will likely listen to that.

                            And yes, if they feel they're dealing with people that are impossible to please, they'll seek votes elsewhere.  Of course, they're also human, too, and no one likes to be viciously attacked.  It really does tend to turn people off -- even politicians.

                          •  Vicsously attacked? (0+ / 0-)

                            LOL.

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:59:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  lol, now you're just being silly (0+ / 0-)

                            not as much hyperbole as inclusive heart, but pretty ridiculous

                            you think that's how politicians operate? go ahead and believe it if you want, but we're not joining in the little fantasy thing you have going there

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:58:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Your unsubstantiated clamis and faulty logic (0+ / 0-)

                        are growing legend even for you.

                        stop with the hyperbole already (like it would do any good to tell you that)

                        "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                        by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:55:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Please show me (0+ / 0-)

                        where I've done this.

                        You go ahead and continue to beat the shit out of them

                        thanks

                        "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                        by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:17:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Funn you mention WA-08 (13+ / 0-)

                Darcy Burner has been rather vocal in attacking the failures of the Democrats, especially their odious FISA surrender. She has also cultivated support amongst the netroots, supported that scared her primary challenger out of the race, leaving her with a clear shot at Reichert.

                Which would all seem to validate the whole notion that those Democrats who work with us in standing up to Bush do well, and those that don't face a worsening situation.

                I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                by eugene on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:39:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It doesn't matter eugene. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SarahLee, scoff0165, cpresley, costello7

                  2008 is going to be a big loss for Democrats.  The cynicism is too entrenched now to pull it back and the Republican Party is going to make sure that there is no opportunity for a clean Dem win in Congress.  It was fun for a few months thinking that Democrats could band together, but obvious that we aren't smart enough to figure out a way to do that.

                  •  I go back and forth on that. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SarahLee, nasarius

                    I think that the Dems will hold onto Congress in 2008, albeit with only a few gains and possibly a few losses, mainly because the voters still hate Congressional Republicans more. Hillary atop the ticket will have some bad effects downticket, meaning we lose close races we might otherwise have won.

                    The real concern for the Congress is in 2010. At this rate I can't possibly see how the Dems survive that election. The GOP will have recovered (in 2002, who thought the Dems would take Congress in 2006?) and the voters will be sick of the rank incompetence of the Pelosi Democrats.

                    Darcy Burner WILL win that seat, though. I think she's got an amazing amount of momentum, the district is tiring of Reichert's yes-man relationship to Bush, and even Hillary and the bad performance of the Congressional Dems won't hurt Burner, because she's not in that Congress yet.

                    Aside from Congress, however, I think the Dems and way too many Kossacks are overconfident in our chances at retaking the White House. That's where the Dems' failure to differentiate themselves from Bush will hurt the most. Hillary WILL lose if she's the nominee. Edwards and Obama are in slightly better shape, but unless they assert leadership on Iraq, they're toast too.

                    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                    by eugene on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:33:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If things stay as they are today - (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PaintyKat

                      Darcy Burner will lose that seat and so will a lot of freshmen Dems as well as hopefuls.  I don't go back and forth on it because I've seen it before.  1994.  It is over.  The cynicism is now too entrenched and all of the Democrats have been run down to the point where there is no recovery possible.  They really can't stop the war and they won't likely impeach so it is over.  Pick your favorite Republican presidential candidate because that is what you're going to be looking at now.  The thing that pisses me off the most is that it was Democrats who destroyed the party not the Republicans this time.  You know why the liberal anti-war wing are looking for compromise?  Because they have not had one iota of support from the very people who want the most from them.  They've been trashed and they know it.  Now they are hoping to achieve anything - something - so that they can say they did something.  The problem is they will be denied any and all victories by the Republicans.  We'll squeeze them from this side and the right will happily help to push from the other and the Republican majority will live on aided greatly by the left wing.  People might as well go send money to Ralph Nader right now because that is where we are headed.

                    •  Will you be voting for Nader again? (0+ / 0-)

                      And folks should listen to you, why?

                      PaintyKat

                      WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                      by PaintyKat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:15:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm simply going to repeat an interesting (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Nightprowlkitty

                    rumor in response:

                    There's a big brouhaha on Capitol Hill right now regarding Sen Craig and the leadership. Craig doesn't want to go and there's an underlying secret about Mitch McConnell and "gay stuff."

                    Some of Craig's allies (read: staffers and others) have been running their mouths about a "scorched earth" policy vis-a-vis gay senators, including Minority Leader McConnell.

                    Mitch McConnell is perhaps - and this is widely known and agreed by both sides of the aisle - the most effective leader in Washington and it would damage the GOP IMMENSELY for him to get bounced in 2008. It would even rank right up there with losing the presidency for them.

                    Word is the GOPers are worried about the Dems actually getting 60 senators after the 2008 election.

                    Perhaps you should drop in on some GOP sites to calm their fears.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:27:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, thank you so much for your suggestion, but (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      vcmvo2

                      piss off.  The morality of these politicians is about the least of the issues.  The reality is that a Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani can and will promise to pass laws and appoint judges who will ban abortion and they can personally go and abort all the babies they want without any real consequence with their base.  Would their base prefer that they were personally opposed?  Hell yes.  But that doesn't mean that their base is stupid enough not to understand that their particiation and support will ultimately yield the results that they want.  They are awfully close and that is because their base has been patient through a three-decade process.  THREE DECADES - AKA - 30 YEARS.  You've had eight months and you're turning on the Democrats for not doing absolutely everything you wanted.  The advantage that the right still has is patience and a certain maturity that the left has failed to find in the journey.  That is why we will lose and they will win.  Liberals are flaky and immature and this blog is absolutely proving that out daily lately.  It will only get worse as this war debate unfolds.

                      •  screaming about "lack of maturity" in a rant (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Nightprowlkitty
                        that starts "piss off" does call attention to maturity. Your lack of it..

                        One of the last steps on a party's road to oblivion is when it's either wrong or absent on the biggest issue(s) of it's time to the point where the party activists are too pissed off to want to play anymore.

                        Abe Lincoln was the Illinois state party chairman of the Whigs when he got so disgusted with his party that he walked off the job and didn't return to politics until he had a new party behind him.

                        I'm sure that people like you called him wrong-headed, evil, and disloyal. And that people like you stuck by the Whigs long after it became a minor third party too unimportant to qualify for the ballot anywhere.

                        The Democratic Party isn't quite terminal yet despite the conduct of its leadership you want to try to give excuses for.

                        Democratic victory in 2008 (the GOP appears to consider this a foregone conclusion) and a few years of good government responsive to the needs of all the people and not just those of your HRC's "real people" represented by lobbyists will bring just about everyone back to the party banner.

                        However, if it does not deliver good government with absolute control of government (if SCOTUS doesn't see which way the wind is going, packing the court will get the message across). . . it'll be in effect, a third party in 2010 and I won't even try to explain Democratic politicians' fuckups away. Feel free to try.

                        The rest of us will be frantically trying to build a replacement for the Democratic Party. One in which triangulators of your DLC will be neither invited nor welcome.

                        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                        by alizard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:10:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Gee....I don't seem... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            redstar

            'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

            by Nestor Makhnow on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:38:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  anecdotally (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            redstar

            No, they don't.

          •  You'll have to show me a poll (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            redstar

            The approval rating for the dems is in the toilet. There's a reason for that.

        •  Last I heard (6+ / 0-)

          Congress consists of members from two parties. That approval rating is a blunt instrument.

          Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

          by bumblebums on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:23:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There have been many good 'butts in seats' that (5+ / 0-)

          we put there by dint of our efforts.  Helping increase that number (Rick Noriega, Darcy Burner, et al) is still worth the effort.

          Just remember to check who Rahm Emanuel's supporting in a primary and look closely at their opponent(s).

          Conservatism is a function of age - Rousseau
          I've been 19 longer'n you've been alive - me

          by watercarrier4diogenes on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:48:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rahm's trying to do the same thing we are. (8+ / 0-)

            And I'd wager that he's put more Dems into Congress in red districts than the netroots ever has.

            Really, you're making my point for me.  Rahm's on our side.  He votes the right way, and he works his ass off to build a majority.  He's kind of a dick, and I think we'd have some spirited debates about purity, but he's a good soldier on the right side.  So why is he vilified here?  It's ridiculous.

            "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

            by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:54:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, Rahm is a fighting Dem, corporate but still (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              redstar, Pegasus

              a fighting Dem.

              His attitude is the kind we need, what we don't like is his support for the Establishment. But he's not our worst opponent in the party-- the weak, fearful, stubborn enablers like Hoyer are.

              Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

              by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:52:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure we have enough info to say (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NearlyNormal

              that he votes on our side.

              He hasn't had much of a chance to show, either way, given when his term in Congress started.

              This being said, if he actually backs up his admirably tough talk on Iraq with votes, I for one will start cutting him more slack than I did when he was undermining good progressive candidates in primaries like Cegelis.

              Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

              by redstar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:03:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Before you laud him too much, you might... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee

              peruse this Firedoglake article from earlier today:

              http://www.firedoglake.com/...

              It casts him in a far less glamorous light than you seem to be seeing him in.

              Conservatism is a function of age - Rousseau
              I've been 19 longer'n you've been alive - me

              by watercarrier4diogenes on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:52:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't say a thing about glamour. (3+ / 0-)

                My point is more that he's a necessary evil right now, and that there are at least 202 House Reps we should be more worried about.

                "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:55:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My original comment about his recommendations, (0+ / 0-)

                  not that he should be primary challenged.  Rahm Emanuel has worked to defeat progressive dems in favor of so-called 'centrists', aka Beltway Insider crony's-in-waiting.  The FireDogLake article I hoped you'd take the time to read spells out, with great clarity, exactly what he's done.

                  Conservatism is a function of age - Rousseau
                  I've been 19 longer'n you've been alive - me

                  by watercarrier4diogenes on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:13:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  They're not our interests. (0+ / 0-)

          They're our principles.

          "Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system." Walter Benjamin

          by psnyder on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:29:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Lotta good that did. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

          by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:57:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps that's because... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PaintyKat

          ...people can change?  Namely, the vast majority of the American public, who less than six years ago, gave Bush and his policies 90%+ approval ratings.

          Perhaps we should keep in mind that things (and people) can change their minds, when we feel like blasting Democratic lawmakers as unredeemable and worthy of whatever invective our collective lack of impulse control leads us to heap upon them.

          Just sayin'.

        •  Exactly. The party needs to change. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          redstar

          And we are, hopefully, the agents of that change. I will NOT clap louder. I'm just going to say I disagree with this diary, as well as the general contention that democrats are "trying their best." They most certainly have not.

          This diary is just one big spin piece. Don't blame the progressive blogosphere for the democrats in congress and their cowardice and lack of leadership. We have to yell louder, not march in lock step. The label of spinlessness has been put on democrats in congress for a reason. And it ain't because of us!

          You know we live in strange times when hearing something as simple as the truth almost seems shocking.

          by redhaze on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:51:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, the fucking liberal blogosphere. (11+ / 0-)

        I'm surprised you're still here. Thanks for tolerating all us jamokes.

        •  You're... welcome? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, PaintyKat

          I really like the idea of the liberal blogosphere, and of blogosphere's in general.  I think a bunch of people venting their spleen is a far cry from what that "idea" is, though.

          "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

          by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:16:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A lot of people "venting their spleen?" (9+ / 0-)

            How about "a lot of people looking to effect change in the representatives they've helped elect?"

            Depends on one's perspective.

            •  ... (3+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              PaintyKat, Elise, swissffun
              Hidden by:
              redhaze

              I have respect for that perspective.  I certainly don't share it, though.  I don't think you effect change with a bunch of threats and self-righteous high-fiving.  I think you do it by winning, over and over and over, until you have the organizational strength to instill purity (hint: we don't have it yet).

              But hey, let me know when Cindy Sheehan knocks off Pelosi, I guess.

              "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

              by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:37:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not all whining (0+ / 0-)

                Please read my post in KO's diary, linked right below. I'm interested in your opinion.

                Melissa Hart is gone - thank you Chris Bowers

                by surfbird007 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:39:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, nice strawman. (8+ / 0-)

                You're as pathetic as Sean Hannity. He's always pulls "Cindy Sheehan" out of his ass when he wants to undermine Democrats, too.

                Ironic, eh? In a post where you're claiming that folks here are undermining Democrats?

                •  Sigh. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PaintyKat

                  If you aren't willing to be civil in a discussion about tactics, I'll just say "fuck you" and move on.  I know you want more reasons to be mad at me for disagreeing, so there you go.  Congratulations, you've accomplished a lot with your day.

                  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                  by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:57:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A vous de meme. n/t (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    thingamabob, BentLiberal, Pegasus

                    When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

                    by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:59:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Nice Dodge. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rebecca

                    You had no refutation of the argument so you pretend you're offended by "incivility"

                    You threw up a pathetic strawman and you got called on it.

                    I guess I see why you ran away. But when you come back, knock off the ridiculous strawmen arguments.

                    "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                    by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:49:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I "ran away" (0+ / 0-)

                      because it was Friday night and I try to maintain a social life.

                      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                      by Pegasus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 07:56:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Uhuh (0+ / 0-)

                        Is that why you had severl more comments downstream in the time space directly after this one?

                        Like I said, nice dodge.

                        "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                        by BentLiberal on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:52:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Monday morning and I'm looking at this again (0+ / 0-)

                          and you're looking pretty ridiculous.  I was having an exchange with Bob Johnson which I finished.  Some people left late comments which I didn't see until the next day, although I briefly checked the board late Friday night.  

                          Your comment, for example, came almost three hours after the conversation was effectively concluded, and was apparently ignorant of the below posts which were in no way a "dodge."  But apparently to make you happy I have to babysit my posts 24-7.  Sheesh.

                          "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                          by Pegasus on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:43:36 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My comment came when I saw your comment (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            redhaze

                            not earlier not later.  I call em as I see them, and it looked like a strawman to me and others, but not all others.

                            But this thread is dead - you're righ there. See you in the next one!

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 02:40:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're probably right about the strawman part. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BentLiberal

                            I was a little irritated when I wrote and and would have taken it back if I could.  What bothered me, though, was your accusation that I was fleeing the thread because I was unable to support my own argument, when in reality the course of human events had simply taken me away from my computer.

                            And yes, I'm more than slightly embarrassed to still be rehashing this, four days later.  But I'll get over it somehow.

                            "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                            by Pegasus on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:25:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pegasus

                            Sorry for the accusation then. Things get mixed up sometimes when they are out of time-context.

                            Let's move on to the next battle! :)

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:33:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Or, if you're willing to just ignore the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PaintyKat

                  Sheehan crack, you could respond to the first paragraph.

                  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                  by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:00:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, fair enough. (8+ / 0-)

                    I have respect for that perspective.  I certainly don't share it, though.  I don't think you effect change with a bunch of threats and self-righteous high-fiving.  I think you do it by winning, over and over and over, until you have the organizational strength to instill purity (hint: we don't have it yet).

                    I disagree with your condescending characterization of what has gone here the past few days:

                    I don't think you effect change with a bunch of threats and self-righteous high-fiving.

                    What I have sen here is people figuring out ways to pressure their Democratic leaders to do the people's will. And, yes, that is the will of a majority of Americans, regardless of the ratios in Congress.

                    I think the dichotomy you present -- if you're taking Democrats to task, you're not working to elect more Democrats -- is false. It is not an exclusive. Electing Democrats and expecting them to follow the lead of a majority of Americans, particularly the majority that put Democrats back in power last year, is independent of electing more Dems.

                    So, while I understand your feelings, I think you present a phony either/or to back up your point of view.

                    •  Fair enough. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PaintyKat

                      We disagree over where we should be placing our focus.  I see us as having two equally important goals right now.  1) Get the hell out of Iraq, starting with the next supplemental.  2) Keep laying the groundwork for an expansion of our majority in '08 and beyond.  

                      I think we can accomplish (or could have accomplished; I actually agree with you that we've had a bad summer and are shaping up for a bad fall) both of these at the same time by focusing our full efforts on incumbent Republicans.  In that context, I honestly think it's a distraction for us to devote as much time as we have lately to chastising our current Dems for being imperfect.  In doing so, we are putting our reps on the defensive from two sides, when we ought to be putting the GOP on the defensive and thereby increasing the Dems' odds of successfully pushing them on Iraq.

                      You might be right, we might be able to force the Dems to toe the line while simultaneously declaring open season on the GOP.  But I really doubt it.  If we want the Dems to stay on the offensive, we can best help by staying on the offensive ourselves.

                      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                      by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:14:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But here's the thing, by not standing more firm (5+ / 0-)

                        ... on the supplemental than last time, we are undermining our efforts to win more seats.

                        The American public wants a Spring withdrawal timeline. By a large majority. Even if we lose with a Bush veto, we win if we send up multiple supplementals with slightly different withdrawal timelines. Because then we can say:

                        We are doing the work that the American people have elected us to do. We are acting on their will. a MAJORITY OF THE American people want to see light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq. We have provided the President with funding for the troops on the ground along with a reasonable and rational timeline for withdrawal of our forces that the American people have demanded of us. The President has, on his desk, the funding. The American people want him -- and us -- to get out of a quagmire that is cosyting us nearly 100 American ives a month not to mention eight billion dollars... A MONTH. It is up to the President whether he wants to listen to the will of the people or not.

                        •  Absolutely. They've hurt themselves (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PaintyKat

                          by being pansies.  And you're right that we should remind them of their accountability.  Just not to the point where we are threatening each and every one of them with primaries.

                          "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                          by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:35:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  there you go with the exxagerations again (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca

                            Just not to the point where we are threatening each and every one of them with primaries.

                            I know you can't stomach "incivil" curse words, but really just where did you pull this hyperbole from?

                            Stop throwing up false strawmen.

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:54:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you haven't seen the periodic diaries (0+ / 0-)

                            vowing that we should primary all the Dems who don't do X, you haven't been paying close attention.

                            "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                            by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:31:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We're responding here to THIS diary (0+ / 0-)

                            which exaggerates profoundly about the diaries and posters it refers to. The diarist slanted them to his liking, and it's utter bullshit.

                            Did you even check to see?

                            I have seen the occaisonal (rare) comment of "primary evey one of them" but you're throwing that argument up here against people who didn't make it.

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:04:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Besides, after the total strawman argument (0+ / 0-)

                            you tried to make upstream you will tend to find that you get a reputation for spinning exagerations and bs. People aren't going to cut you slack when that's how you operate

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:08:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Come on, BL (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pegasus

                            You really don't have to look that hard to find comments along the lines of "primary every one of them".  And that's the most constructive of the lot -- too many simply take the form of "abandon all the Dems".

                          •  you need to be more careful with your words (0+ / 0-)

                            too many simply take the form of "abandon all the Dems".

                            Please define "too many."

                            The diaries that this diarist was referring to did nothing of the sort. The diarist exagerated and I don't think you bothered to check did you?

                            Unless your contending that the post by Markos that the diarist referred to was condemning all dems?

                            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                            by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:02:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  There were no threats. The diarist fabricated (0+ / 0-)

                his post above. Go read the actual diaires he's talking about. He misrepresented them.

                "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

                by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:47:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Guy didn't say shit about Sheehan (0+ / 0-)

                Your condescending attitude is a disruption to this thread. Disagree, but please do so with respect and without putting lame slogan's in other people's mouths.

                Your comments have been condescending towards this website in general throughout this thread. If you want to leave, and don't believe in what people are doing here, that's fine. Don't let the door hit ya! If you want to be a part of the conversation, please do so in a non-jerky manner. Thank you...

                You know we live in strange times when hearing something as simple as the truth almost seems shocking.

                by redhaze on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:58:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You know there are rules for TR's, right? (0+ / 0-)

                  You can't just toss them around because people disagree with you.

                  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                  by Pegasus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 07:51:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I didn't toss it around b/c I disagree with you (0+ / 0-)

                    I threw you a TR for being nasty and putting words in someone else's mouth, and also for being a general disruption to an otherwise respectful conversation. From the troll rate FAQ:

                    [blockquote]You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie.]

                    Your quote about Sheehan fits at least two of the final three criteria. It clearly is off-topic and inflammatory, and it also loosely fits the lie criteria since you implied the other user wants Sheehan to win, when he said nothing of the sort.

                    Sorry I had to explain this again...

                    You know we live in strange times when hearing something as simple as the truth almost seems shocking.

                    by redhaze on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:10:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Yes! (0+ / 0-)

              That's exactly what I was talking about over in Kid Oakland's Diary

              Melissa Hart is gone - thank you Chris Bowers

              by surfbird007 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:37:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Is it working? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PaintyKat, Pegasus

              I'm not seeing much in the way of good results from all the nastiness we've thrown the Dems' way.

      •  Im tired of bitching about everything (12+ / 0-)

        I get frustrated because I am for all intents and purposes homebound, much of the time by myself, which has been the case for the last 7 years or so, and sometimes I add to the problems and not the solutions.

        I hate being cynical. i used to have a good outlook up until the 2000 elections which was right about the time I became disabled.

        I want to be constructive and find that positive outlook again. I for one am sick of the "Well, aren't I clever for saying THAT!" postings that I have done instead of posting honest questions that can bring up good debate, and I am sick of becoming so frustrated that hate begins to manifest.

        Well anyway,there are some really good and brilliant people on this site, which is a lot more than I can say about many of the 'right'(sic) websites (and a few on the left, Huffpo being one) that I have strolled through

        I straddle the thin line between Holistic and Assholistic

        by Goodbye Kitty on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:29:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  brave, i tried but just can't do the GOP blogs (0+ / 0-)

          the vile posts there, it's amazing how many comments entail murdering in so many ways. really, if censorship was enforced on such talk - we'd (the lefties) wouldn't ever notice, it'd be the righties that'd be quieted.

          heck the other day even looking at HuffPost comments I was shocked by the vileness of the righties- And why on earth are THEY commenting on HuffPost!

      •  To what end? (0+ / 0-)

        What has it accomplished?

      •  Would that be like in (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, dus7, NearlyNormal

        '80, '84, '88, '94, '00, '02, '04?

        Yeah, those were the golden years.

        Listen, we busted our butts to put them in in '06, and they've sat on their asses. They better start acting like they're working FOR us.

        After 2000, I took a solemn oath to never vote for a Repub for the rest of my life, and I will stand by that.

        But dammit, seeing what they do with all our hard work, the idea of working phone banks and cracking open my wallet becomes harder and harder to justify.

        There is no avant-garde. There are only people who are a little late. - Edgar Varese - Go Sulu!

        by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:10:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And some of them were gd Blue Dogs. So (0+ / 0-)

        what was the point?

      •  dKos reminds me more and more... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PaintyKat

        ...of Usenet every day, and I'm more and more concerned that it will end up just as irrelevant.

      •  You mean like before they won and copped out? (0+ / 0-)

        Hey, remember when people like us focused on putting more Democratic butts in congressional seats, instead of spending 95% of our time bitching about the party?

         And bread use to cost a nickel.    You go ahead and send them your cash.  Some people will settle for anything. And it isn't good form to be discussing Kid Oakland by name in this diary.

        No justice, no peace.

        by dkmich on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:37:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This ain't a circular firing squad... (0+ / 0-)

        this is like the Russians pointing their guns at their own soldiers to march them into superior Nazi forces.  Sometimes you need to fear letting your own side down more than the enemy.

        But yes, I agree with the above - we should be marching our people forward with pistols to the backs of their heads ... but saving the machine guns and artillery for the adversary.  The Republicans have gone after our people on the Iraq issue (running those idiotic ads) - so it would be good for us to go to moderate Republican rallies and start hanging nooses from the trees.

        And I mean the above in a totally unracial way ... take it literally as the threat of death.

    •  No tip from me (56+ / 0-)

      Iraq is my line in the sand and my single issue.

      If Democrats don't get it right this month, I can only conclude that Democrats do not consider things bad enough in IRaq to do anything, ergo, in order to get 41 Senators to shut down the war things must get much worse, thus the only conclusion is the Democratic PArty wants a return to minority status before they will be willing to shut down the Iraq war.

      It's a bullshit argument to claim they do not have the votes. A minority in the Senate can shut the war down.

      PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

      by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:06:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Think back to May (10+ / 0-)

        They did pass a spending bill with teeth.  It set timetables.  Do you remember that?  They seemed pretty sincere back then.  What changed?  It was the stupid support the troops thing that all of DC bought into.  
        Now, Iraq is important to me too.  My brother is in the Army Reserves and so far he's managed to stay in the states but his time is running out.  
        All I'm asking you is whether you think the circular firing squad is effective, because I don't think it is.  Merely screaming at them to change their ways isn't going to make them do it until you can clearly demonstrate that doing the right thing isn't going to hurt them back at home.  

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:12:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If we reward the Democrats for doing nothing on (50+ / 0-)

          Iraq, nothing will continue to be the order of the day for Iraq.

          There must be consequences for failing to act, else they will continue to fail to act.

          PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

          by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:15:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rebecca

            "The meek shall inherit the Earth...but not its mineral rights.">> J. Paul Getty

            by Rex Manning on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Be suspicious of convenience (24+ / 0-)

            I direct this to you, Walt, but it's meant for many people.  In your case, I know from your posting history that you're serious about results.  So, no insult intended, but:

            Your stance is a very convenient one.  In the view of the world you express, your role is to swat the Democrats with a newspaper when they don't do what you think needs to be done.  You don't have to figure out why, or what can be done, or what the likelihood of success is, or what the costs of trying are, or what the costs of failing are.  Just: swat!  You appoint yourself to a privileged position where the responsibility to act is someone else's and the fault is someone else's if doesn't work and the end result if we don't get things done is that you're morally absolved because, after all, you swatted!

            Politics in general, and this situation in particular, is more complicated than that.  Pelosi is dealing with a situation where -- it's pretty clear -- she does not have the votes to prevent a budget from passing and she's trying to make the most of what she has.  Goldberry's right.  We're aiming at the wrong people, and no anti-war activist should feel proud of being part of a circular firing squad, the sole foreseeable consequence of which will be to strengthen the GOP and thus prolong the war.

            Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

            by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:29:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  41 Senators is all it takes (20+ / 0-)

              We could have stopped the insanityu at any point since it began.

              41 Senators and not a single Senator more. that's the reqisite number for filibustering Iraq spending bills.

              It takes a minority to stop an immoral and illegal war. that's why I am calling them on their "we don't have the votes" whiny-assed BULLSHIT! It doesn't fly with me because I know how it works.

              PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

              by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:35:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You know, there aren't 41 Senators in "we" (16+ / 0-)

                "We" are progressive Democrats and some hangers-on.  "We" does not include the following members of the Democratic caucus, off the top of my head (i.e. without looking at their previous votes):

                Evan Bayh
                Mary Landrieu
                Joe Lieberman
                Blanche Lincoln
                Ben Nelson
                Bill Nelson
                Mark Pryor
                Ken Salazar

                That brings us down to 43.

                "We" probably doesn't include the following Senators who perhaps could be convinced:

                Max Baucus
                Joe Biden
                Maria Cantwell
                Tom Carper
                Kent Conrad
                Dianne Feinstein
                Tim Johnson
                Herb Kohl
                Claire McCaskill
                Jon Tester
                Jim Webb

                Harry Reid should have a bead on whether we can get 41 votes for a filibuster out of this crew.  My guess is that we don't have it -- not nearly -- because they are concerned about public opinion (not now, but in the event of future attacks and setbacks) and think that they can pass an ameliorative measure.

                They're wrong, and we should lobby them by addressing their concerns.  Swatting them and saying that they shall serve us or else will not do the job.  And meanwhile, there are 32 strong Senators not listed above whom you're tarring with your broad "it's the Democrats' fault!" brush.

                Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:48:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then they are telling me (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  costello7

                  go put the Republicans back in charge so things get bad enough that 41 Senaotrs will filibuster the Iraq War spending.

                  It's that simple.

                  PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

                  by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:55:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Look at that list of Senators again (7+ / 0-)

                    Imagine that the GOP takes control in 2008.  Now we need even more of them.  Do you think that they will filibuster even if things get worse?  Hell no.  They will interpret a repudiation of Democrats in 2008 as reflecting public fear of terrorism (just as it was in 2004.)  And they'd probably be right, if it happened.

                    Your plan to newspaper train them won't work, Walt.  Inconvenient, but true.

                    Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                    by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:59:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your plan to reward failure (8+ / 0-)

                      will result in more failure.

                      so I'm going with my plan if they fail to stop the war.

                      PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

                      by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:01:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Either that's an empty threat (5+ / 0-)

                        or an abomination.  If you vote Republican you're putting pride above caring for the fate of Iraqis and U.S. troops.  I suggest that once you make your decision, you put your intention to vote Republican in your sig line so everyone can see you coming.

                        Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                        by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:06:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, once the Dems give Bush yet another (0+ / 0-)

                          blank check, there will be no reason whatsoever to participate in any progressive blog again because I am not about to requard failure by the Dems when all it takes to end the war is 41 votes in the Senate.

                          PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

                          by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:09:17 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  How is what they doing now affecting (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          side pocket, dus7, Residentcynic

                          the fate of anyone or anything.  If it is fate then nothing impacts it.  Point being nothing in this f'ed up politically calculated mess is what it appears.  This is about money and power--the politicians' and their corporate and big money elite donors, specifically.  Primary out at least three members of the Dem national leadership starting with whomever falls in that category in the next cycle and send the message that power still belongs to the people in this party.

                          Knocking off weak Repubs and insisting on accountability in our own house shouldn't be mutually exclusive.  

                          We ask children to fight for lies but we aren't allowed to ask our politicians to simply stand up?  I could care less if we go down, and no that doesn't make me a GOP enabler--GOP voters make GOP enablers, but I'm sick of not going down fighting which makes our party enablers.  Political posturing is a ruse not to benefit the people but to benefit any given politicians'/party's access to the levers of power.

                          What they do with that power is all that matters and what the Dems are doing with theirs is bumbling, fumbling, and squandering it.  That's the truth.

                          At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Aristotle

                          by rrheard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:40:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  What you are saying here is illogical and foolish (0+ / 0-)

                          If the Dems fail to pursue what WS wants, what is he supposed to do? Continue to vote Dem because the alternative (voting GOP) is an "abomination"? In other words, the Dems can do as they please, Democratic voters MUST vote Democrat at all costs?

                          Regardless of party affiliation, the only influence voters have is that they have a vote. To agree not to use it for whatever reason is to ask for more abuse.

                          And for the record, what makes the GOP truly suck is not something in their genes, it's something in their policies, values and tactics. But it was not ever thus, so every thinking voter ought to be able to look past partisan affiliation.

                          Now, of course, there hasn't been a Republican in my lifetime I would vote for, so this is more of a hypothetical, but it's important to keep an open mind. That's what being a progressive is all about.

                          -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

                          by thingamabob on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:29:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  MUST Democratic voters vote Democratic? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat, vcmvo2

                            Pretty much.  When you have someone who's obviously corrupt (I won't name names) or batshit crazy (I will: Zell Miller), it may make sense not to, and of course third party votes in safe races have an argument behind them even if I no longer indulge.  But short of that, one of the main things that a politician does is vote for leadership in the House.  That outweighs a whole lot of downside.

                            Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                            by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:04:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what a lovely rock you've tied around our ankles (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Annalize5, dus7

                            So as long a (D) appears, pull the lever?  Even when the (D)s are doing the exact same things the Rs want to happen?

                            Man, it's time to start thinking outside the box.

                            Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
                            P.S. I am not a crackpot.
                            /> -Abe Simpson

                            by fromer on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:16:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's what primaries are for (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            to get rid of the people doing those "exact same things."

                            Tell me -- when do you think it's better to have the Republican in office?  Does it matter if the legislature may tip to the GOP as a result?

                            Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                            by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:18:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and if we don't take the current crop to task (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Annalize5, dus7

                            what sane person tries to take on a sitting Senator or 10 term rep?

                            Ned Lamont didn't happen in a vacuum, he soared to success because Lieberman had been taken to the mat for YEARS.

                            But this support the Dems because they're Dems garbage has to stop.  

                            It's not about Republicans being a better choice, it's about Dems utter failing their responsibilities.  Just because the alternative (Republicans) are too horrid to imagine does not mean Dems are above reproach.

                            So I will continue to fire away.  But it ain't no circle, because these Dems do not belong to any group I would associate with.  They are scared, pathetic opportunists.  Not leaders.

                            Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
                            P.S. I am not a crackpot.
                            /> -Abe Simpson

                            by fromer on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:27:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You say (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat

                            these Dems do not belong to any group I would associate with

                            Yes they do.  It's called the Democratic Party.

                            Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                            by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:15:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well there's something called "a poker face" (0+ / 0-)

                            See, the point about bluffing is not to let on that you ARE bluffing. While the rest around the table have to guess based on observable cues, past experience and gut instinct, it's possible to successfully persuade them to take action by merely appearing to have certain cards.

                            Of course, in order for this to work, it's not advisable to reveal the cards in your hand first. That's what you seem to be advocating.

                            -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

                            by thingamabob on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:19:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do understand about bluffing (0+ / 0-)

                            That's what we were doing with the supplemental bill.  Bush ain't that dumb.

                            Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                            by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:13:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  don't forget to add Amy Klobuchar to the Useless (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DelRPCV, redstar, Major Danby

                  Democrats List. In 2006, she won a solid victory in Minnesota. She ain't up for re-election for five more years. And the girl has been a total and complete wimp. Voted to give Bush another $50 billion for his pet war in Iraq. Voted for the dreadful VISA bill. She's just a joke.

                  IWhen Amy is asked about Iraq, she says she "supports our troops."

                  Wow! I mean, talk about political courage and insight.

                  A few months ago, she was on our local Air America station talking about her recent trip to Iraq in which she met with the Minnesota National Guard. She went on and on about how they were just the most wonderful men and women, we should all be so proud of them, they gave her letters to take home to their moms, etc etc. I wanted to scream, Christ, Amy, You weren't there as afrigging social worker. You were there to analyze the situation and vote appropriately.

                  Sen. Amy Klobuchar has the reputation of a liberal and the voting record of a Bush Dog. I'm a feminist and I'm already hoping someone will challenge her in the primary in five short years. She's a cautious, cowardly hack. As Democrats, we can do better.

                  Meanwhile, I will wholeheartedly support the Democratic candidate against Norm Coleman. Right now, I'm leaning towards Franken.

                  •  show us then. this 'whining' about DEMs is tired (0+ / 0-)

                    hell AK was just elected, and in the US today the next campaign starts the day after election. IF it was really so easy to get pure DEMs so to speak elected instead of compromisers, well why then aren't they getting elected? Why aren't there more DEMs in the vein of say Sanders, in say Missouri?

                    Franken would be terrific. But I'll wager within 6 months he'll be the subject of several Franken is a Hack diaries here.

                  •  don't misunderstand, though please (0+ / 0-)

                    I really also wish the DEMs would all be ultra liberal on social policy. But I also wish they'd be conservative on economic policy, and international on foreign/military policy. Thus my ideal DEM doesn't fit with everyone elses, and vice versa probably.

                    I also agree with you that I'm flummoxed when a DEM in a safe seat from my perspective votes in a less than ideal liberal way. But, I'm not going to advocate pilloring em unless they get clearly red in colour (ie Lieberman)

            •  That was friggin' eloquent (n/t) (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caldonia, Major Danby, DiesIrae, cpresley

              The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

              by al Fubar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:45:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What HE thinks needs to be done? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DelRPCV, dus7

              It would take a fool to NOT see what needs to be done.  And 29% of the country qualifies there.  The rest of us want the hell out or something perhaps a bit less agressive, but as soon as possible, please.  We know that means months more deployment, but we want to get something started.

              It is absolutely true that Republicans need to convince Republicans to get it done (they don't listen to Democrats, let's be real), but Democrats bowing down before the fight has begun isn't helping.  You can't start out your negotiation at exactly where you know your opponent wants you to be to help them out or you will never even get half of what you want.  The perception is that this is what Dems are doing and there is a reason to be angry about it, because it is what they ARE doing.  We're not even getting half a loaf.  

              "When people show you who they really are, believe them." - Maya Angelou

              by Pennsylvanian on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:17:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good policy and good politics (6+ / 0-)

                You're right about the policy.  I think that the Democrats in Congress -- even most of the Bush Dogs -- agree.  And, you're right about negotiating postures.  But you're missing what is actually motivating the conservative Dems.

                Their concern is about the politics.  They (rightly) do not take much solace in current polls, because once The Next Bad Thing happens after an Iraq withdrawal, the GOP and media will be all over the Dems with a Dolchstoss argument and if the past is any guide the public will buy it and forget that they ever favored withdrawal.  That is what they are concerned about.

                We need to stop the war, and we need to keep Republicans from controlling our government at least until the Constitutional system is repaired.  People are trying to accomplish both, and it is far from as simple as people here think.

                Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:38:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  your argument presumes no effective counter (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dus7

                  So because the R's will smear Dems in the event of a post-withdrawal attack, we shouldn't push for withdrawal?  That's giving an awful lot of power to a party that was voted out of office last term.  And it's giving an awful lot of power to a very poor political attack.

                  All Dems would need to do in a situation like that is point to the horrid record of safety and security this country has pursued under 6 years of Republican government to counter such political attacks. But the Dems are "scared" so they don't even try.  What leadership!

                  Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
                  P.S. I am not a crackpot.
                  /> -Abe Simpson

                  by fromer on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:20:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's all we'd have to do? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PaintyKat

                    Great!  Make your point to the party Democrats -- who fear this is a strong political attack based on previous experience dealing with China, Vietnam, Iran, and so on -- and let them know that they're worried over nothing.  Maybe you can convince them and turn the entire tide of the debate.  Seriously, I hope you can do it.

                    Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                    by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:10:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I think that the whole debate on the left (7+ / 0-)

              has jumped the shark.  At this point, if some prominent blogger insisted that the only way to end the war was to lasso the moon and bring it down to earth with flying pigs, the majority of people around here would start faxing, emailing and marching to push Congressional Democrats to lasso the moon and to fund the flying pigs.

              The movement has gone off the rails.

              •  Hmmm -- how does it cost to rent flying pigs? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PaintyKat, inclusiveheart, vcmvo2

                First: that's really funny.

                I'd like to think that it's not that bad yet, but the last few days here have been among the least pleasant I can remember, up there with the FISA cavein, the supplemental vote, and the NDAA vote.  But we're not a train; we tend to return to equilibrium.

                I'm just not sure how much I'll want to be here for the next few weeks.

                Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:43:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That's the problem (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dus7, fromer

              She's trying to make the most of what she has instead of getting more.  A real leader would be on TV every night leading and getting others to follow.  She ain't one.

              When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

              by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:01:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  We need to FRAME THE DEBATE!!! (6+ / 0-)

            We need to hammer home our talking points. If we can't yell louder than the republicans now, then when? they have zero credibility and we HAD the momentum and the moral high ground. It's beyond me why we can't beat these guys at there own game... and gain respect while doing it.

            "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop "

            by soulsurvivor on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:48:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Frame the debate - yes! (6+ / 0-)

              For example, why can't some Democrat in Congress come out and say, "With all due respect to General Petraeus, buying off a few Sunni sheiks in the Anbar desert with duffle bags of greenbacks in exchange for a photo-op with president Bush is not what I call political progress."?

              The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

              by semiot on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:07:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And of course you have to follow with - (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SarahLee, LNK

                "So General, how long will it take, how many American lives and how much American treasure will it take, to buy the cooperation of all the tribal sheiks in Iraq? It seems to me to call this approach a policy at this point in the Iraq occupation is to call a lame donkey a racehorse."

                The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

                by semiot on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:13:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I guess what I'm saying is, Dems in Congress (7+ / 0-)

                may not be able to stop the war, but they can certainly treat this fiasco, and the feeble, mendacious justifications being served up in its support, with the contempt they so richly deserve. Oppose. Loudly. Or by default take responsibility.

                The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

                by semiot on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:16:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Doing nothing is all it takes. (9+ / 0-)

            No funding bill = no funding. 41 votes in the Senate blocks continuation of the War.

            Democratic Candidate for US Senate, Wisconsin 2012

            by ben masel on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:51:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's all it takes (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Data Pimp, NearlyNormal, rrheard

              The war could have ended with any supplemental funding request ever since the war began, and all it takes is 41 votes, not a single vote more.

              PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

              by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:03:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  funny how the story about (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dus7, NearlyNormal

                the "withdrawal timetable with teeth" keeps coming up.  Where were those votes when the funding vote came up?  Suddenly when the Dems were threatened with being labeled "troop haters" it was okay to send more off to their death.  

                Apparently getting bad press is worse than sending more Americans to die.  I wonder how they would feel if the positions were switched?

                I suggest that the timetable bill was passed only with the knowledge of being able to pass the buck off to the republicans or the president for killing it.  Had they actually believed in what they were voting for the votes would have remained when the funding came up.

                After 12 years as an independent I'm changing from 'I' to 'D' so I can vote for Edwards!

                by pullbackthecurtain on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:30:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  No, it doesn't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aexia

              First of all, the Dems are not not going to pass a funding bill for the defense department (double negative intentional).

              Second, Bush can probably fund the war even if the Democrats don't vote for funding of it, via laws that govern what happens if a budget doesn't pass.

              Even if that wasn't true, Bush isn't going to withdrawal the troops even if there is no funding for it.  Congress can not order them home, only Bush can do so.  So they stay, but don't get paid or get bullets or food?  Obviously that won't happen.

              Congress can not order the troops home.

        •  The take no action if there are political risks (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, dus7, fromer, Bobjack23

          strategy is a loser.  Anyone who argues on behalf of such a strategy isn't being "middle ground or even handed" but simply afraid.  Life is fraught with risk political and otherwise and action in the face of risk and fear is the mark of courage--anything less is called cowering.  I'm tired of the calculated political cowering.

          At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Aristotle

          by rrheard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:30:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Bush will veto anything with teeth (0+ / 0-)

          And the Democrats cling to a bare majority in the Senate and little more than that in House, not the two thirds needed to override.

          The only other choice is to not fund the entire defense department.  At all.  That's not going to fly either.

      •  Need to get out your copy of Crashing the Gates (15+ / 0-)

        and Re-read the chapters on the problems of single issue Democrats in the 1970's and beyond.

        Notice: This Comment © ROGNM

        by ROGNM on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:16:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do not have that book (4+ / 0-)

          and yes, the Iraq War has made me into a single issue Democrat.

          PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

          by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:18:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Future Nader voter, too? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aexia, Caldonia, vcmvo2, Pegasus

            Terrific.

            •  Nope, won't go third party (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HarveyMilk, Annalize5

              If the Democrats don't think Iraq is bad enough to filibuster Iraq War spending bills, it's an indication to me that things have to get worse, thus the Democrats will be telling me directly, "go vote for the Republicans so things get so bad we filibuster Iraq War spending with our 41 Senator minority."

              We have never needed a majority to end the Iraq War.

              PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

              by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:41:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, better still. You'll vote Republican (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aexia, ChiGirl88, vcmvo2, scoff0165, cpresley

                Brilliant.

                You're just what we need.

                Thanks for clarifying that.

                •  Because of what the Democrats are indicating to m (0+ / 0-)

                  if they do not Filibuster the blank check, then things are not bad enough in their estimation to shut down the war. The only way to make things bad enough is to keep the war under Republican control, ergo, failing to filibuster Iraq War spending bills that have no menaingful, enforcable, and required withdrawal timetables is telling me directly that the only way the Iraq war will end is if I vote GOP.

                  It takes a minority to end the war. 41 votes is all we need. If they want the war to end, it will end.

                  PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

                  by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:51:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Why would you care, you would appear to like... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Carbide Bit

                  ...the way the Neo-Con pricks are running things no matter what you might say to the contrary, and so obviously do the yellow livered Democrats who refuse to act against Bush Inc. For my money they are damned closet Republicans whose seats are actually held by corporate dollars, and while I’m damning things damned the whole much ado about nothing for the working/consuming people DC dog and pony show. We need a damned revolution as solid reason nor polite debate and or decent request is not and has not gotten even a thoughtful response out of the totally corrupted DC porkers and their running dogs in both parties. I live 900 miles away from that cesspool and I can smell it on a downwind day.

                  The greedy bastards have brought our economy to the point of ruin with their thieving economic policies and if you were more in touch with the general public you would see they want some heads on the public block. If what I think is going to occur in the market and with the banks, the dollar and most of us lose our pensions and savings then there will be more than just sufficient numbers  to deal with this pack of thieves running things from DC and who have ruined this government and economy, and any damned way the public likes. There will be no appeals form such public justice. Thanks to their total lack of ethics, honor and greed past believing I don’t think the army or the police will defend these crooks from their just rewards as most of those folks are going to be and have already been hurt by them too. You think that sounds radical? Buckle up there is a rough ride just down the pike. The time for words that accomplish nothing but delay justice is about over.

                  The Democrat and Republican Congress critters best find some backbone to stand up to their masters and soon or they had better start running...for the border.

                  The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

                  by Bobjack23 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:57:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's right there's no difference between (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PaintyKat, ChiGirl88

                    the Republicans and the Democrats.. right?  Is that what you're saying.

                    So, there's no difference between a George W. Bush presidency and what should have been an Al Gore administration?  You Nader apologists crack me up.  I'd laugh if it hadn't ruined my country.

                    Grow up.

                    •  I take it with from that comment you seem... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...to think you’re grown up, well IMO it doesn’t seem to have done you that much good. Please sell your dog and pony show, red team blue team, Sis Boom Bah! Rah rah rah high school Harry politics to someone else as you’re dealing with a fellow who has fought a war, worked for an intelligence agency; in short been to town and seem the elephant and is a ripe 65 years of age. Don't try to teach your grandfather to suck eggs.

                      Moreover I’m in a bad mood as I have just seen the CIA director who is no longer active military in fully festooned uniform warning the nation that the bad ole Ben Laden boys are about launch serrious attacks on this country’s people (but he couldn’t’ specify a single clue to the how or why of his knowing) and I know full well exactly what that means and who will be launching attacks or threatening to do so just cover up their double dealing and gross incompetence not to mention highway robbery of the American People. I am in no mood for hearing we just can’t do anything about them through our elected representatives because it is bad politics tomfoolery which I see as shilling for these low class criminal pricks behind Bush Inc.

                      The creating or directing of outside enemies and their apparent threats to the populous and nation is the oldest trick in the book that tyrannical unprincipled governments use to distract from their abuses of power domestically and these idiots behind Bush Inc seem to think nobody knows that, not to mention these jerks already been to that well way too often.... and you wan to play Democrat Republican compare and contrast games? These Congress critters are part of the problems or a solution to the problems based on their actions and obvious loyalties or lack there of, not based of their party labels...talk about juvenile thinking!

                      The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

                      by Bobjack23 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:53:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I have to say, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thingamabob, Data Pimp

              that's crap.  Demanding that the Democrats do not prove Nader right is not sympathizing with Nader.

              The majority of Democrats are with us.  It's the Bush Dogs and our alleged "leadership" that is the problem.

              I can die a thousand times but I'll always be here.

              by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:52:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  And then what... (8+ / 0-)

        You can't shut the war down without a peace settlement, and that's not going to happen until W is out of office.  Democrats are caught between their constituents and the abyss of a totally unresolved Iraqi civil war once the US leaves.  

        I would like to hear more from the Democratic presidential candidates as well as Congress, but what I would like to hear is a funding plan that draws down troops, modifies the mission, and calls for hearings on implementing a negotiated settlement including regional partners.  The binary end the war now vs fund the surge dichotomy is not going to cut it with any serious candidate, and we need to recognize that.  I just wish they would be more honest about it.  

        In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

        by ivorybill on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:25:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fuck it, just pull our troops out of there. (5+ / 0-)

          Let the Iraqis sort out the rest for ourselves.

          There's going to be no peace settlement for themselves while we're there.  It's the same as Vietnam.  There would be no peace there as long as our troops were there.  Sure the fighting continued after we left, but eventually it slowed down, then stopped.  And that would have been impossible if we had continued to throw gasoline on that fire.

          There's no avoiding it.  The insurgency will continue, and the violence will continue until we leave.  It's just a matter of time before our elected assholes get tired of this shit and pull us out, then we can start promoting a diplomatic and humanitarian approach.

          Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant.

          by meldroc on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:38:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My exit plan (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NearlyNormal

            Airplanes.

            Lots of 'em.

            PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

            by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:46:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The analogy does not hold (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aexia, catfish, Pd

            When we left Vietnam, there was a single, powerful national liberation movement ready to take over a more or less ethnically homogenous society.  This is far from the case in Iraq.  While overthrowing Saddam certainly was the spark that set off the civil war, it is not at all clear that the presence of our troops now functions as an accelerant to the civil war. Our mission is whacked, but don't expect the Democratic leadership to go into the 2008 election vulnerable to the Republicans blaming them for massive ethnic cleansing.  In one way, the Vietnam analogy is correct... just as Nixon delayed ending it for political reasons, the Democrats will have to do something to start winding down the war.  But right or wrong, they are not going to simply stop it.  

            In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

            by ivorybill on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:58:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's not our problem. (7+ / 0-)

              And should never have been our problem.

              Of course, there will continue to be fighting after we leave, and it WILL be ugly, but just like in Vietnam, eventually a political equilibrium will develop, fighting will slow down, people displaced will settle in new areas, and we'll see a new peace develop.

              But it isn't going to happen with our troops and our agents there constantly stirring up hornets nests.

              Even if it doesn't slow down, we don't have any obligation to be there for it.  We can use diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to deal with the mess.

              Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant.

              by meldroc on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:06:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  All we are doing is balancing the killing. The (0+ / 0-)

                number killed is not contigent on our presence or absence.

                "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:05:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Because we know how that goes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, ivorybill, Carbide Bit

          A peace settlement in the Middle East?  

          Sorry, but thanks for the laugh.

          "When people show you who they really are, believe them." - Maya Angelou

          by Pennsylvanian on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:20:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's cool to be cynical (9+ / 0-)

            but just about everyone in Israel and Palestine was happier when Clinton was in power and we were actually pushing for a peace settlement instead of sitting around reading Revelations.

            My point - my whole point - is that like it or not, the last soldier is not leaving Iraq until after W leaves the White House. Reid and Pelosi understand that the only thing worse than going in without a plan is leaving without one.  I would like them to start forcing a plan.  Deadlines may be part of that... but I want to see a plan and not just a slogan.

            In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

            by ivorybill on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:43:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Impose peace settlement on sectarian conflict (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, Geotpf, costello7

          that resulted from a political power vacuum that we created?  Ain't gonna happen, never has never will.  Only people that can stop it are the people of the former Iraq and all we could possibly hope for is to pick a side, stick with them, and hope we picked the ultimate winner.  Playing both sides is how you ensure prolonged warfare and create enemies from both sides.

          My vote is for America to side with Moqtada al-Sadr (his militia being the only force that can provide some semblence of stability long term) and the Iranians as we have a historical opportunity to ally with the true rising secularizing force in the region.  That it might amount to replacing one strongman with another isn't that big a problem because he's not a minority Sunni.  

          The other oil producing nations of the region that are Sunni keep their oil reserves secret for a reason--they are dwindling.  They power is on the decline in their own countries.  America better clue in to that fact that the power is shifting in the middle east despite what we do, we can ally with the eventual winners and stand with the international community to prevent genocides and ethnic cleansings but that's about the extent of our power.  We can knock down anything we want but we cant rebuild it and we cant influence it in the way we would like.  That's the reality.  

          The Kurds and Israel complicate things but better to keep both Israel's and the Kurds current biggest enemies within the fold.  Just my two cents.

          At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Aristotle

          by rrheard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:54:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oops I meant "historic opportunity" . . . n/t (0+ / 0-)

            At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Aristotle

            by rrheard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:55:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Kurds will not tolerate Sadr (0+ / 0-)

            and the US will not tolerate another genocide against the Kurds... Still requires a diplomatic settlement.

            In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

            by ivorybill on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:59:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Economist had an interesting theory (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivorybill

              that so long as Kurds don't make a push for a Kurdish state in the next ten years but rather remain semi-autonomous with reasonable control over economic development and a share of the oil in their semi-autonomous region they are neither (with exception of PPK rumblings though they would likely be sold out by the true power-KDP, PUK, and Peshmerga-- surreptiously to consolidate their power) a threat to Iran or Turkey both likely officially softening over time for variety of reasons political, geographic, and economic.  Arab military capacity of either the Shia or Sunni stripe is unlikely to be able to mount anything militarily against the Peshmerga so long as America backs the Kurds and picks a side between Shia and Sunni.  Again I'll say pick the Shia.  The analysis seems solid it is in the Economist.  The article points out that predicting the future is difficult in the region but there are reasons to be optomistic.  Saudi's arming Iraqi Sunni's is only possible if America continues its military welfare to the Iraqi and Saudi Sunni's.

              At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Aristotle

              by rrheard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:01:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That's not going to work (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          costello7

          Oh, the war won't end until Bush is out of office (as a practical matter, Congress does not have the power to end the war, although they like to pretend they do).  But there will never be a "peace settlement".  We will leave, and the already violent civil war will turn into a fucking shitstorm.  We need to realize and deal with this fact.

          Now, if staying longer could prevent said shitstorm, then one could even make an argument for staying.  But it doesn't-it merely makes it a dull roar as long as we stay, but the moment we leave, whether or not it's today or a decade from now, the shit will hit the fan and hundreds of thousands more people will die.  But staying doesn't stop this slaughter-it merely delays it.

      •  Mine is that darn Constitution. And so far (35+ / 0-)

        nothin'. Actually, worse than nothin'. Subpoenas not enforced, FISA bills approved, tacit acknowledgement that executive branch has the power to run wild. I'm not sure if Bush is to blame for the Constitutional imbalance, or if it's the Dem's constant projection of impotence. You don't issue a subpoena unless you're willing to back it up--otherwise you create a precedent whereby the executive branch can wipe their ass with it. And guess what: lots of clean, lemony-fresh asses over at 1600.

        We don't have the party discipline of the Republicans. When our leaders fail to do their jobs, we point it out. That's a strength, not a liability.

        Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.
        --Basil King, Canadian novelist, 1859-1928

        by dallasdave on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:26:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Correct. The Dems do have the votes. (15+ / 0-)

        Everybody keeps claiming we have to have 2/3 votes in both houses to override a GOP filibuster and a Bush veto.

        Bullshit.

        All we need is 50%+1 votes in the House and 41 votes in the Senate, and Bush can be denied all funding for the war.

        With Dem control of the chairs, we can see that any bill that comes up that wastes more billions on the war, or allocates any money to the military for any purpose other than redeploying them back to the U.S.; or any bill that violates our civil liberties.

        That's it.  We don't even need a majority in the Senate.  We just need enough to filibuster, and we don't even have that.

        It should be Bush that's banging his fucking skull against a brick wall, NOT US.

        It's Democrats that are responsible for continuing the war, for enabling the new war in Iran, and for destroying our civil liberties.

        Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and all the other Democrats that allow this to happen are TRAITORS.  Quislings.  Vichy Democrats.  Traitors to the Democratic Party, and traitors to the American People.  They've made it clear that they don't represent us, they represent the corporations and rich cocksuckers that make money off the war, and by grinding normal people into the dirt.  They're traitors, and we should treat them like traitors.

        Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant.

        by meldroc on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:27:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, they aren't going to get it right so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Annalize5

        you probably need to think about what's next.  Bush and the Republicans are not going to give even a fraction of an inch.

      •  Right on, Walt starr (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Annalize5

        The diarist says the Dems sent Bush a "Fairly stern funding bill and he vetoed it. And there's no way to overturn a veto without Republican help." Russ Feingold has answered this numerous times. You DO NOT have to over turn the veto. You keep sending the bill back to The Decider to veto. Thus, Bush would eventually defund the war all by himself. The Democratic leadership will not do this because they want to keep some troops in those permannent Iraqi bases to guard the oil for our western oil companies.

    •  I'm not going to stop criticizing until they (26+ / 0-)

      grow a spine on Iraq.

      I didn't like their instinctive neo-liberal Clintonism the past two decades, but that's not the straw. Neither did I like the nanny-state moralism of Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, nor the corporatist trade and socio-economic policies (Nafta, Welfare "reform," et c.) embraced by the so-called "new" Democrats.

      I could (mostly) stomach that, given the alternative.

      Lack of spine on Iraq is the straw.

      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all -9.50, -5.74

      by redstar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:10:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The past couple of weeks... (6+ / 0-)
      the level of ire and discontent and the DEMANDS that we do something NOW for no other reason than I WANT IT NOW have increased immeasurably.

      I think people are cranky because summer's over.

      I suggest we make fun of Fred Thompson instead. Grandpa Fred running for President. Isn't he cute? Don't forget your cue cards, Fred.

      (Actually, I've said this before, but I don't think he looks at all well. I know his cancer is supposed to be in remission, but you can't prove it by his looks.).

       

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

      by kmiddle on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:26:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  well? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat

      what'll ya have? it must be 5 o'clock somewhere ...

      it's about biconceptualism ... Obama08

      by wystler on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:27:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Meet your GOP nominee, Rudy Giuliani ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sidnora

      Because your excellent diary exactly makes his case to Republicans. The one and only thing they have going for them is 9/11, and Rudy is Mister 9/11. It was his one good day and he's made the most of it.

      If you think this is a religious war with Islam - which is exactly what the GOP base believes, especially the fundamentalist base, do you really care if your crusading king screws around a bit?

      The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

      by al Fubar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:41:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  goldberry: my 1-word summary of your entire diary (27+ / 0-)

      cliche

      .

      .

      and one that I, and other Dean Progressives -- the on the ground people who really spawned this bottom-up movement 5 years sgo -- are sick of.

      Well here's news for you to go along with that drink: The genie is not going back into the bottle. When we set out to "take back our country", we were pulled in by Dean's very wise assessment back then that in order to do so, we would first need to take back our party.

      That "circular firing squad" cliche worked 10 years ago because all we could ever hope for back then was that our reps follow our constituent desires. At that time our only allowed role was tabling, GOTV door knocking, and sending them checks.

      All that has changed. And whether you like it or not, nor whether you approve of it or not, we've claimed the role of citizen that was always there in our Constitution... It was just impossible til recently to reach critical mass, whereby the aggregate of individuals added up to a force becoming ewusl to the lobbyists who have destroyed American democracy.

      I am tired of being chastised by you old school Dems. I am tired of the cliches. I am tired of the muzzle on being VERY dissatisfied with Pelosi's reckless handling of her powerful role.

      Get used to it. It's not stopping. So, all who agree with you can go cry me a river -- and essentially try to blunt and dissipate the power of the netroots. Try, but it's not going to happen.

      And that's a good thing. It's the closest thing to real democracy in this country since little town halls.

      ______________
      -----> My latest vlog entry: on getting a webcam

      by rhfactor on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:57:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And it helps you how, exactly? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChiGirl88, vcmvo2, Hairy Legs

        Just asking how you think this is going to work in your favor.  
        I am not an old school Dem.  I try to think things through.  If you think that bashing Democrats is working for you (Blue Dogs deserve it but not all of the others) then go ahead and do it.  But if you are looking for results, then playing into the GOP's "Democrats are divided and weak" CW while ignoring the pressure that could be applied to Republicans is not going to cut it.  THAT is the cliche.  The GOP has been using it for years now and we fall for it every time.  
        BTW, Hillary's response is up on the frontpage.  Nowhere in it did she blame her own side.  She very clearly blamed Bush and his cronies for ignoring the will of the people.  
        Sounds right to me.  
        Bash on!

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:27:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That you view all commenting as "bashing" is both (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TocqueDeville, Annalize5

          sad, and also obnoxious. It is certainly an absurd over-generalization.

          YOU are characterizing entire threads, unilaterally, as bashing. I didn't condone bashing (*exception: Freedom Toast). Lots of people don't. Commenting on breaches of accountability and on ineffective and often dangerous governance is not bashing. If you rubber stamp every elected official who wears the D crown as exempt from accountability, I think you ARE an old school Dem, even if you don't self-identify that way.

          What is equally sad is you don't even appear to have the slightest recognition that, by your both enabling and allowing ineffective governance and a lack of leadership in dangerous times, you are an actual impediment to more effective and accountable government. You need to examine the big picture, because you make a lot of noise here with your overarching theme, which I view as unfounded and hyperbolic-to-the-Nth-degree. Frankly, I think you don't get it at all regarding Citizenship 2.0.

          ______________
          -----> My latest vlog entry: on getting a webcam

          by rhfactor on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:11:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The very worst thing they did to us... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rhfactor

        was to take us up in that beautiful balloon of hope only to drop us into the dark abyss of despair after they were in office.  

        The cruelty of that is something I shall never, ever forget. We had so little to hang on to, we voted them into office only to be slapped in the face with betrayal.

        I am tired of being chastised by you old school Dems. I am tired of the cliches. I am tired of the muzzle on being VERY dissatisfied with Pelosi's reckless handling of her powerful role.

        Amen.
         

    •  Waah, Waah, Waah, Waah!!! (10+ / 0-)

      Please give me a break. We are all about accountability here. I agree we need to examine their fears, but our job is accountability. Get over it. If we don't shoot, then we will never get over this mealy mouthed wimp ass hump with our "leaders".  They must get past the frame Republicans put us in years ago and realize that the public supports us on almost every major issues.

      Screw that!

      Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, get your butt over here and explain to the most important and active constituency you have right now why you are acting like and complete idiot! Don't be a wimp. If you have a valid opinion and the data to back it up, explain it. Otherwise get the hell out of the way. We are here to take our country back from any weak-kneed loser that won't do the job WE put them into and we will take them out as sure as Democrats starts with D!

      Buh ByE!

    •  Nice try. Seriously, well thought out, well said. (7+ / 0-)

      But this fire is probably going to have to burn itself out.  People are convinced that changing the path of the Democratic Party is as easy as screaming at them, and that's such a seductive view of political action that it's hard to rebut.

      Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

      by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:02:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that changing the party (5+ / 0-)

        is as easy as screaming at it.

        I've spent most of my free time and a good chunk of my spare change for the last 5 years working on changing it, and I expect to spend some more of both in the future. But after a day like yesterday, there's not much I feel like doing except screaming.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

        by sidnora on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:08:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Insulting and wrong (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PaintyKat, Annalize5, dus7, redstar

        People are convinced that changing the path of the Democratic Party is as easy as screaming at them

        Many of us have been trying to change the party since before the time of blogs and Internet tubes - working in party offices, registering voters all year long, working in campaigns...  What I do on blogs is a small fraction of my political work.  

        Between the environment, the war, the deficit, health care and the impact they all have on lives and the economy, we have a right to be damned pissed off.  the whole friggin planet is going to suffer a lot more if we don't get our priorities straight and the poor in this country and others will pay the most while politicians try to preserve their "bipartisan" reputations.  

        It is fucking sickening.

        •  I speak only of what I see written here (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, PaintyKat, vcmvo2, swissffun

          It's true that many of us do a lot of political work outside of the site.  But I'll stand by the sentiment that the ethos of many here is that we should simply be able to say "heel!" and expect the Dems to respond.  Given the amount of time you've worked in politics, you must realize how silly that is.

          Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

          by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:59:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  given my time in politics (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PaintyKat, dus7, Major Danby

            which goes back to time on the hill in my 20s and as an environmental lobbyists in my 30s, I know that these voices are counted, what the folks on the hill don't yet know (nor do we) is how much weight to give them yet.  

            They have experience to know what a letter to the editor means, they don't yet know how to measure an Internet voice - yet they do know that people on political blogs tend to be the activists who have been the ones who have stayed involved all year long and can be counted on each election cycle.  I would bet that our community has more folks who have worked elections and on campaigns - the kind of people the party depends on to do canvassing and phone banking, etc.

            The people not here, not on political blogs are the ones who take more coaxing to get out of their homes to work and vote (not completely true, but I would venture a larger percentage of them).  I know that when I was making calls to our Dem list to recruit workers in 2004, I had much less trouble turning bloggers into "yes, I'll be there" than I did non-bloggers.  And yeah, I asked because I was chatting with them to get them involved and I was curious.

            So I would bet our voices here are known to also be some of the same voices writing LTEs and do have an impact, even if not to the level some believe/wish. Yet. There is a reason all campaigns now have Internet outreach people on staff.  

            The blogs are still "new" and the impact yet to be determined, but believe me they are talking about it.  Contributions of time and money to campaigns will be watched and carry more weight.

            •  I would never argue that we have no influence (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee, PaintyKat

              We have a good deal of influence.  We have influence disproportionate to our size.

              The question is whether we have enough influence to get the conservative wing of the party to do something that it considers anathema.  I don't think we do.

              Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

              by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:12:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PaintyKat

                with this

                The question is whether we have enough influence to get the conservative wing of the party to do something that it considers anathema.  I don't think we do.

                But part of what this blog and others like it allow us to do is learn from each other between our rants and come together to push harder.  

                We will evolve as will the technology and those of us with off-line experience will keep passing what we know on so the people here who have not been involved locally will do so. We've already seen some progressives take over their local parties.  

                It is wrong to think of us as just on-line folks because I think that most of us aren't - at least not during election years.  

                •  We're probably generally on the same page, then (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PaintyKat

                  but the issue before us is the voting over the next month.  Which is ripping us up.

                  Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                  by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:24:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And it should be (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PaintyKat, Major Danby

                    and IMHO, regardless of the politics, we owe every soldier in the Middle East, every child that will inherit the debt and environment, and every person worrying about health care a good fight on the issues surrounding this war - the funding and getting out.

                    I may rant on here, (but rarely), but my rants are backed up by lots of phone calls, letters, and consultant work I am doing for a couple of candidates and issues groups.  And the small comfort I try to provide to a brother, 25 years a Marine and dying from effects from PTSD.

    •  I find your post somewhat hypocritical (10+ / 0-)

      You're telling us to stop beating up on nancy, beat up on steny instead? So, let's see if I have this, the circular firing squad is okay as long as it points at you say?  How does that work?

      You call out kossacks for calling out Dems, then you say this:

      Someone in our party has to assume a leadership position and say we will not be afraid of our enemies at home or our political operative enemies in the White House.

      This is what the kossacks your are calling out are saying!!!!!  Whis is it okay for you to say it?

      Democrats need to stop putting themselves in a position of weakness. That's what the kos call-out said. That's what most of the callouts say. Democrats may not "have the frikkin numbers" as you state, but that doesn't mean that they should compromise the strength they do have.

      To me your post calls everyone out for calling out, and then at the end of it, you repreat the same things most are saying.

      "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

      by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:26:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes when I come here (10+ / 0-)

      I think I am going a bit looney.

      All last year, I saw people here pushing and shoving for support of the Blue Dog Dems.  And many of us gave money to support them.

      Now, some of the people here will trash me for this but I am so over it.  What the hell did people think when the best we could do is BARELY beat out a racist jerk like George Allen?  Did people think Webb was a liberal?  Cause he isn't.  And neither are a lot of the dems that did manage to get elected.

      Whether we like it or not, we have to face facts.  More than a few dems elected to give us a "majority" were at best "centrist."  I don't like that fact but we can blame Pelosi til hell freezes over and it won't change the reality that our congress is representative of a large majority of people....and a large majority feel safe with centrist politics.

      If most us went out right now and asked the average Joe about getting out of Iraq, I would bet money, the answer would be "Yes, but we have to do it slowly and carefully."  Or they would say "Yes, but I don't know how we can do it."

      I have asked friends (mostly dems, one independent) and their answers are very centrist in nature.
      None of them were for the war, none voted for Bush either time except for the Independent one.  
      Most of them do not blog or read blogs.  They think Nancy Pelosi is a liberal democrat (which doesn't bother them like it does righties, but it is what they believe).

      I keep telling people. The center has been moving right since Reagan.  Not because people want it to...I think they are unaware. I think it is because they (the corporate right) have controlled the message for two decades.

      Health care reform has morphed into socialized medicine to scare people.
      Unionization has morphed into "forcing unions on people".
      Immigrations has been melted together with terrorism so that many Americans believe a wall will keep us safe.

      Democrats, and not just our leaders, betrayed ourselves.  I know some so called "Reagan democrats".
      They were people who loved FDR and were duped into believing Reagan was like FDR.  Somehow the media was able to spin this B actor into an icon of "the good old" days.  Many of those people were union people and were clueless about how the Reagan administration was about to destroy everything they had worked for.
      Now some of those people refuse to admit they were wrong.  Maybe it is human nature.

      Blaming Pelosi and Reid is a cop out.  We, the people have to work harder. Clearly the Blue Dogs who voted with the republicans are a problem.  But they were never going to be liberals in my view.  They represent states and areas where it was nearly impossible for a democrat to ever get elected.  

      Blaming and getting angry and shooting down what little representation we do have is self-defeating.
      Republicans will always hate Congress and blame them for everything unless they are lapdogs for a republican president.

      Sure we can vote out the dems and replace them in '08 but we better be damn sure of who we are putting in. If it was easy to elect an anti-war liberal, we would have had a real majority.  But we didn't do.  We elected a bare majority with a group of centrists.  

      I don't have all the answers but I go along with the diarist.  Circular firing squads are not the answer I want.

    •  Had enough of facades (9+ / 0-)

      On the blogs, progressives finally get the chance to discover what other progressives truly and honestly think about our government and its representatives. Sharing these insights and perspectives really helps form a consensus. We can't pull punches if we want an accurate sense of where we all stand.

      Self-censureship might make us appear more cohesive and unified to the rest of the world, but sacrificing the honest dialogue that occurs here wouldn't be worth the facade, and it would, indeed, be a facade if we put forward a unified "face" that is "nice" and uncritical. With that, we're regressing to business as usual.

      Its time for honesty.

      Its time for real dialogue.

      Its time we build a coalition built on truth.

      If we can't do that, then we might as well give up.

    •  What's with all this dissent? Gosh its so ... (5+ / 0-)

      ... American.

    •  I Can't Believe That Anyone Would... (4+ / 0-)

      ...tip you or recommend this polemic that is a fine example of what it decries.

      Another diarist to avoid in the future.

      Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

      by InquisitiveRaven on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:19:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, PaintyKat

      About that drink, look for me at YKos 2008. You've earned it, and it's on me.

      We shall crush our enemies under the cruel heel of our basic goddamned f--king competence. -Hunter

      by MBNYC on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:36:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Word. But. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cynical Copper

      I agree that we should not indiscriminately tear down Democratic leadership, give up, and go home.  That would be counterproductive and negate some seriously major progress we have made since November of 2006.  (The employee roster of the Department of Justice would look a lot different now had Republicans maintained their majorities.)  The difficulties now should not be a reason to give up on Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama, et al.

      That said, these critiques serve a valuable purpose; if they define the goals and vision of Democratic voters (and much of the ire generated this week reflects broad interests of American voters as polled over the past year), loudly yelling -- and continuing to loudly yell over the coming months -- should help define the platforms of our party and its eventual presidential nominee as we head into the election.  (See, on the other side, what grassroots anger about immigration has done within the Republican Party.  Granted the xenophobia and hate is ugly, but the shill voices on the right have gotten through to the GOP presidential candidates.) The trick is to keep the anger productive and pressure the party into action rather than use the anger to tune the party out.

      Keep yelling.  Stay involved.  Build.

    •  You are so wrong on this one (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TocqueDeville, dus7, Carbide Bit

      For the right reasons, if it helps. What you are describing, in my mind, is "learned helplessness". "Don't have the votes",  "constituents are still fearful", "fight the GOP, not the Dems" and the like are really nothing but rationalizations for not holding our elected representatives to account. And that ain't for me, bub.

      I'm entirely with you that we need to hold the GOP responsible for their shenanigans, but on the same principle exactly, we need to hold our Democratic representatives responsible for not doing what they were elected to do. And what they were elected to do was bring about an end to the war, and an end to Bush's destruction of the United States of America, or at least try damned hard. Success on all counts would be wonderful, but not even trying because you fear you won't succeed is worse than failure. Got that? IT'S WORSE THAN TRYING AND FAILING.

      So, no thanks, I won't be tipping you on this--no offence.

      -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

      by thingamabob on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:21:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll join you for that drink. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat

      Thank you for your very sane and reasoned diary.

      There is a problem with #2 -- one leader.  We're in the middle of a presidential campaign, so that one will be tough to muster.  Kerry said the other day that the Dems "don't march in lockstep", so I think we're going to have to at least in part accept that Dems want to have their own voice individually moreso than the R's who don't mind parroting mindless right wing talking points over and over again (two I have heard from multiple sources:  Iraqi government is no worse than our congress and the surge is working by something to do with the grassroots -- that's their political solution).  Stupid right wing talking points, but they are ubiquitous.

      I agree with you that the numbers just aren't there.  I wish more people would at least try to understand that.

    •  I disagree with you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dus7

      There is plenty to be pissed off about with "our" politicians. At the top of the list is THEY AREN'T EVEN TRYING.

      It wouldn't be to hard to put a ton of pressure on the turds but they aren't even doing that. This is what really pisses me off.

    •  Trust me, after this week, (0+ / 0-)

      I'm drinking too.

      There are some very difficult and entrenched problems right now.  I've had an education this week.  

      Shall I just say we live in interesting times?

      "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, volume three, issue 18 (-8.50, -7.23)

      by Noor B on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:46:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry. D.C. Democrats richly deserve to be bashed (52+ / 0-)

    Six and a half years into the Bush administration, and they have yet to stand up to the Bully-in-Chief. For me, their cowardly cave-in on Iraq funding, followed by their even more cowardly cave-in on FISA, was the last straw.

    I've lost all faith in Capitol Hill Democrats. All respect, too.

    "A writer is somebody for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people."--Thomas Mann

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:05:03 PM PDT

    •  You are right-partially (17+ / 0-)

      They've been conditioned.  They know the press is going to go into high gear if they move to cut off funding.  but they should also know that no matter what they do, the press isn't going to like it.  
      It's time they ignored the media.  The president sure does.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:06:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ever had a friend so timid (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, catfish, cometman, vcmvo2, dus7, Urbanite

        that you almost felt compelled to pick on him?  i have.  it's a sick twisted feeling, but i think is exactly apt for what you're talking about.  the republicans stand up and fight even when they don't really have the guns and the democrats keep bringing pens to knife fights, so they keep getting bitch slapped.  cower and it's like you're asking for it.  and they are.  

        •  this is exactly the analogy (0+ / 0-)

          I have felt this way about the Democrats as I have drifted away from interest in their efforts since 2006

          it is hard not to feel contempt for them - even we're supposed to be on the same side... not an auspicious start to the drive for 2008 wins

          but a lot of what i read in this diary and comments shows that the whole movement on the left has just got so frazzled by being outplayed consistently by Bush et al that they've lost it - the war has become so single issue that they are doomed

          because there IS complexity there and there ARE tough decisions to be made - but the left is no incapable of rational debate on the issue - it is ALL OUT NOW - they've allowed the Republicans to push the all over the place on the debate and not have an internal debate on what really should be done, how, when

          and what is the TRUE underlying reason for all this crap in the first place... when you're prepared to hide behind Bush is an evil psychopath as an excuse and applause line, you aren't going to ever understand what is the logical line of thought leading to the decisions he's made, and what needs to be addressed to counter those if you think they're wrong...

          with the elephant in the room being PEAK OIL and the threat of total societal collapse

          If no-one around you understands start your own revolution and cut out the middle man...

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:16:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You are right-ABSOLUTELY (22+ / 0-)

      I might understand all of the the cave-ins if this were a POPULAR president and the war he was running was supported by the masses of people, but the OPPOSITE is true.

      The Democrats deserve all of the criticism heading their way right now. This president does not have a mandate to do the things he's doing, but the Democrats seem to act like he does. That's a very dangerous and foolhardly strategy and the Democrats might pay for it down the line.

      "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

      by lams712 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:20:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The thing about the Pelosi diary... (52+ / 0-)

    ...look, I don't give a damn if she comes and posts here or doesn't.  But the point the diary makes, and it is a pretty good one, is that it isn't that we demanded she come post here.  She took it upon herself to promise she would post here weekly.  And then, without explanation, never posted here again.

    So, I don't give a shit if she doesn't come listen to our demands, petulant or otherwise.  I care that she doesn't lie to us.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:09:37 PM PDT

    •  BWAHAHAHA (5+ / 0-)

      Expecting a politician not to lie to even those who help her get where she is!

      Your post gets my vote for best unintended snark of the day!

      ;-)

      PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

      by Walt starr on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:13:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not expecting her not to lie... (10+ / 0-)

        ...I'm expecting us to call her on it.

        Look, many of us are really gracious when these diaries appear.  We use our community to give them free positive publicity for doing so.  And when they look at that as something they don't have to have integrity about, it cheapens us, and that is why I care.

        She can lie to CNN all she wants and I won't care.  If she lies to me, it is different.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:16:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She didn't lie, she reneged (8+ / 0-)

          Lying is when you say something that's false.  Reneging is when you make a promise that you don't keep.  It's worth keeping the difference in mind.

          Why did she renege?  I don't know.  It's disappointing.  But it's not some sort of horrible affront.  She was supposed to come to YKos, and I expect that she would have were it not for the FISA disaster.  Now, she's pretty clearly not welcome here.  What a victory for our "Democratic" website.

          Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

          by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:33:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a good point... (10+ / 0-)

            ...and a meaningful difference between "lie" and "renege".

            That being said, I'm not saying it is a horrible affront.  I'm not mad at her, certainly not about that.  And as far as I'm concerned, she is damn sure still welcome here.

            What bothers me is that there is, seemingly, the narrowest of tightropes that this community is divided about walking.  We cannot say certain truths, lest we be a circular firing squad.  Yet, we also cannot refuse to say certain truths, lest we be little more than docile sheep waiting to be pushed around.

            What is so horrible about pointing out that one of the leaders of our party made a commitment to us, and then went back on it?  We aren't saying she should be sacked because of it (at least, most of us aren't).  We aren't saying that this means the Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

            The claim that is repeated here over and over is that the solution to many of our problems is "more and better Democrats".  Well, it isn't just about finding these perfect Democrats who will always just know to do the right thing.  It is also about us, without going crazy about it, letting them know that we are listening and remembering what they said before.

            We're not accusing her of war crimes.  We're saying she ought to have either kept her commitment or said why she wasn't.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:50:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Context (5+ / 0-)

              Right now, when things are melting down among the progressive blogosphere over the Democratic leadership's apparent inability to achieve a good result on Iraq, is not the moment when I would pile on Pelosi for reneging.  Because you know what the true answer for why she's not here probably is?  Because she'd be pilloried -- largely unfairly -- by people on the site, and smart pols don't wade into that sort of scene.

              Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

              by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:54:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Major Danby, NearlyNormal

                ...but saying something true at the wrong moment doesn't make it less true.

                The truth is that it was a pretty dumb commitment to make, no matter what the future held.  She is the Speaker of the House of Representatives; I want her to be too busy to write a blog a week.

                But again, I think there is a difference between "piling on" and giving honest criticism.

                Honestly, the thing that I like least about this 'debate' we're having is that all of us understand the reason why she isn't posting here weekly.  The trouble is that there is this belief that she can't say that is the reason why.  None of us are idiots or children; what is wrong in being politically honest with a political community?  Why are we so completely tolerant of a dialog where it is accepted ahead of time that we cannot be honest with one another?

                I have a much bigger problem with the politician who will not tell me what they think because they know I won't want to hear it than I do with the politician who says uncomfortable truths.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:01:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  If she thinks the critique is unfair why not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NearlyNormal

                accurately and honestly rebut with her political rationale or calculus for the inaction.  Maybe us dimbulbs here might understand some of it and be willing to accept the rest as best efforts.

                At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. Aristotle

                by rrheard on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:08:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree with you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PaintyKat

                  and when Louise Slaughter was here last, I asked her to pass along that message to the Speaker.  She should explain the constraints on her.  Some will howl; most will understand and forgive.

                  Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                  by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:49:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Opposition (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dus7, NearlyNormal

                the Democratic leadership's apparent inability to achieve a good result on Iraq

                It's not that they're unable to get a "good result" on Iraq, everyone knows that there aren't enough votes in the Senate (as with the case for impeachment) for that. But they're not even making the case that the troops should be brought home. That's the truly mind-boggling thing.

                At some point, the Democrats have to show some leadership on what needs to be done about Iraq. Of course they don't want to do that, because they're going to be criticized for whatever stance they take, but they have to start making a case for withdrawal -- if they actually want to withdraw -- and trying to convince the American public that it's the right thing to do.

                My guess is that's probably not going to happen until after the Democratic nomination is settled. The plan that will get put forward will be the plan of whoever the nominee is. But that's a lot of months and a lot of dead people ahead of us yet.

                I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

                by darrelplant on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:14:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, they should ansolutely be making the case (0+ / 0-)

                  for withdrawal.

                  No, that is not the basis for much of the criticism of Dems here, which focuses on their inability to deliver what we want.  I have no problem with your stance.

                  Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

                  by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:47:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Well. . . (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VetGrl, PaintyKat, vcmvo2, Jay Elias, cpresley

              What is so horrible about pointing out that one of the leaders of our party made a commitment to us, and then went back on it?

              There's nothing wrong with saying that, or anything else, really.  I'm all for saying what you want.

              Caring about it, I think, displays a certain egomania -- Nancy Pelosi is among the top five most important people in the United States and whether she manages to get around to posting on this blog quite as often as she suggested she would doesn't seem like a major issue to me.  Also, I don't think, as a whole, this blog holds up its end of a civilized discourse -- charges of treason fly pretty easily here, and just today I saw Pelosi described as an arrogant bitch.  Here at dKos, not at LGF.  I doubt any of the political figures who've posted here had any idea in advance of the muck they were going to have to wade through.

              But that's a minor issue as well.  The real kicker is that the diary complaining about it instantly shot to the top of the Recommended list thus ranking it as among the most important issues discussed here.  It isn't, and that fact that so many people consider it so does not reflect positively on our priorities.

              ---------------------------------------------
              For personal and general travel news: Notes On Travel

              by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:59:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well... (3+ / 0-)

                ...I can agree with most of that.  And I don't believe I reced the diary, and I think it goes without saying that the rec list is not an accurate measure of what the most important issues are (although I should say that when it has been longer since I got there, probably).

                But, like I just said to Danby, the problem isn't that she isn't blogging here.  I think she probably shouldn't blog here anything close to as often as she said she would - she has much more important things to be doing.

                At the same time, making promises that make the people you are talking to feel good which you have no intention of keeping and probably shouldn't is about as good a description of the fundamental problem with American politics as I can give.  There is a really easy solution that will satisfy both of us - don't make promises that sound nice but you can't and probably shouldn't deliver.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:05:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  There's a big difference between (0+ / 0-)

                "whether she manages to get around to posting on this blog quite as often as she suggested she would", and promising to do it weekly (which I agree is ridiculous on its face - can you imagine if we elected a Democratic president and we expected that?), making that untenable promise and then never coming back again. Ever. Not even sending a staffer over to apologize for being too busy.

                It's not like we insulted her, though I agree that there have been receptions given to some of our elected officials that were so nasty and rude I cringed.

                Back when we were all filled with hope for the future and likely to greet her with candy and flowers, she didn't need to talk to us and didn't find the time. Now, if she showed up, likely people would be flinging eggs and brickbats.  But I have to think that if she'd taken a just little time, back when people weren't so frustrated and angry, or even delegated a staffer to pop in here occasionally and set up some sort of give-and-take, that diary would never have been written.

                And I wouldn't call caring about it egomania, unless you really feel that the thousands of people here who worked their asses off to elect the Democratic congress deserve no attention, no voice, and no feedback.

                The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

                by sidnora on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:34:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Renege ? Lie ? WTF Ever ! (0+ / 0-)

            She said she'd do something and she hasn't, with no explanation. Unless she has a DAMNED GOOD REASON for not keeping her word (it *does* happen, sometimes) then she lied.

            It's a matter of honor, which Nancy and the Capitulatin' Dems seem to utterly lack.

            "When reality bites, bite back!" ~ The Werewolf Prophet, resident Looped-Garou of Prophecy Street

            by The Werewolf Prophet on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:13:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  She didn't lie? (0+ / 0-)

            How do you know that?  If she made a promise she had no intention of keeping while she was making, that is definitely a lie.  The smart money is that she lied.

            Now, I could give a rat's ass if one of her staffers using her name (as opposed to some other name) comes here to blow smoke up our collective asses, but don't insult our intelligence.

            When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

            by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:08:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is, indeed, a matter of opinion (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PaintyKat

              for those of us outside of her skull, but I don't think she would have promised to be here if she knew she wasn't.  I think that it's more likely that she later realized that it was simply not good terrain for her.

              Don't be so far above politics that you can't help clear the snakes down on the ground. (P.S.: my opinions are mine, not my employer's.)

              by Major Danby on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:45:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  you hate the politicos then fucking run yourself (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scoff0165, cpresley, Pegasus

        so we can write here about how fucking yellow you are the first time you aren't successful herding the cats.

    •  How do you even know. . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat, scoff0165

      that the staffer who wrote that is still working for her?

      ---------------------------------------------
      For personal and general travel news: Notes On Travel

      by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oooo, she *lied* to us (7+ / 0-)

      From what I can tell, she holds regular teleconferences with bloggers and her emissaries, such as Louise Slaughter, post here frequently.  From my perspective, she has upheld her part of the bargain.  I'm not going to jump up and down and hold my  breath because she isn't conversing with me personally.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:15:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because my saying that a diary... (12+ / 0-)

        ...had a pretty good point is somehow the same as my holding my breath and jumping up and down?

        I mean, she gets accused by the right of being in league with the terrorists.  I'm hardly thinking that we're taking a scalp by asking the question.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:18:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My problem with the whole cowardly dem thing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          swissffun, Jay Elias, dus7

          isn't that I think they aren't cowardly, I think they generally are-just like most people.  Brave sometimes but not as a general rule, and especially not if they have too much time to think about the consequences, my problem is that they are going to catch hell from the right anyway if something happens.  Hell, look waht they did to Clinton over 9-11.  He wasn't the fricking president, and it was a gooper congress.  What ever happens the left is going to catch hell from the corporate-controlled media-so why the hell not start swinging since the fight has already broken out?

          "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

          by NearlyNormal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:02:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My problem.. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, NearlyNormal, scoff0165

            ...is that I want us to simply move beyond the black-white, good-evil frame of it all.

            They are less than was hoped for and wanted.  That isn't the worst thing to be in the world, and it shouldn't be a problem to say so.  Why is constructive criticism bad?

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:09:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It isn't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2

              but some of this goes far beyond "constructive" and I think that's the real point of goldberry's diary.

              "We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims." R. Buckminster Fuller

              by scoff0165 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:35:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Good points (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PaintyKat

              Constructive criticism is good.  I think that my problem is that the need is so great and the situation seems to me to be so stark that I don't see the normal room for ambiguity.  We are at a watershed time as I see it, this is the first time since the end of Viet-nam and the climax of watergate that real change is possible, add the looming financial crisis to the mix and I think great change is coming, but the direction of the change depends to some extent on those who have power.  Those that say they are on my side don't seem to have any good idea of how to weild it, and it remains potential power-dry powder so to speak-while those whom I believe to be against me seem to act.

              "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

              by NearlyNormal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:37:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Well I certainly agree that Ferguson needs a (5+ / 0-)

    whuppin' as I also reside in NJ-07 and I think our focus on what the Dems don't do is non-productive.. but.. dammit when they bring bullshit bills to the floor and pass them, they definitely deserve every bit of antagonism they receive. Bush can't veto a bill not brought and the republicans cannot pass a bill without Democratic help. There's simply no excuse for that nonsense.

    "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

    by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:12:18 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for Your Concern (25+ / 0-)

    I don't think I'll shut up and go away, though.

    I would like to point out that I'm neither shooting anybody nor "eating my own". I am simply critical of elected officials who deserve it in my opinion.

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:12:45 PM PDT

  •  "Because it isn't ALL their fault." (8+ / 0-)

    With this I agree. But your statement itself demonstrates that at least they bear some fault. I love my Democrats, but I love my children, too. When they made mistakes when they were young I pointed them out in an attempt to assist them along.  

    roman catholic by birth---- thoroughly confused by life

    by alasmoses on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:13:01 PM PDT

  •  Fault vs Responsibility (11+ / 0-)

    No, it is not NP's fault we are in Iraq.
    No, it is not NP's fault that some Democrats are defecting.

    Yes, it is her responsibility to do everything she can to end this misguided adventure in Iraq as quickly as she can.
    Yes, she has the power to influence events.

    Will cutting off funding for operations in Iraq have a negative effect on Democrats?
    Probably, but it is still the right thing to do.
    Will she do it?

    Probably not.

    We shall overcome, someday.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:13:15 PM PDT

  •  Fair diary. However, most of us will be looking (17+ / 0-)

    for real leadership when the so-called September Report surfaces and whitewashes chimpee again. Things will begin to unravel rapidly if the Dems show no teeth this time around.

    Progressive Dems should be reborn as Aggressive Dems and 1) get out of Iraq asap 2) impeach Cheney then Bush 3) elect Gore.

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:13:40 PM PDT

  •  I'm opening fire on the quisling Dems (31+ / 0-)

    They gave $100 billion of money we don't have so Bush could continue a war we don't want

    They voted for the Military Commissions Act which legitimized violations of the Geneva Convention and gutted habeas corpus.

    They voted for the FISA "reform" which legitimized Bush's warrantless wiretaps, for which he should have been immediately impeached, removed from office, prosecuted and imprisoned.

    They voted to give Bush an implicit thumbs up for an attack on Iran.

    They've given absolutely no consideration for the 3,700 troops killed in Iraq, nor for the million+ civilians killed since the invasion began.  They've made it clear that they care more for their chances in the 2008 election than they care for human life.

    So I don't care if you think I'm part of a circular firing squad.  The Congressional Democrats have done a piss poor job at representing the interests we have, that we elected them into office to promote.

    We will continue to excoriate them, protest them, and make their lives a living hell.

    If you don't like it, suck it.

    Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant.

    by meldroc on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:14:58 PM PDT

    •  And that gets you where exactly? (7+ / 0-)

      Are they all equally guilty or just some of them?  
      Can you get them to do what you want by shooting at them?  
      What have you done about the Republicans?  Are you screaming at them too?  Or are they safely enveloped by their Rush loving right wing lunatic constituents?  
      My point is, we have been ignoring some very vulnerable Republicans in order to pointlessly attack Democrats.  
      The Republicans are the ones who are screwing up but no one is screaming at them.  
      Your decision to excoriate them doesn't affect me a whit.  But it sure is unproductive.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:23:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The GOP is a malignant cancer ... (6+ / 0-)

        ... and screaming at cancer does not help. Instead, you stop it from doing ANY more damage until you can cut it out. Yet what we have with Pelosi & Crew are a bunch of quacks who keep cutting off the *good* leg.

        "When reality bites, bite back!" ~ The Werewolf Prophet, resident Looped-Garou of Prophecy Street

        by The Werewolf Prophet on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:34:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think we thought that the last election (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7, Carbide Bit

        was a response to the Republicans. But it has done absolutely nothing substantive for us on issues that matter so much -- civil rights and the war. At some point, people begin to wonder why they should bother voting. Hope drains away. At least when I had a Republican representative instead of Heath Shuler I could hope that if in the future my district elected a Democrat it would make a difference on the issues that matter to me.

      •  It keeps me out of the mental hospital (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7, Carbide Bit

        He didn't attack them all equally, only the quislings.

        It all depends on what you want them to do, I guess.

        As for the Republicans, I will be doing what I can to put pressure on them, which is mostly to give money to their Democratic opponents. But I don't know what you want me to do about them being "enveloped by their Rush-loving right-wing lunatic constituents." Steal their constituents' radios? Put anti-psychotic medication in their kool-aid?

        No one's screaming at the Republicans? Every twist and turn of this execrable administration is documented and decried in the left-wing blogosphere, including here on DailyKos, and on progressive talk radio, such of it as exists.

        45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

        by dconrad on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:57:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Amen (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nate Roberts, dus7, meldroc

      You aren't ever going to get the Rethugs (remember how people said they'd fold in September--just wait).  You aren't ever going to get the Blue Dogs.  You might be able to primary them (and I applaud the attempt); the risk there is a Rethug victory in some districts.  The best bet is pressuring the people who SAID they were against the war to ACT like it.

      Yes, I'm becoming a one-issue Dem.

      Because human life is more important than politics; if it isn't more important to the Democrats, then they truly are no better than the Rethugs.  If they believe the war is wrong and/or unwinnable, and yet don't use every tool and power available to them (including impeachment) to stop it, they owe a very, very "Real" apology to every grieving relative, friend, and loved one the resulting policy creates.  That blood is on their hands.  And, if they would truly trade human blood for political gain, I personally hope they burn in Hell for eternity.

    •  And don't forget.... (6+ / 0-)

      the 95-3 vote in the Senate recently for a missile defense system that doesn't work.

      With friends like these....

      The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

      by cometman on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:33:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YellowDogBlue, Pegasus

    It is some bullshit... I know I could use a drink.

    -7, -4.46 "You see the world as it is and ask why, I dream of things that never were and ask why not?"

    by PoliOperative on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:15:02 PM PDT

  •  They deserve all the criticism -- no progress on (11+ / 0-)

    iraq, energy, global warming, etc.  Not to mention capitulation on FISA.  If this is supposed to represent progress, then I want no part of it.  This is increasingly a battle for real progress between the DC Democrats & the "provincial" Democrats.

  •  It's only been ten months. (11+ / 0-)

    Reports by Reid show that Democratic spineliness are up 125.6%, and in 10-20 years, the Congressional delegation will be able to stand up on it's own.

    The next six months are critical to the Surge of Self-Confidence in Congressional Democrats. Why do you want Democrats to lose?

    Anyways, rhetorical stabs in the back aren't counted. Only stabs in the front.

    Wikipedia is a Massively Multiplayer Online Editing Game played by experts in redundancy, hyperlinking, reverting articles, redundancy, and flamewars.

    by Lurtz on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:18:19 PM PDT

  •  But it is the leadership's fault (10+ / 0-)

    Democratic leaders raised the expectations that they would fight to end the war in Iraq. Their fault is not to fight, but to cave and cave and cave. This demonstrates a lack of principle. By not fighting every person who dies in Iraq lies on their soul.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:18:38 PM PDT

  •  Firing Squad Logic (5+ / 0-)

    The american public - every one of them - participate in life in the country that elected the President and the Congress that perpetuate this war.  They all say "it wasn't me, I was just doing my job in America. I vote for the peace candidates and got suitably mad when they didn't stop the war when I expected it to end."

     But their jobs support the government with taxes that continue the war.  want to cut off funds for the war. Stop working. You are supporting the war machine, war mongers!!!  Only the unemployed and those living in the gray economy that pay no taxes are pure at heart.

    On a serious note, Pelosi does more to end the war than these keyboard pounders.  At the least the pure of heart really do need to stop paying taxes if they really are serious about de-funding the war.  If Whitman and Thoreau gave up time from their little jobs to protest funding wars you should be willing to do the same sort of time too.  You are funding the war as surely as Pelosi.
    All of you who funded the war with taxes paid today might  might well  stand in front of a mirror and scream at yourself for being a war monger.

    Conventional wisdom is most usualy an oxymoron.

    by SmithsLastWord on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:20:17 PM PDT

  •  We've created a monster (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maracucho, tigercourse, Pegasus

    I've said it for twenty years...

    Online communities are not stable. They never can be. It is BAD ENGINEERING to try to map human communication onto a piece of software. Why?

    Think of it like a high resolution picture that is mapped into a far lower resolution. All the nuance is gone. All the careful argument, all the facial gestures, all the nonverbal cues, gone.

    I love y'all but as one who has been online since all there was was Usenet groups to talk on, online communities can NEVER be stable and can NEVER result in an order-out-of-chaos situation.

    •  Not true (10+ / 0-)

      I think blogs like these act as nucleation sites, from a physical chemistry metaphor.  They reduce entropy and disorder and at the same time, enable connections and bonds between people.  We are still evolving but we made a lot of progress so far.  For one thing, we are developing our own media.  And, over time, we do come to some consensus on various issues.  This is a good place to make our arguments and get others to join us.  It looks like chaos but it's actually more like a cooling place.  People come in with high energy but once they start bouncing off one another, the anger and heat dissipates and things start to gel.  
      I've seen it happen.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:33:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I believe the phrase you're looking for (7+ / 0-)

    is Shut Your Fucking Pie Hole.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:25:55 PM PDT

  •  If we're going to criticize anyone, I say we (10+ / 0-)

    should be criticizing ourselves.

    There's no Iraq withdrawal without a veto-proof majority.  There just isn't.  As badly as I want us out, filibustering funding until the well is dry would be a deliberate contravention of the Constitutional order, and would set and unacceptable precedent for the conduct of foreign policy.

    The only way to get a veto-proof majority for withdrawal is to get Republicans to cross the aisle.  The only way to do that is by putting pressure on their seats by explicitly tying them to Bush's Iraq war.  We're coming into the fall, and that hasn't happened to the extent it needed to.  The blame for that properly lies with the DSCC and DCCC, but it also lies with us, the activist base.  We didn't get the challengers up and running in time for the fall funding debate.

    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

    by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:26:05 PM PDT

    •  They can stop the profit. There is a way. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pb, bablhous

      "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

      by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:29:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stopping the profiteering and mercenary action (0+ / 0-)

        is certainly possible, if that's what you're saying, but that doesn't end our troop commitment.

        "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

        by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:30:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It ends the will to continue promoting the (0+ / 0-)

          occupation. The withdrawal would follow quickly.

          "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

          by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:32:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The M.I.C. isn't the only reason we're there. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

            by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:33:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes it is. n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Silverbird, costello7

              "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

              by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:36:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, you have a unique view, then. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ivorybill, DiesIrae, cpresley

                Not to mention an incorrect one.  The M.I.C. is a big, bad wolf, but it's not the Big Bad Wolf.

                "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:38:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You have the herd mentality and the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  costello7

                  wrong view. But it's not your fault.

                  "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                  by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:41:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Lol. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    catfish, ivorybill, DiesIrae

                    No, I'm just a close student of international affairs who is capable of seeing more than one cause for an event.  Thanks for playing, though.

                    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                    by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:43:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, I've seen what a fabulous job you guys (0+ / 0-)

                      have done. You should rename it international despair.

                      "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                      by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:51:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Who are "we guys?" (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ChiGirl88, DiesIrae

                        I guess I'm your strawman for the day.  

                        If it'll lower your blood pressure, I can tell you that I agree that the MIC, via Cheney (mostly), bears an enormous share of the responsibility for getting us into Iraq--maybe all of it.  But there are a number of other factors keeping us in, many of which are purely political/electoral at this point and have nothing to do with Halliburton.

                        "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                        by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:59:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I am firmly convinced that war profiteers are (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dus7, Carbide Bit

                          the driving force propping up the political, media, economic and cultural environment. I don't even get Iraq-centric in my thinking but seek to change the dynamic that if not changed will surely bring the next Iraq.

                          "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                          by java4every1 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:10:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I have trouble being that totalistic (0+ / 0-)

                            in my worldview.  There's more going on in modern American life than just a defense industry run amok.  But one has to focus on something, and at least you're focusing on something that really matters.

                            "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

                            by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:13:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Speak for yourself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BentLiberal

      The way to put pressure on Republicans and tie them to the war is not to bend over backwards to placate them.  I feel like I woke up in 2002 all over again.  Guess what?  The result will be the same.

      When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

      by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:14:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you TALKING about? (0+ / 0-)

        What did I say that indicates I think we should placate Republicans?

        I'm saying we should be attacking the Republicans, hard and constantly.  We should already be fundraising and working the streets for their '06 challengers.  We should be focusing all our energy on putting their seats in danger and putting them on the defensive, instead of threatening Dems and putting ourselves on the defensive.

        "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you."

        by Pegasus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:02:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In other words (0+ / 0-)

          Money without accountability.  

          Look, you and I can attack Republicans all day, but the actions of two people won't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world without some juice.  Our elected reps have a big ass bull horn that they aren't using to call out those Republicans, and I demand that they use it.  And every time they fail to use it, and instead try this "can't we all get along?" crap, I'm going to continue to kick them in the nuts until they figure out that even people in Idaho hate this occupation and their cowardice isn't making them any friends and is, in fact, causing them to lose support.  

          By saying, "that's OK, Johnny" when those saps placate Republicans, you, on the other hand, are effectively endorsing the appeasement strategy that served congressional Democrats so well in 2002.

          When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

          by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:18:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I invite you to read pro-HRC post at MYDD (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jett, Dave925, okamichan13

     I found it both instructive and eye-opening.

     The proponent essentially argues that HRC should be our nominee because she is so good at the kind of chippy, small minded attacks like the haircut assault on Edwards.  That is it - she is a good attack dog - that is her resume.

    Then, of course - she sends out others to say, "can't we all just get along - we are all Dems..."   This is the prevailing view of politics - this, they say, is how the game is played.  Well, now that her positions capitulating to the Republicans on terror and Iraq are sinking in - she begins a new campaign arguing she is for "change."  

     

     

  •  The squeeky wheel gets the grease... (6+ / 0-)

    ...We give money to these clowns.

    ...Lots and lots of it.

    ...It has always been a pay-to-play business.

    ...Now we want action on our behalf.

    ...I think it is reasonable.

    "When the going gets Weird...The Weird turn Pro". -- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Blue Shark on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:30:48 PM PDT

  •  I do have to issue with this comment (18+ / 0-)

    It is just so typical of our side to start eating its own and throwing blame around whenever we run into an obstacle.  It looks like panic and indecision.  It's looks really baaaaad.

    No. No one is snacking on anyone this afternoon, we're doing something called, "Holding Your Fellow Democrats Accountable."

    They've had years to do right thing and haven't. This was the same Congress that gave Bush his blank check war back in 2002 and in all of the years of canage, waste and destruction, these fools have learned nothing.

    No.More.Passes.

    No.More.Excuses.

    I'm done with them.

    These chumps dither, blame shift, and refuse to make the hard choices that will end this war.

    Well there are consequences for actions like these and I'm delivering them right now. they've lost me as a supporter. No money, no canvassing, no impromtu advocacy out in meatspcae.

    I'm done.

    I listen to wingnut radio so you don't have to!

    by Sharon on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:31:32 PM PDT

    •  To clarify (0+ / 0-)

      Your anger is justified.  They've been screwing up.  My point is that venting at them is not going to work, or at least not by itself, because they can only do so much.  
      Now, you may choose to continue to fling your ire at them or you can help me think of a way to move things forward.  
      I know which one you'll choose, just as soon as you stop snacking.  
      ;-)

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:38:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  point of fact: the dems do have the numbers. (16+ / 0-)

    a simple majority in the house can withold any more funding for the iraq occupation. 41 votes in the senate can keep debate going indefinitely on any new funding. the congressional democrats have the numbers right now to stop any new funding. it's not about having the votes, it's about having the political will to tell junior, "no, you can't have the keys to the car."  

    Sometimes selfishness even gets to be a cause, an organized force, even a government. Then it's called Fascism. - Born Yesterday

    by rasbobbo on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:32:26 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but can they withstand the hissy fit? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia

      They should withstand the hissy fit but maybe they need to see that the GOP will get smacked if they don't cooperate.  Maybe they need their constituents to stop sending them mixed messages.  Maybe a leader needs to stand up and tell them to have courage.  
      Does shooting at them accomplish any of this?  
      Ummm, no.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:40:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i'm not shooting at anybody (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        racerx, dus7, Data Pimp, costello7

        merely challenging this:

        Democrats don't have the frickin' numbers.

        they have more than enough votes, what they lack is determination. let bush hold his breath & throw his tantrum. i guarantee he'll start breathing again.

        Sometimes selfishness even gets to be a cause, an organized force, even a government. Then it's called Fascism. - Born Yesterday

        by rasbobbo on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:50:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ugh (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, nasarius, dus7, rrheard, costello7
    Whatever Clinton's and Obama's plans are for Iraq if one of them becomes president, they have to be somewhat vague to avoid the shredding that the GOP would give them.

    Well, first of all, it's not what they would do as President that I'm really concerned about right now. While that is a concern, what I really want to know is what they're doing, in the Senate, to rally the Democrats against a continued blank check in Iraq and a possible war with Iran. This isn't hypothetical and this isn't a litmus test. This is a real crisis, and we get to see how they lead -- or don't. Seeing them not lead is, to say the least, disconcerting.

    Second, to not speak up because you're afraid of the thrashing you'd get from the GOP demonstrates that you can't win, because you're going to spend your time cowering under the assault of their slime machine.

    Note: I'm not saying that Clinton or Obama can't win. I'm pretty sure either of them could mop the floor with their opponent given a good campaign. I'm saying that fear of the GOP slime machine isn't an excuse for inaction. If anything, it's a completely inexcusable reason to not act.

  •  If we dont pull the leashes of the Dems, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matilda, dunderhead, costello7

    they wont do anything except wait for the GOP to implode on its own. I would be fine if the issue wasn't a war, but people are dying because nobody with power is opposing Bush.

  •  Very well said (11+ / 0-)

    good luck ducking all the grenades being thrown at you for saying it.  This is not a popular view right now, but saying and doing the right thing isn't always popular.  Kudos to you for having the guts to do so.

    "We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." -- Abigail Adams

    by jsmdlawyer on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:33:50 PM PDT

  •  We pretty much know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dunderhead, dus7, costello7

    what the mainstream Democratic candidates think about the war.  They would fight it smarter and continue is just as long as the other half of the corporate  money party.

    I won't vote for them.  That's all.  No fighting.

    If they cannot listen, it is not my fault.

    Kucinich listens.

    We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. -- William Faulkner --

    by Silverbird on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:35:33 PM PDT

    •  You don't really know anything then. Obama, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia, ChiGirl88

      Clinton and Edwards are all united in opposing the war and getting out. There are small difference between how they intend to accomplish this.

      Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

      by tigercourse on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:37:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where did you read that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        InquisitiveRaven

        'Cause that is not the position I see in reading about them.  

        We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. -- William Faulkner --

        by Silverbird on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:46:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards, maybe. Clinton and Obama? No. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7

        Clinton and Obama have sold us out.  They're not supporting an end to the war in Iraq.  They're triangulating, with meaningless statements about "taking a new direction in Iraq."

        The truth is that they have no intention of ending the war.  If either of them get elected, don't be surprised to see the meat grinder continue to destroy lives for several more years, with endless platitudes of "Just six more months, then we can reach a peace agreement." or "We need to stay in a little longer to clean up the mess."

        Fuck that.  Why should I support politicians who won't state on the record, unambiguously and uneqivocably, that when they take office, they will bring our troops home as fast as they can come?

        The only candidate who'll say that is Dennis Kucinich.

        Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant.

        by meldroc on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:51:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  i saw obama today (0+ / 0-)

        and read hillary on iraq

        and neither one mentioned the word oil

        get real with dennis

        It's an oil war, stupid car driver.

        by carlos oaxaca on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:51:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Encoragement for caving? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, dunderhead, lisastar

    I think not. They will not stick together like the gop.

    They have convinced the voters they are spineless and they are.

    I have lowered my expectations and realize they are spineless.

    They still are the lesser of two evils and Biden's plan about Iraq will be the solution to get out.

    The surge will continue until Spring of next year and doubt they will extend the tour of duty again.

    There are many dems to be purged.

    "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland.". Judge McKeown

    by gotalife on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:36:34 PM PDT

  •  Most Excellent Diary Goldberry - RECOMMENDED! (9+ / 0-)

    Sure hope this one makes it to the Rec List.

    I couldn't have said it better myself.  The circular firing squads are just more BS if you ask me.

  •  It's not about numbers (7+ / 0-)

    It's about our representatives taking a stand, saying where they are on the issue.

    It's time for the majority of the Democratic Party to GROW A SPINE.

    What we're seeing from Clinton and Obama is weaselly. Not committing either way till it's "safe" to commit. We are not going to solve our problems by swimming with the tide.

    •  Out problem isn't Obama or Clinton. We know they (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCDemocrat, cpresley

      won't support the funding. Clinton apparently siad on Letterman why she doesn't support funding anymore. In the Senate yesterday she came out against the current watered down direction we are taking.

      Our problem is partly the leaders, partly the moderates/conservatives and mostly the Republicans and GWB.

      Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

      by tigercourse on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:39:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't buy it (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, maracucho, Silverbird, dus7, costello7

    I've given money and encouragement and the Democratic Party folds its tents without a fight on Iraq funding.

    NO more excuses.

    •  Doing the same thing over and over again (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia, cpresley, Pegasus

      and expecting the same result is insanity, right?  So, let's think of things we can do to change this dynamic.  We are stuck in a rut of thinking that if we just pound on them harder, they'll do what we want.  Clearly that isn't working.  I'd like to know why they are behaving this way and get them to recognize why this is not productive.  
      Why do you think they are acting this way?  I'm all ears.  
      Treat the disease, not the symptom.

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:44:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  6 months ago, maybe. (14+ / 0-)

    But after their May surrender on Iraq, their August FISA surrender, and their even more pathetic September surrender on Iraq, I'm thinking that these Dems deserve no quarter. If you must call it a circular firing squad, then, hand me a rifle.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:40:41 PM PDT

  •  Hmmmm... (16+ / 0-)

    I'm just as disgusted with the Blue Dogs as anyone but the mixed messages their constituents are sending them probably has a lot to do with their reticence.  "Stop the War!  Stop it right now!  Bring them home!  But don't do anything that would hurt the troops."  What's a congressperson to do?

    I've argued with (staff members of) California Blue Dogs that they can respond to all those things you've quoted above by arguing for withdrawal that starts immediately. The final comment does NOT conflict with the others; those Democratic Reps merely need to point out - to their moderate and conservative constituencies - why withdrawal starting tomorrow is the best way not to hurt the troops.

    "When shifting paradigms, it is important to put in the clutch." -- Patricia Limerick

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:43:54 PM PDT

    •  True BUT (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia, vcmvo2

      It isn't the congressman who doesn't understand this.  It is the constituent.  And as I found out to my dismay while canvassing in CT for the general in 2006, trying to explain strategy to a voter in 30 seconds or less is really difficult.  The conventional wisdom is hard to dislodge.  
      So, I agree with you but I am not at all surprised that some congresspeople are having a difficult time making their constituents understand this.

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:47:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that in the case of many of ... (4+ / 0-)

        ...the Blue Dogs, the problem is they aren't trying. Congresspeople have more than 30 seconds to get their message across. They can do it at every venue, every time they speak.

        "When shifting paradigms, it is important to put in the clutch." -- Patricia Limerick

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  small venues vs network news (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, cpresley

          How many constituents go to townhall meetings with their reps?  How many absorb their information from Katie Couric?  
          I would bet that the latter outnumber the former by vast numbers.  

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:53:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course. But the activists are the ... (7+ / 0-)

            ...ones who show up for those little meetings. They are the ones who work to get the vote out. The Blue Dogs - some of them are already there - need to remember that most Americans (including in red districts) oppose the war. With a little campaigning savvy, they can tip that into support for withdrawal that begins immediately. A good 30- or 60-second ad can sway enough of the Couric crowd to keep from losing their reelection effort, which is what seems to be the issue here.

            "When shifting paradigms, it is important to put in the clutch." -- Patricia Limerick

            by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:01:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gun shy? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, vcmvo2, cpresley

              Remember the 2000, 2002 and 2004 election seasons?  Sometimes, I still can not believe the number of people who bought the GOP message hook, line and sinker.  And the reason they were so successful was because they turned up the fear volume as high as it would go.  I don't doubt for a moment that it isn't still effective.  Some of the vulnerable are in semi-rural and rural districts or in conservative states.  I'm related to those voters.  They get yanked by fear very easily.  Where margins are already slim, this can be very tricky.  But reps should go for it anyway because the election is a year away and they would have a year to recover any negative propaganda, especially if ending the war is better than prolonging it.  
              Maybe they are afraid that pulling out of Iraq is going to be a horrible thing to watch.  This is true.  It's going to be bad no matter what.  But we can't avoid it forever.
              The only people who come out of this looking good is Republicans right now and I'm just thinking that that's not what we want.  

              -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

              by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:11:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  never criticise (7+ / 0-)

    That's right folks, never criticise a Democrat no matter what they do or fail to do.
    That's what has made the Republicans such a great party.

  •  Reclist (5+ / 0-)

    I'm pretty sick of everything that makes the recommended list these days.  I have no analysis of why, but the quality of diaries on the reclist has gone to virtually nil.  I see either a link and a blockquote to what is an interesting story, but not an interesting diary.  And wayyyyy to much meta makes it to the reclist.

    With so many users, surely there are topics we would like to share?

    We're all just monkeys burning in hell. SmokeyMonkey.org

    by smokeymonkey on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:44:55 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, I disagree. (9+ / 0-)

    It is far past time for the Dems to step up and demand (and introduce plans for) a fully-funded withdrawal. I'm an Obama supporter but I wish he would be louder and prouder on this issue. The same goes for Clinton and Pelosi and everyone in Congress. It is beyond pathetic that they continually cave, and announce that they are doing so (!) and then draw up some meaningless non-binding resolution.

    They are NOT going to lose the election for ending the war. Indeed, they are putting themselves at greater risk of "blurring the differences" in 2008. And I personally think that Obama is toast unless he draws a real distinction between himself and Clinton and becomes the anti-war candidate.

  •  Sorry I disagree (9+ / 0-)

    Kos is absolutely right to criticize Obama and Clinton.  They show complete lack of leadership.   I had enough of weak democrats.  

  •  This is typical mouthbreather behavior (5+ / 0-)

    to call the Blue Dogs "just typical male behavior."

    Nice, you say stop the firing squad then make a sexist remark towards members of the party.

    Stay classy!

  •  Ah, you're EARLY. Major Danby hasn't even (9+ / 0-)

    arrived onstage yet to tell us we're emboldening Republicans by even talking about being pissed at what Democrats are doing.  

    About four stages early, I'd say.

    This is the way it goes:

    1.  Elected Democrats talk about / hint at how they're going to go partway in appeasing our 30% Republican overlords.
    1.  Netroots explode with outrage.  You get diaries saying "they never cared about us and never will".
    1.  Republicans trick Democrats in going all the way in appeasing our 30% Republican overlords.
    1.  Netroots get genuinely pissy.  Then you get diaries with titles like "Why I'm burning my Democratic registration in front of my Democratic Rep's office!"
    1.  After a brief period of this, Kos posts something about how he's going to start banning people who get TOO pissy about the Democratic Party as a whole, without warning.
    1.  Things calm down a bit, with much low level grumbling.
    1.  The Major Danby class diaries appear.  (No offense, heh -- I like Major Danby, I just think he's predictable and I'm sure he thinks the same about me).
    1.  Then you get diaries of this nature: "You will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee in the general or you're a traitor!  A TRAITOR!"
    1.  Loop back to step 1.

    It's a given that all these phases bleed into each other, but we're really at some nebulous zone in this circle somwhere between steps 8 and 2 right now.  

    This is a pre-Major-Danby stage 6.5 diary.

    What color is the sky in your world (in mine, it's red) (-6.25, -6.92)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:50:37 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely, totally, completley wrong wrong wrong (7+ / 0-)

    Wake up will ya. The dems DON'T NEED THE NUMBERS to bring this slaughter to a halt. All they have to do is NOT VOTE for further funding. No majority necessary, no veto possible. Just say no!

    It really is that simple. And all of us here who have been bashing them for not stopping the war know this. That's why we bash, because we need them to know that we know what's really going on and we aren't going to let them get away with it.

    They have to face re-election some day, and they need to know that they just might fail to get elected if they continue their current course. It may be the only leverage we have, but I for one will be damned if I give up the one thing I can do to affect the situation.

    •  But of course. . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YellowDogBlue, cpresley, Pegasus

      They have to face re-election some day, and they need to know that they just might fail to get elected if they continue their current course.

      As politicians, it's their future electability they're thinking about.  And they pretty clearly feel that the support is not there for cutting off funding for the war.

      I can't say myself whether they're right or not.  But I have a lot of respect for the ability of incumbents to evaluate their own future election prospects.

      So what you really want the politicians to do is to take actions that they believe (quite probably with good reason) will cause them to lose the next election.  Perhaps thats the right thing for them to do -- similar, for instance, to the Democrats losing control the House after passing Clinton's budget balancing plans in the 90s.  Of maybe it would be disastrous.

      ---------------------------------------------
      For personal and general travel news: Notes On Travel

      by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:04:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't buy it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7

        people out here are just outraged and from what I'm reading it's running across the entire nation. I think they have insulated themselves are are depending on what their DC consultants are telling them.

        The problem is that we are in unusual times right now and many of the old measures and models just aren't playing out. The 2006 elections are a case in point, no DC consultant, nor political pundit, nor media analyst believe in their wildest dreams that democrats would take over both houses of congress.

        We did, why? Because we are outraged and new movements like the netroots are afoot. The face of politics in this nation are changing and all the consultants and apologists for business as usual are at risk of falling into irrelevency.

      •  Fine. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MaverickModerate

        Then they should farkin SAY that.  Don't talk tough on Iraq if you're not tough.

  •  yeah... (0+ / 0-)

    I always preferred the hexagonal ones, anyways.

  •  What's your point? (4+ / 0-)

    It makes Democrats look weak and divided and it makes the Republican stubborness look strong.

    Hrmmm.

    The Democrats are weak and divided -- as the majority!

    The Republican's stubbornness does make them strong.

    We don't have to do anything at all here.  The Democrats and Republicans are handling it just fine.

    Question authoritarianism.

    by m00nchild on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:53:49 PM PDT

    •  Memo to Democrats (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m00nchild, dus7

      Dear Fellow Democrats:

      The Republicans are wrong on the issues, but they know how to run a party.

      Yes, they are going south in the polls, but they are going south in the polls because they are staying loyal to their base, and not chasing after "swing voters" who vote on people's haircuts, if they vote at all.

      When this passes, their base will still donate money, still canvass for them, and still stand up for them.  Democrats, on the other hand, compromise and compromise until their "base"'s principals are reduced to shit.  They know without the true believers, without the 18 percenters, they will never, ever recover, or will be in another Rooseveltian wilderness at best.  This approach took but 6 years to recover from Watergate.

      That's why we're pissed. We thought we had purged the Libercrats and shown that a kickass strategy could work (a la 2006), but they are cowards, they aren't doing jack, and we're mad.

      But this is not a progressive blog, it's a Democratic partisan blog, so these comments should be troll rated.

  •  Blah Blah Blah (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChiGirl88, ivorybill

    That's what it's all about.

    Edwards supporters want to bash Clinton and Obama because they aren't throwing tissies - yet Edwards is innocent because he has no say?  Even though he had his say in 2002 and voted the other way?  Too bad, he voted for this mess, then ran away - he isn't immune, he is atleast as guilty as the others.

    Obama, would I want him to do something different? Maybe, but you know what?  he was RIGHT before the war.. and there is real truth to the "We broke it, we bought it" argument.

    As for Clinton, She seems to think somehow she doesn't have any responsibility for breaking it, but is all about wanting to buy it.

    None of the top three are perfect - but for us to bash any of them for not throwing a fit is silly.

    Anyways, the situation is complex - it was more complex before the war than a simple "invade and topple Saddam and the US will be safe".. and it is much more complex now.  We can pull out, and I agree that it would be better than the current "stay the course" - but there are other options.  

    Why don't we try to actually come up with other options?

    Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton: Out of 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.) Americans, this is the best we can do?

    by Yoshi En Son on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:54:35 PM PDT

  •  We haven't even begun. (8+ / 0-)

    My fire isn't directed toward those on our side -- it's directed toward the Bush Dogs and our alleged "leadership."

    If they don't want to catch the same fire as the Republicans, they should stop voting with them.

    The time for bullshitting and doing nothing is over.  We cannot allow DC Dems to sit on their asses until 2008.

    I can die a thousand times but I'll always be here.

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:54:43 PM PDT

  •  "Circular firing squad" a tired cliche, and . . . (9+ / 0-)

    . . . an inapt metaphor in this case.  There's nothing circular about what's happening here, and it isn't a firing squad.  People are expressing justified disappointment and justified anger at the failures of "leaders" who won't lead, though they could, and "representatives" who won't represent, though they could.

    "Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure." -- White Rose letter no. 1

    by keikekaze on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:57:39 PM PDT

  •  Move On push progressives in primaries (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dus7, VirginiaBlue, costello7

    Move on surveyed its members about pushing progressives in the primaries and already the party powers that be are upset that that will help republicans win and waste resources. I think the cowardly refusal to take a firm stand to defund the war is in fact what has the Democratic congress at such a low level in polls and in fact will help Republicans retake the congress.Shouting at them may be getting us nowhere but telling them we will only support congressmen  and congresswomen who will end this war with money and actions may get their attention

  •  Jesus, way to answer you own question. (7+ / 0-)

    I'll just put this in reverse order, what you typed.

    Question:

    So, why are you beating up on Democrats for at least trying to compromise?  

    Answer:

    But the GOP reason for being until 2008 is to frustrate Democrats in any way possible.  The president will ALWAYS veto and the Republicans will ALWAYS back him up.  They announced this as their intended modus operandi on Fox News right after the 2006 election.  Their base LOVES it because they think Democrats are the enemy.

    Going back to finish now . ..

  •  When you don't have same goals, is it a circle?? (7+ / 0-)

    I don't see it as a circular firing squad, because Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and company are not in my circle. They are in their own elitist pro-wealthy, corporate circle.

    Thus, no circular firing squad. See???

    My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

    by adigal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:04:27 PM PDT

  •  maybe you've noticed (3+ / 0-)

    people are pissed, people are frustrated, people are disaffected, people feel they've been lied to, people feel powerless, people feel abused, people feel ignored, people are frightened, people feel helpless

    in november, people thought that after long years wandering in bush's desert they had finally found an oasis...when the oasis turns out to be more hot sand, it's a terrible thing to endure

    people are going to vent their feelings and some democrats are going to get in the way of some of the anger...

    you can't get the people described above to STFU...it's kind of lame to try

    political independent...but some of my closest friends are democrats

    by memofromturner on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:05:10 PM PDT

  •  I always wonder, (6+ / 0-)

    when there are complaints about the circular firing squad and that we should somehow rally around a leadership and congress that's not doing what many of us voted for them to be doing, how we are expected to pressure our representatives (and possible candidates) toward doing what we think we elected them to do?  STFU, which is basically what the diarist is saying, doesn't seem to add pressure to our Congresscritters (which, of course, is probably the goal).

    How else are we going to get Madame Speaker, etc., to follow what we gave them the majority to do?

    Go Dennis! dennis4president.com Choose Peace!

    by rjones2818 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:09:04 PM PDT

  •  Maybe, just maybe (7+ / 0-)

    Democrats don't have the frickin' numbers.

     

    they would get the frickin' numbers if they would show some spine.

    Sorry, but I reserve the right to let them know how mad I am! Loudly and whenever and wherever I please!

    •  Well.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, blueintheface

      Why is the talk always Republicans peeling off Democrats? Why isn't it ever Democrats peeling off Republican votes? Why? Because the Dems don't even stand together, because the vote whipping doesn't put the fear of god into them.

      So, instead, these punk ass blue dogs run shit, when they should be run into the ground and denied a single seat on any committee or a single dollar for their district if they don't show up for the big votes.

      •  I find it far more likely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7

        that this occurs not because Dems don't stand together, but because too many Dems don't stand for anything.  There's nothing particularly attractive in following an insubstantial shadow.  If you can't boldly take risks based on your convictions, if you can't stand behind those convictions come hell or highwater, if your actions always look calculating and designed to insure re-election, then you're saying a good deal about your leadership abilities in times of crisis.

    •  They would? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueintheface

      That's all it would take to make the Republicans run scared? Showing some spine?

      Seriously, I hear this over and over again, and forgive me but all I can think is, "How frickin' naive."

      •  Arguably an increased (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV, TracieLynn, etherapy, dus7

        willingness to openly criticize the administration is what won the last election and the refusal to clearly and boldly do so is what lost Kerry the election in 2004.  There's nothing naive about calling for genuine leadership at all.  It is a winning political strategy.

        •  I agree that strong criticism is good. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think it will change Republicans from wolves to sheep, however, which is what many of these bleats about "backbone" seem to imply.

          Despite what they must know deep in the bottom of  their shriveled black hearts, they will continue to vote to their base, and no amount of crying foul will change that.

          I also don't equate "criticism" with "leadership." There is no causal relationship there.

          •  It's silly to even worry about changing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dus7

            republicans.  Don't forget, all of these things unfold in front of an audience.  Often the person you're trying to persuade is not the person you're talking to, but the audience that is viewing the debate.  The aim is to capture those swing voters who gravitate towards the right not because they share republican ideology, but because they perceive them as strong and more capable of ruling by virtue of their willingness to stand by their convictions.

      •  The Next Election Will Depend on the Independents (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7

        and I believe they are waiting and watching.  Waiting and watching the Dem Leadership to do the right thing.

        Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

        by InquisitiveRaven on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:08:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Right. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, dus7, costello7

    This is a Partisan Blog (tm) so don't criticize Democrats, even if they are totally not doing anything you believe in. Don't hold them accountable.  Just leave them alone, and their track record demonstrates that they will surrender to Republicans advance progressive causes.

  •  So what you're saying... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Attorney at Arms

    in relation to our leaders is:

    "If we're not with them, we're against them"???

    I know that wasn't your point, and for the most part I agree with you. But, we must be on guard against sacrificing our principles in the name of an united front. That's how republicans operate.

    (-7.50, -7.74) "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi

    by Nate1787 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:14:55 PM PDT

  •  Debate is good. Forge of the gods kind of thing. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Attorney at Arms, ChiGirl88

    Somebody has an idea or opinion. They post it and it gets the heat put to it and it melts down or shows some iron.

    Kind of how the process is supposed to work.

    "Hillary and Obama need to make statements and soon."

    No they don't since there is nothing to comment on until Patraeus testifies and Democrats come up with their bottom line bill on Iraq.

    Candidate is going to totally lose credibility, especially in the general election, coming to conclusions on reports that are not even given yet.

    Dodd, Edwards and others already have credibility problems due to their lack of judgment on Iraq the first time around.

  •  Would you prefer, perhaps, a rectangle? (7+ / 0-)

    Understand your point, but you must also understand the depth of the disappointment. I think people are really hurting. It's depressing and incredibly disheartening, frankly, and we expect better.

    That's what you're witnessing.

    •  And *I'm* not disappointed? (0+ / 0-)

      I confess to writing a number of "Democrats are dumbasses!" comments myself.  But at some point, I have to ask myself if such public criticism is helpful and whether my anger and frustration wouldn't be better directed at Republicans.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:20:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They have to hear it. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV, TracieLynn, dunderhead, cfaller96

        If you're disappointed, they have to hear it. Don't censor people. They MUST hear it.

        "Conservatives" have followed the GOP all the way down the rabbit hole from the Frontier Libertarianism of Barry Goldwater to the big government corporate dungheap of Bush, without question, with very, very little noise.

        Why? Because they always fall in line.

      •  How is public criticism NOT helpful? (6+ / 0-)

        Seriously, WTF?

        These are public officials, not f--king royalty.  So what's the problem with criticizing them when they go way, way off the tracks and against the will of the people?

        •  We are playing the same note (0+ / 0-)

          over and over again.  And how is that working?  It looks bad and it undermines support for the Democrats in the public at large.  it could come back to bite us if the "All politicians are the same" CW starts to gain traction.  We KNOW that's not true.  
          So, think about whether the firing squad is giving you the desired results.  If it isn't, lay off and do something else.  

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:51:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, I'm not sure it's not true (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TracieLynn, dus7

            I guess that makes me an independent, or a swing vote, or something.  In my mind, one party wants to do more bad stuff, and the other party won't stand in the way.  Exactly how am I supposed to distinguish between the two?

            If Dems truly want to kill the "all politicians are the same" meme, then they need to actually do something to substantially differentiate themselves from Republicans.  Like, you know, take a hard stand on an important issue, and flip the bird to the dead-ender Republicans and the Corporate Media.

            Sure, there's risk there, but there's risk in anything worthwhile.  Let that sink in for a moment.  Nothing worth achieving is ever easy or without risk.  If Dems are unwilling to take a risk and alienate some people that will never change their minds, then they deserve the permanent "all politicians are the same" meme wafting over their heads.  They would deserve it because it would be accurate.

            I've given a lot of money to Dems these past few years, and I see nothing wrong with demanding a return on my investment.  And right now, I'm questioning if there's a fundamental difference between the two parties.  Iraq circa 2007 looks the same or worse than Iraq circa 2006, 2005, 2004, etc.  At what point can we hold Dems responsible, even if only partially responsible?

      •  So then who are you really chastising here then? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        InquisitiveRaven

        Yourself or others? Sounds like from this post that you're saying that you've done plenty of it and now you're calling everyone else on it.

        is that accurate?

        "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

        by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:50:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We are not the right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InquisitiveRaven, lisastar

    I am personally proud of the fact we have not even drank our own kool aid, and we critique the people we support when they fail to meet the expected standards.

    I'm tired of that "circular firing squad" meme being used to silence legitimate criticism of democrats when they deserve it.

    We will not blindly support our leaders no matter what they do.

    The Democrats have the majority.  They don't need a single republican vote to not amend FISA and to not pass an Iraq supplemental that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal in it.

    That said, not every Democrat is bad, nor is Pelosi entirely to blame either.  The OpenLeft campaign against the Bush Dogs is a perfect example of the type of pressure we should be applying to our side to do the right thing.

  •  Yep! Democrats are their own worst enemy. (0+ / 0-)

    Or, rather, our own worst enemy.  ;-)

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:17:59 PM PDT

  •  sorry but you're WAY WAY off the mark (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Driscoll, dunderhead, urgello

    You say we're supposed to talk to Republicans?  What a fucking joke.  Start living in the Real World some time.

    •  Should Republicans only hear from their (0+ / 0-)

      base?

      Then how would they know they are wrong? Pop their bubble, let them know that Mr 30% isn't going to help them when they come up for reelection.

      •  let 'em drown like rats (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV, John Driscoll

        in the sinking ship that is the Republican party.

        If they're not smart enough to see that their survival depends on throwing Bush/Cheney under the bus, then fuck 'em.  They're dangerous and stupid.  

        •  I'm not talking about their reelection chances, (0+ / 0-)

          I don't care about that.

          I'm talking about right now. Don't we want them to hear that there is a greater number of voters who are going to kick them out of office than those that they are listening to? For some at least, the knowledge that their base won't be able to save them in the upcoming election should move a few votes the Democrats way.

          There's 22 Republicans up for election next year, we only need a few more for a filibuster-proof majority. And then we'll have a whole new game in DC.

  •  Didn't Pelosi PROMISE to post here weekly? (4+ / 0-)

    I straddle the thin line between Holistic and Assholistic

    by Goodbye Kitty on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:18:53 PM PDT

  •  Thank you. (5+ / 0-)


    To blatantly steal from a reply made to one of my comments in another diary....

    One of these things is not like the other...

    "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

    "The buck stops here."

    "I do not ask you to do these things because they are easy, but rather because they are hard."

    "Whatever Clinton's and Obama's plans are for Iraq if one of them becomes president, they have to be somewhat vague to avoid the shredding that the GOP would give them."


    Thank you for providing the last quote, which in a nutshell describes all that is wrong with both the party and this diary.

    "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -- Ernest Hemingway

    by spread the word IRAQ NAM on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:19:04 PM PDT

    •  Do you want the GOP to win the WH again? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChiGirl88, cfaller96

      In a perfect world, Obama and Clinton would present their plans and we would all have a civilized discussion debating the merits of each.  
      In a perfect world, the GOP would not have a virtual lock on the media and, with the help of Rovian talking points, wouldn't be able to blatantly lie about the plans that Obama and Clinton propose.
      In a perfect world, the press pool wouldn't act like 14 year old mean girlz in the high school cafeteria.  

      Clinton has undoubtably learned from her Health Care debacle that leaking too many details before the project is finished is going to get you creamed.  It should be enough for any of our candidates to say that the Iraq War is dangerous to our natioanl security and they plan to end it when they are president and leave it at that.  The details aren't going to make any party happy.  we aren't going to get our pony of immediate withdrawal and the GOP isn't going to be able to kick Hajis anymore.  

      As for the fear angle, you are late to my party.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:27:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What we are telling our leaders is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, dunderhead, dus7, gimmebooks

    Just get us out of Iraq.

    NOW.

    Stop worrying about the next election long enough to do the right thing.

    We shall overcome, someday.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:21:26 PM PDT

  •  I wonder if thats how the debate goes in DC (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, dunderhead, lotlizard, dus7

    the progressives say: we MUST vote to end the occupation

    the moderates say : but we dont have enough votes to succeed

    the blue dogs say: we dont really think ending the occupation is the right course to take at this time

    the progressives counter with: our base sent us here to end the occupation

    the moderates say: we might lose our seats if we fail to succeed and be painted as traitors and weak

    the bluedogs say: we dont really want to vote to end the occupation, its working <cough>

    and then the leadership steps up and says:

    lets end this circular firing squad and just give Bush what he wants because that way WE wont be blamed for the failure that is IRAQ and anyway our base will stick with us no matter what we do

    IMPEACH THE CHEERLEADER... SAVE THE WORLD! © ®

    by KnotIookin on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:21:27 PM PDT

  •  "smacks Nancy Pelosi around" why? (7+ / 0-)

    The top recommended diary is one that Q to our petulent demands.  

    Let's have a look at that diary... hmm...

    In April 2006, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi wrote here at Daily Kos:

    I make this pledge to you: every week that Congress is in session, I will come to DailyKos.com and report back on what House Democrats are doing to hold Republicans and the President accountable.

    Congresswoman Pelosi (or her staff) hasn't made a single diary, comment, explanation, apology, or other post to this community since that April.

    So wait, Pelosi PLEDGES to come to DailyKos and breaks that promise.  How dare we take her at her word!

    Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

    by pontechango on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:22:33 PM PDT

  •  Even obvious sarcasm to make a point will put a (0+ / 0-)

    bullseye on your comment at DKos as there are always rogues spoiling for a fight here. They're trying to make us a dysfunctional blog family.

  •  FWIW, I think Goldberry's best point ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueintheface, LillithMc

    ... is that we've let the Rethugs in Congress off the hook for far too long when it comes to their obstructionism.

    By all means, let's criticize Democrats when they deserve it (and many do). However, it's one thing to rant on the blogs and call them all cowards or traitors or whatever, and another thing to selectively target the Blue Dogs and more traditional conservative Congress critters who could be reached with a message aimed at generating support for a responsible withdrawal from Iraq. That, to me, seems like our best opportunity. The challenge for us is to stop whining about not having enough votes, and to start changing the playing field and the terms of the debate.

    Also, I must say that I agree with the diarist on the truly horrendous way the white male (with an emphasis on male) Dem leadership has behaved with regard to Pelosi. I don't agree with all of her tactics, either. Heck, I don't march in lockstep with anybody all of the time. But she is the Speaker of the House, she has earned that power, and she damn well deserves the respect of her colleagues, especially those in the same party. Although I am not a Clinton supporter, I really hope we don't see the same sort of fragile male egos sabotaging her if and/or when she does get the nomination or win the general election next year.

    "It's just an old war, not even a cold war.
    Don't say it in Russian. Don't say it in German.
    Say it in broken English. ...
    What are you fighting for?" - Marianne Faithfull, 1979

    •  Look (5+ / 0-)

      At least in my universe, there is no event that has ever occurred where there was only one cause.

      OF COURSE the Republicans are to blame.
      OF COURSE Bush is orchestrating this.
      OF COURSE the media is complicit.

      But that, similarly, doesn't let the enabler-Democrats off the hook.  Only about half of the Dem senators voted against this in the first place right?

      They not EQUALLY at fault, but they are partially at fault, and they will suffer the political consequences the larger that part grows.

      •  OK, fair enough, but what good does it do ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... for us to concentrate on demonizing fellow Democrats who for the most part are trying to do the right thing, while giving the GOP Congress people a free pass?

        Your point about Blue Dog Dems sharing the blame is well taken. However, the statement that those in our party should "suffer the political consequences" for continuing to represent their constituencies just strikes me as misguided. What are we going to do to them? Fund primary opponents? Get progressive candidates nominated who then go down in flames in the general election, thereby conceding those congressional districts to even more conservative politicians? How does that advance our agenda?

        So much of this debate is focused on what the current political realities are now, not on how we can find a way to change that reality. How can we do that? In my view, we reach our goal by both growing a spine AND educating the public as well as our representatives that leaving Iraq sooner rather than later is in our best national security interests.

        I'm absolutely in favor of holding everybody's feet to the fire on this issue. But I also write to my Rethuglican senator and Congressman as well as my Democratic senator in Virginia to try to influence both of them. I think we need more action and less talk. As disappointed as I am with John Warner voting with Bush so much of the time, he seems to be leaning more toward finding a mutually agreeable solution to the problem. My guess is that he's at least listening to Democrats because of his recent emphasis on the importance of bipartisanship (if only to "support the troops").

    •  But philimus, I bet you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV

      that Goldberry would have a problem with "targeting" Blue Dogs and conservative Dems.  Inevitably, that would require a primary or two or three, which would supposedly "hurt" the Dem nominee's chances of winning the general election blah blah blah.  I bet he wouldn't like such "uncivil" and "rude" behavior, since it would too closely resemble his much touted "circular firing squad."  "Focus on Republicans, not Democrats," I can almost hear him and other loyalists saying.

      It's the same shit we heard from people cautioning us not to primary Lieberman.  It's crap, and it's time the loyalists simply sit down and STFU.

      •  Yes, and the thing w/Lieberman worked out... (0+ / 0-)

        ... so well for us, didn't it?

        I am not interested in ideological purity. I don't even care who takes the credit for getting us out of Iraq. I only want results, and IMHO attacking our own is not the best way to do that. Flame away.

        And no, I will not STFU, nor would I ever ask you to do so either.

        Peace.

        •  Actually, it did (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DelRPCV, dus7

          It shifted all the Dems into an anti-war stance in advance of the midterms, which probably threw a handful of races into our hands.  How conveniently we forget how fearful Dems were of looking anti-war in the spring and summer of 2006.  Then Lieberman lost, and it was like a light switch went on in their minds.  So yes, it worked out.

          Besides, I don't think you can hold progressives responsible for Lieberman being a jackass.  They tried to boot him, and it didn't work, and the Republican didn't win anyway.  So in terms of the party, how did the primary challenge of Lieberman hurt?  How was it so bad to "attack" Lieberman?

          My STFU comment is merely aimed at those who refuse to lead.  Leadership requires taking bold, principled, and risky stands, and those who can't or won't do that shouldn't be, you know, leading.

          Loyalists had their chance, and they screwed up.  It's time for them to step aside and give another wing of the Democratic Party a chance to lead.  Loyalists can do what they do best- follow.

        •  Goldberry IS asking us to STFU btw, n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DelRPCV, InquisitiveRaven
      •  BTW, I'm pretty sure Goldberry is a he ... n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  "our petulant demands"?!?! (8+ / 0-)

    So, according to this diarist, simply expecting a little accountability of our elected representative is a "petulant demand"??  

    Demanding that our elected representatives, who have sworn to uphold the constitution, actually do something about warrantless wiretapping and FISA legislation, is a "petulant demand"?!

    Expecting the majority party --a party that calls itself "Democratic," in a country where the majority of citizens oppose George Bush's criminal occupation of Iraq-- expecting the leader of such a party to show a minimum of leadership, rather than merely caving in to Mr. 26%, is a "petulant demand"?!?!?!

    Sorry asshole, but fuck you!

  •  I don't mope (12+ / 0-)

    And I started writing about NJ-07 in the fall of 2005 and followed up with this piece in December of that year.

    I've written about Feguson and Blue Jersey and Dump Mike and Nathan Rudy consistently. So has kos.

    Now you are taking pot shots at me in the name of being "opposed to the circular firing squad" while we are all making much the same point about Steny Hoyer and NJ-07.

    I guess, in your book, this counts as moping:

    Get involved in the local party, be professional in how you conduct yourself, run for office, write informative articles on local blogs, give to candidates that you know, work to support candidates whose politics you trust and believe in, seek to engage politicians with whom you disagree and attempt to get them to see the sincerity and relevance of your views, participate in sincere, nonviolent protest and free speech, write letters to the editor, and above all else, create a culture of respect and empowerment for yourself and other volunteers and activists who think like you...

    We are a part of something that is not about business as usual in American political life and it is our responsibility to grow and nurture it. If what we are doing is worth doing, friends, it's worth doing right. This is going to take some time.

    Hmmm.

    Our problem as progressive Democrats is that we lack leverage within the Democratic party. The way we win that leverage is to stay engaged and build our organizations.  That's not circular firing squad, that's playing smart:

    DFA, MoveOn, Progressive Majority, Young Elected Officials Network, Blue America, BlogsUnited, PartyBuilder, Progressive Punch, ePluribus Media, Public Citizen, Media Matters, ACORN, Color of Change, Courage Campaign, New Organizing Institute, Open Left, WellstoneAction, CraigsList Foundation, Rockridge Institute, Families for Freedom

    •  And Diarist takes his/her own potshots (5+ / 0-)

      at Democrats as well. Not sure why it's okay for diarist to do it but not others.

      "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

      by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:28:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My apologies (4+ / 0-)

      I was reacting to the general tone of the pieces lately.  There's a lot of disappointment and anger towards Democrats and not enough discussion on how we deal with the other bad actors.  
      You are completely right about helping out on a campaign.  It is one of the best ways to turn anger into action.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:31:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The best kind of campaign (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TracieLynn, YellowDogBlue, LaFajita

        is one in which a progressive Democrat is running in a district that overlaps with a Dinosaur Democrat. For example, electing someone progressive and reponsive to the netroots to a state legislative seat in a  Congressional district with an unresponsive Congressperson is a double win.

        a) we get someone progressive into office
        b) we put pressure on the "dinosaur Democrat" because they know that a progressive is putting out a competing message for voters in their district

        Eventually a moment arises where the dinosaur dem has to either change their m.o. or face a primary.

        That's not circular firing squad, that's honest, American politics.  That's how our system works.

        k/o: politics and culture

        by kid oakland on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:40:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is the right approach (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaFajita

          and I'm not saying we shouldn't do this.  But it can't be the ONLY thing we do.  And unfortunately, all Congressional Democrats are feeling the heat when many of them are not responsible for the impasse.  So, I am suggesting that we diversify our tactics and quit harping on them so much.  We know which ones deserve "special attention".  Now, can we focus on how the GOP is going to ramp up the fear factor when the Petraeus report and 9/11 and the supplemental funding bill converge?  How do we  throw this back on the GOP?

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:46:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We need Leadershipo to do this (0+ / 0-)

            How do we  throw this back on the GOP?

            We need the Democrats in Congress to do this. We can't do this by ourselves. Why are they afraid of taking Republicans on on this?

            "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

            by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:55:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  So Revise Your Polemic. (0+ / 0-)

        Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

        by InquisitiveRaven on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:03:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm telling, K.O... (0+ / 0-)

      This place is being infultrated by red operatives.

      The same people who want Libby free are the same people who rule out amnesty for illegals.

      by MouseOfSuburbia on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:45:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why is this diary recommended? (8+ / 0-)

    When the diarist makes a "proud" statement like this:

    this is not a problem Democrats can solve all on their own. Whatever Clinton's and Obama's plans are for Iraq if one of them becomes president, they have to be somewhat vague to avoid the shredding that the GOP would give them.

    Yes, let's all stubbornly insist that major problems can ONLY be solved through "bipartisanship."  You know, like Global Warming, the Iraq War, and Universal Health Care.  Oh wait.

    No, let's never MAKE an issue partisan, especially not an issue that the American people overwhelming support us on.  It'll hurt our electoral chances, doncha know.

    Or how about when the diarist bolds GOP talking points?  Yeah, I'm so totally into reading that shit.  I loooooove recommending that.

    It's funny how loyalists always come out of the woodwork with the "circular firing squad" meme every time the Democrats fuck up.  Hilarious.

    Please.  Stop with the whole "circular firing squad" meme.  Thousands are dying in Iraq, the ice caps are melting, and a lot of us can't afford to get sick.  One party wants more, and the other party won't stand in the way.  What the hell kind of a choice is that?

    We have every right to bitch and moan about this, and it's completely logical and rational to want to push around the party that's closer to us on the major issues.

    •  Becuase (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      goldberry, cfaller96

      It is recommended because this is a partisan blog, not a progressive blog.

      I think I read that in a manual somewhere.  It can get you banned.

      •  No difference, IMO (0+ / 0-)

        I think what you meant to say is that this is an electoral blog, not a partisan blog.  There's a difference.

        Partisanship or Progressivism or Liberalism or whatever you want to call it, can be reduced to some core principles that will be fought for, even at the expense of elections and votes.  The core principles drive partisans, progressives, and liberals.

        Loyalists, on the other hand, have no principles to stand in, except to win elections.  That's it.  It's hollow, slightly distasteful, and in the eyes of the American public at large, it's unpopular.  And they know this.

        So they try and hide their unprincipled view of politics and governance behind a wall of "pragmatism" and throw over the wall haybales of "Naderite" and "circular firing squad" smears.  Lovely.

        I don't mind these jackasses hitching a ride on our bandwagon, but how do we make sure they're NEVER behind the steering wheel again?

    •  I have no idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taylormattd

      It's not even one of my best.  
      As to Obama and Clinton keeping their plans vague, how did you logically jump to the conclusions that their plans involve bipartisanship?  My point was that with the GOP lock on the media, neither candidate's plans would get a fair hearing.  They would be distorted and mocked until the public discards them as unworkable.  I am content knowing that either one of these two highly intelligent people will work diligently to extract us from Iraq in the best way possible.  It might not be quick enough for MY tastes but I believe they have our national security in mind and will do their best.  
      Yeah, the world is in a bad spot right now.  I think it's been just as bad in the past but we weren't alive then.  The 14th century was truly awful.  But I believe we can still fix things.  I would rather do it calmly than with my hair on fire.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:37:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reread your sentence (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TracieLynn, dus7

        where you say "Democrats can't do it on their own."

        Bullshit.  Some problems MUST be solved by Democrats, or not solved at all.  The Iraq War must be ended by Democrats, or not ended at all.  Global Warming must be mitigated by Democrats, or not mitigated at all.  Universal Health Care legislation must be forced by Democrats, or not passed at all.  Some problems demand Democrats do it on their own, or they are left unsolved.

        WRT the Iraq War plans, the problem I had with that sentence is the inherent fear you have of a plan that presumably the American people will support.  Think about that for the moment.  You're willing to sacrifice the will of the majority in order to satisfy a special interest group (the corporate media).

        That's just bad governance, along with an unhealthy amount of fear of the media.  The Media as we knew it during the Clinton and Decider years is dying and becoming increasingly irrelevant.  Their slant on the Iraq War and other issues has merely accelerated the pressure on them to either adapt or die.  Catering to the old ways of the media is a backwards-looking strategy, and it comes at the expense of votes in the election.

        Yes yes, I would rather solve these problems calmly than with my hair on fire, but reality has an odd habit of forcing change on us, sometimes sooner than we're ready.  Whether we want to stop the killing and save our military and our treasury by withdrawing from Iraq, calmly or otherwise, our military can only hold out for so long before we have helicopters lifting off the embassy roof.  Whether we want to do something about Global Warming, calmly or otherwise, we only have 10 years to do it.  And on and on.

        Some problems are real and urgent, and thus can ONLY be solved by Democrats.  And if some Democrats don't want to solve these problems, then they should get out of the way.  I'm sorry if this doesn't conform to your ideals of political congeniality, but there it is.  These problems must get solved soon, or not at all.

    •  I'd Smite the Stoopid Thing If I Could (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cfaller96

      The diarist is guilty of the same thing he/she decries.

      Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

      by InquisitiveRaven on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:02:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Say what? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chumley, dunderhead, okamichan13

    Put pressure on Republicans? That is what we expect the Democrats in power to do.  The word is leadership.  We elected them to lead.  They need to get in front of the cameras, call Bush a liar, the surge a failure, defense contractors corrupt, and slam them at every turn.  Why is the responsibility suddenly shifted from those in office to us lowly peons to pressure Republicans?

    Someone in our party has to assume a leadership position and say we will not be afraid of our enemies at home or our political operative enemies in the White House.  Where have you seen any posts in opposition to this point?  It seems like that is the point of kidoakland's diary and many others as well.

    If you must beat up on a Democrat, direct your ire towards Steny Hoyer?  You mean all the problems to confront the Bush and the Republicans can be traced to Hoyer?  Hoyer is the defactor Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader all rolled up in one?  Who picked Steny to be House Majority Leader?  I didn't get a vote on that one.  Did you?

    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

    by DWG on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

  •  Brian Baird is a 'Surge' Protector (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, DelRPCV, LaFajita

    Progressive money helped elect Brian Baird to the House.  Now he's a 'Surge' protector.

    I hope he enjoys his time on television.  I hope Democrats in Washington find a great candidate to challenge him in the primary.

  •  "They don't have the numbers." (7+ / 0-)

    It reminds me of the whole "we don't have the votes to impeach" fiasco.

    Democrats in Congress never will have the numbers until they figure out that you bring people along with you when you show strong leadership.

    I get the feeling that all it would take is a few weeks of Democrats standing up and saying "NO" to the loaded questions and the frame-shopping to get the general populace out from under it as well.

    Let it be a headline. Let the media "catch" you refusing to cooperate and try to make a big deal out of it. Stoke the fire. Then, when they get you on the air to grill you about it, use the time to tell the truth instead of playing the game they want you to.

    People are already itching for a complete political turnaround in this country, and they don't even know the half of what's been going on. Imagine if those in office made a concerted effort to tell them.

    And the Nancy Pelosi issue is simply one of a broken pledge, one that meant something to the people she made it to. If she never meant to be a presence here and engage with us, then she shouldn't have promised to.

    The other issues are subjective, but that one's a pretty easy call, as far as I'm concerned.

  •  I'm not buying it. (12+ / 0-)

    First of all, way to caricature your fellow bloggers:

    The top recommended diary is one that smacks Nancy Pelosi around because she refuses to come and listen to our petulent demands.  

    Kos takes Obama and Clinton to task for not jumping up right now, right now, I say and disclosing to us and the American public everything they are thinking about Iraq.

    Kid Oakland mopes that nobody listens to us anymore and that we've been used by our guys.  

    These are insulting and petty characterizations of the arguments put forth by these writers.  In no sense could KO's diary be construed a "mope," for example, unless you wanted to score cheap points.  

    As to your larger points -- how many times does the "we don't have the numbers" argument have to be addressed?  True, Democrats don't have to numbers to make unilateral decisions, and change things in a heartbeat.

    But they're not making good use of the numbers they have.  And on the whole, they're making terrible use of the bully pulpit vis-a-vis the Iraq situation.  

    You say:

    All this venting might feel good but it doesn't get us anywhere and it looks really bad in the media. It makes Democrats look weak and divided and it makes the Republican stubborness look strong.  

    [then later...]

    So, why are you beating up on Democrats for at least trying to compromise?  The media has been on their case to compromise for months now.  The GOP wurlitzer rolls out the "support the troops" meme until every stay-at-home mom knows what it means. And now, the White House has another OBL tape to pull out just at the convergence of funding bills and surge reports and 9/11.

    You act like the Democrats have been forced into a vow of silence.  Sure, the Republicans have been relentlessly framing their bullshit for years, but it can and should be smacked down.  Too many Democrats fear that like the plague.  

    They're risk-averse.  Dick Durbin and Harry Reid tossed in their cards this timre without even making a rhetorical fight of it.  

    I really don't want to hear from the "realists" anymore until I see elected Democrats crawling the media, duking it out with every bullshit Republican talking point.  "It's really hard" is no excuse. People are getting blown apart.  I haven't a bit of sympathy for Democrats who won't sat damn the torpedoes, and stop worrying about being criticized.

    There's no shame in losing, if the numbers make it impossible (and they're NOT impossible for everything, like defunding).  There's a LOT of shame in not giving it their all.

    IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

    by chumley on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:38:56 PM PDT

    •  I'm in it to win it (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, otto, YellowDogBlue, ChiGirl88

      Losing, IMHO, is not an option.  But I am not going to get there by beating up my allies while ignoring my enemies.  
      Your mileage may vary.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:41:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice: don't address anything in the post (5+ / 0-)

        I am not going to get there by beating up my allies while ignoring my enemies.  

        How about all the allies you beat up in your diary post? And the commenter above points out that you slanted the arguments in your diary and you ignore that? By saying "losing is not an option?"

        What? What?

        "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

        by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:00:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Plesae point out where I advocating losing it? (8+ / 0-)

        That's not an argument, that's an unsupported assertion.  We're talking about HOW to win it... and what "it" is.  So spare me the simpleton construction of "I want to win, and you don't."  It's insulting, and gets us nowhere.

        Which brings me back to...

        But I am not going to get there by beating up my allies while ignoring my enemies.  

        And yet you DO beat up your allies, in this vrey diary.  Is that irony lost on you? You start by calling out three diarists, all Democrats who want to "win." Kid Oakland is a tireless activist, and yet you treat him like a whining little chump.

        Why do YOU beat up your allies?  

        As for "ignoring my enemies..."

        Sorry Goldberry, I can't take this seriously.  Are you honestly contending that this site -- and the liberal blogosphere in general -- IGNORES the crimes, misdemeanors, foibles, and general revoltingness of Bush and the Repulbicans?   Even allowing for a bit of hyperbole, that's just ridiculous.  

        Stop pushing cartoons.  We're all adults here.

        IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

        by chumley on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:02:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But Diarist Can do no wrong, doncha know? (0+ / 0-)

          Save your breath point out the blantant hypocrisy this diarist is exhibiting.

          "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

          by BentLiberal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:01:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  We are Dems here too (4+ / 0-)

        and you seem to beat up on a lot of people here for having the audacity to demand that our representatives actually represent us.

        Not buying it either.

        Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

        by okamichan13 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:48:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As an aside (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    Since you brought it up:

    "And now the White House is rolling out the big guns: a new Osama bin Laden video, just in time for 9/11.  Just the thing to reinforce the association of Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, World Trade Center, falling bodies, falling buildings, falling debris...[]"

    I wanna know how it iz that yet another Bin Hidin' video is supposed to cause us to quake in our shoes and reach for the duct tape?  I think BushCo really believes that having The Bogey Man come out and rattle sabers at us on "Nine 'Leven" will "remind" us of just how "dangerous" the world still is out there.

    Ummmm...might this not backfire a bit?  Doesn't this just highlight how the Bush Admin has not gotten this criminal?  Isn't there a big risk to Bush that the American voters are gonna feel enraged at how much of our national treasury has been squandered killing innocent Iraqis while letting the Planet's Most Wanted comfortably recover from his whatever-illness and come back in front of the TV cameras yet again, six damn years later??  

    Somebody, please tell me that American citizens en bloc are just not such baaaa-baaaa passive sheeple as they were on October 11th, 2001.  Seriously...

  •  It's called shaping the agenda (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, dus7

    How can you expect to stay away from negative comments about the democratic leadership and only attack republicans? The last thing the leadership needs to hear right now is approval.

    The republicans are toast. Forget them. If you want to put some real fire in the campaign you tell the democratic leadership just what a bunch of fuckups they have been acting like.

    If Obama and Clinton are harboring a policy on Iraq that in any way maintains our current image of imperialists then they are to be removed from consideration for the presidency.

    So far, the only candidate who I can't find reason to disagree with, and as far as I can tell has a picture of reality that I can relate to is Kucinich.

    Everyone says he's not electable, so based on that I'll be wasting one for for him because I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for a pretender.

    The same people who want Libby free are the same people who rule out amnesty for illegals.

    by MouseOfSuburbia on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:44:11 PM PDT

  •  If the Dems don't want to get chewed on... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, DelRPCV

    ... then they shouldn't do the things that get them chewed on.

    Anyone who isn't outraged isn't paying attention.

    by lambertstrether on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:45:15 PM PDT

  •  So So Pitiful.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....and we thought the sun revolved around Kossackland.

    "I used to be Snow White, but I drifted."

    by pere on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:45:31 PM PDT

  •  Would you prefer (0+ / 0-)

    the lock-step mentality of the Republicans?

    That's why I'm no longer a Republican.

    Now, I'm not a Dem yet, and unless the ones without spines get mowed down in the circular firing squad, I'm not likely ever to be one.

    So don't tremble from the forces that attempt to first remove the mote in your own eye, messy as it may be.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.
    Goodness Gracious

    by BalanceSeeker on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:47:12 PM PDT

    •  There is only one vote that counts here (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, ChiGirl88, BalanceSeeker

      It is the president's.  As long as he can veto, we can not override- UNLESS Republicans join us.  
      For us to even have a prayer of getting an override, Nancy has to get everyone in her caucus to vote the same way.  When it comes to Iraq, I do expect them to vote in lock step.  Some things are just that black and white.  That is why I am royally PO'd at the Blue Dogs.  Because even if we can't attract enough votes from Republicans, it makes ALL of the Democrats look ineffectual.  So, it is right to go after Hoyer and his band of losers.  But it can not be the only approach we take because unless we also attack Republicans, we aren't going to get anywhere.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:04:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        also attack Republicans, but I don't see much lack of that here on DKos.  It seems to me the lack of that in the Dem leadership is the reason the firing squad has turned circular.

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.
        Goodness Gracious

        by BalanceSeeker on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:14:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not so (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave925, Habitat Vic

        The Democrats can decide to not bring forward a bill.

        It take 51 votes in the Senate to pass a bill.

        If no Democrats vote for it there is no funding.

        The leaders decide the calendar. If the leaders don't bring the bill forward, there is no funding.

        A veto can not create funding. Congress must authorize the funds.

        No time table for withdrawal, no funds. Period.

        We shall overcome, someday.

        by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:25:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  On MTP, Kos spoke the truth (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChiGirl88, goldberry

    when he said that troops will be in Iraq as long as Bush is president.

    Bush ordered the troops in. He is never going to order them out. Never.

    Do you remember Robert Pirsig's description of the monkey trap in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." You put a bean in a bottle and tie the bottle to a stake in the ground. Monkey (in this case, "chimp-in-chief") stick his hand in to grab the bean,  thus makin a fist that is too big to big to pull out the top of the bottle. Monkey refuses to let go of the bean, no matter what.

    Even if the Dems vote to cut off funding, Bush won't let go of the bean. It will only change the terms of the debate to whether the Dems support the troops. It won't bring the troops home. And that is the real goal, right?

    Yes, let's criticize our candidates for timidity, but let's also take every opportunity to ram home the fact that this is a Republican quagmire fiasco.

  •  I see your point, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    technically, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, decides what bills the House can vote on.  If she doesn't allow a vote on any spending bills that don't have provisions to get our troops out of Iraq, that in effect cuts off funding.  If Republicans want a spending bill, they'll have to accept something that starts the process of getting troops out.  That way they'd have to capitulate to us rather than the other way around.  That's how it's supposed to work when you're the majority.

  •  "petulent demands?" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Driscoll, YetiMonk

    Listen, petulant demands or not, she "pledged" that she would come to this site.

    As far as I'm concerned it's yet another empty promise from the Dem leadership who think that getting to their position IS the prize.

    The fact that she can't stomach coming here matches up quite nicely with her inability to stand up to the Repubs.

    There is no avant-garde. There are only people who are a little late. - Edgar Varese - Go Sulu!

    by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:03:22 PM PDT

    •  Sorry, I'm not biting (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sure she gives us as much attention as she can afford.  She has teleconferences with some of the higher level bloggers and I would be very surprised if they didn't give it to her straight.  Louise Slaughter speaks for her quite frequently.  I'm not at all upset that she isn't coming here every week to hash it out.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:07:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly, I'm not that upset about the "pledge" (0+ / 0-)

        either.

        But I do see it as indicative of how she operates, and so far, I'm not diggin' it.

        There is no avant-garde. There are only people who are a little late. - Edgar Varese - Go Sulu!

        by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:17:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't mind her not showing up here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thepdxbikerboy

          if it were because she was busy actually accomplishing stuff in DC. But from where I sit, I see a House that still pretty much does whatever Bush wants it to, and a country that has delved even deeper into the Iraq quagmire than it was a year ago.

          None of this was helped by Speaker Pelosi saying that impeachment was 'off the table'. In light of all we continue to observe and learn about this WH, it's astounding that the Speaker chooses to ignore the only true means of checking Executive Branch excess. That she refuses to return here tells me (and many others) that she's got nuthin'. And that's extremely disappointing.

      •  Excuses or not... (0+ / 0-)

        ...she promised in no uncertain terms to be here, and she didn't follow through on it.

        "Teleconferences with some of the higher level bloggers"? What does that mean? The high-tech equivalent of the smoke-filled room where important discussions and decisions happen?

        The reason many found it significant that she pledged to have a presence here was precisely because she was opening herself up to feedback from the whole, messy, noisy community. Surely she knew what she was promising when she promised it.

        I think you might be falling into the same trap as people who think those who criticize the country "hate" the country. Quite the contrary; we know that we can get through to Democrats in office, unlike their Republican counterparts, and we're going to tell it to them as we see it. When you're dealing with matters as weighty as those we have before us these days, we can't tiptoe around the issues.

        We've shown our overwhelming support for the Democrats in the past, so they should know where our sympathies lie. I don't think they're forgetting all that just because we're not letting them make bad decisions, show bad leadership and use bad strategy.

        If they do, then maybe our sympathy was misplaced.

    •  Why should she if she's going to be slimed (0+ / 0-)

      with insults and foul language? I've seen how other elected Democrats have tried to come here in the past, and many of them have been greeted with insults and name-calling? So why should they waste their time with posters who act in a juvenile fashion?

      Maybe that's part of the reason she doesn't want to come here. Why waste her time dealing with a group of people who will only post insulting comments toward her?

  •  Wake up (5+ / 0-)

    why are you beating up on Democrats for at least trying to compromise?

    Apparently you haven't been paying attention, because if you had you'd know by now that whenever the Dems talk about 'compromise', it becomes capitulation. I ask you, what has Bush or the Republicans ever actually compromised on their part in the past 6 years? Nothing, that's what. That's because Dem leaders are getting swindled every time they try to 'compromise'.

    Pelosi deserves some scorn for her capitulations as well. Please don't defend bad behavior, it's very unbecoming.

    •  I don't approve (0+ / 0-)

      of compromise on this matter either but that is what the Beltway demanded for months and months.  I think by compromising as much as they did, they have clearly demonstrated that the Republicans are never going to move on Iraq.  The problem seems to be that the message is not getting through.  We are still beating up on the Democrats instead of Republicans.  If stern and demanding didn't work and negotiation isn't going to work, why continue to harrangue Democrats?  
      Make a Republican uncomfortable instead.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:33:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  At least talk to us and explain to us (0+ / 0-)

    We need to know first hand like a town hall meet, their explanation and they need to listen to our explanation.

    35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

    by timber on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:29:19 PM PDT

  •  Republican Meme Much? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YetiMonk, mcartri

    Kos is calling them out. And he should.  Hillary and Obama need to make statements and soon.  But attacking fellow Democrats is not the way to go and Edwards' statement did a masterful job of laying it all the Dem's feet.  Oh, I'm not saying he doesn't have a point but this is not a problem Democrats can solve all on their own

    Dick Durbin doesn't agree with ya.

    Lots and lost of constitutional scholars don't agree with ya.

    Lots of folks in Left Blogistan don't agree with ya.

    The Democrats can and must stop this war.

    How.

    The power of the purse.

    Why.

    See John Edwards statement today: 'There has been no political progress made by the Iraqis during 'The Surge'. Further, they are not even trying.'

    So keep giving the likes of Reid, Schumer and Miss Nancy, The Hill, Mr. Hope and the rest of the loser, centrist bullshitters all the political cover you want to that's part of the freedom of discussion we in Left Blogistan believe in.

    But don't for a moment think the rest of us are buying the:

    'It's the nasty ReThuglicans...' meme.

    We don't care about them. We care about the folks we helped win a majority in both Houses only too see them....

    Do nothing with it.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:32:33 PM PDT

    •  Hokay, one more time (0+ / 0-)

      Are you telling me that the Democrats have been in office for 10 months and have NO IDEA that they can use the "power of the purse" to stop the war?  
      No.  
      They know this.  They have been told this over and over again.  They go on MTP and discuss this with Pumpkinhead.  
      And Yet, they have not exercised this option.  It is so brilliantly simple to do.  There is no doubt that they would like to end the war and yet they will not cut off funds.  
      Edwards says they should just do it and we all agree that all they should.
      But they won't.
      Now why is that?  
      Well, I suspect it's because the GOP has been very successful wiht the "support the troops" message AND they just spent a mint running ads in their own districts in an attempt to intimidate their GOP senators and reps from straying.  
      I guess we can continue to scream at them to cut off funds for another 10 months, just as Edwards suggests (I am more and more convinced that I will not like voting for this man if he wins the nomination) but the evidence suggests that if it hasn't worked by now, it isn't GOING to work.  
      They could do it to make a point.  But it will be vetoed.  
      No, the solution to this problem is to break the Republican line and get some of them to be so afraid of losing their seats that they jump to our side.  
      Now, how is that going to happen if we continue to target Democrats with our anger and not Republicans?  
      Take your time....

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:44:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you really haven't been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dus7

        paying close attention if you really believe all of this.

        Simply put, Democratic leadership has been beyond appalling. Enough excuses. Enough apologetics.

      •  Yawn.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....your needle is stuck in one groove.

        Ten months?

        Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaahhhh...choke..gasp...

        Google how long it took to get out of Vietnam.

        The Founders created a structure for our government which precludes quick action. That's not, repeat not a bug, it's a feature homes.

        Now, we might not like it...but there it is.

        Like many you seem to think that this is  supposed to end on the half-hour like yer fav TV program. It won't.

        I'm not going to go thru all the reason's this clusterfuck is...well, fucked.

        I'll just point out one thing...

        if it hasn't worked by now, it isn't GOING to work.  

        You are misconstruing the past for the future. As for getting some Republicans to 'go along' with cutting off the funding. That's a long shot but there are folks working on that.

        But...

        I can walk and chew gum at the same time so I think we can pressure the Bush Dogs and Obama and Hillary to get behind this action.

        Oh...wait...Hillary just did.

        So.....

        A lot less yelling and dismissive rhetoric which would be more at home in GooperLand and a lot less bullshit about how successful the ReThugs are.

        The problems in the Senate and House on this issue are 'Democrat' party problems.

        And I suggest you study up on David Sirota and 'The Money Party vs. The People Party'. His meme is a useful one.

        'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

        by Nestor Makhnow on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:21:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  what's the point in winning if it's not worth (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    iliketodrum, Assaf

    anything?

    eventually, what's right becomes popular

    by mediaprisoner on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:36:35 PM PDT

  •  You make some good points (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChiGirl88, goldberry

    Democrats don't have the frickin' numbers.  You can't squeeze blood from a stone. I love to pound my head on the wall because it feels so good when I stop. All this venting might feel good but it doesn't get us anywhere and it looks really bad in the media. It makes Democrats look weak and divided and it makes the Republican stubbornness look strong.  

    I've argued this point until I have been blue in the face here. They don't have the votes. It's that simple. They can't get the votes to override Bush. And I think that some people here have had unrealistic expectations from the outset about their ability to stop Bush on the war.

    I'm just as disgusted with the Blue Dogs as anyone but the mixed messages their constituents are sending them probably has a lot to do with their reticence.  "Stop the War!  Stop it right now!  Bring them home!  But don't do anything that would hurt the troops."  What's a congressperson to do?

    When I think about why Democrats are holding back, I keep coming back to the same place: constituents are still fearful.  It is no coincidence that Osama is making a reappearance next week.  It is a perfect syzygy of fear, surge, 9/11.  The argument that is being made is that the surge is the only thing that stands between Al Qaeda and defenseless Americans.  We need to continue the war to protect ourselves.  And if we pull out the troops now, we leave ourselves and THEM vulnerable to attack.  

    And despite everyone's hatred for the Blue Dogs there are some unconformable truths. First of all many of these Blue Dogs represent congressional districts and states where Bush is still (relatively) popular. They represent constituencies that are still (somewhat) supportive of the war and the Bush administration. They are not going to vote like a Democrat better suited for an urban district in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, or Seattle. In most cases they represent moderate to conservative districts in the interior of this country, where "progressive politics" (as envisioned by some people on this site) just don't sell.

    Furthermore, the other issue is that while the public has turned against the war, even in many red states, they are divided on how to leave. The number of Americans favoring "cutting off the funding" and "leaving immediately" is not as large as those who have turned against the war. In essence they are not synonymous with each other. Many people on this site fail to make that distinction.

    Secondly, when it comes to both the leadership and the Blue dogs, they don't want the troops to go without. Even though "cutting off the funds" doesn't make the troops go without, the public believes that. The public doesn't understand--nor does it care to understand--the intricacies of the legislative process. They equate "cutting off the funding" with "cutting off the troops". They don't understand that the funds come from different appropriation sources.

    Most people here still ignore the central fact that, once the Democrats "cut off the funding", or if the issue turns into a stalemate a la the 1995 government shutdown, the media, right-wing talk radio, Bush, and the GOP leadership start slamming the Democrats "for not funding the troops". Bush and the Republicans start blaming Democrats for "killing the troops". All Bush has to do is find one grieving set of parents to come on TV sobbing that the "Democrats killed their son or daughter because they defunded the troops". All Bush has to do is find one gravely injured soldier to come on TV sobbing that the "had the Democrats funded the troops and not played politics, he might not have lost his/her arm". This is the message that would drum out of the GOP and their enables in both right-wing talk radio and the mainstream media would blare 24/7.

    1.) Put pressure on Republicans, especially ones in vulnerable districts like the one I live in, NJ-07.  Mike Ferguson claims to be disgusted with the war but votes with his party all of the time.  Why is that?  Well, as far as I can tell, no one is attacking Ferguson.  They're too busy throwing stones at the Democrats. That's got to change.

    2.) Someone in our party has to assume a leadership position and say we will not be afraid of our enemies at home or our political operative enemies in the White House.  It is time to stop being afraid and do the right thing even if the GOP has a royal hissy fit.  And it is time for the GOP congresspeople who have been intimidated by their leadership to wake up and smell the coffee and join us.  

    3.) If you must beat up on a Democrat, direct your ire towards Steny Hoyer.  It is small minds like his and the other Blue Dogs that are undermining Pelosi.  This really pisses me off.  She is the Speaker but they are acting like she doesn't count.  This is just typical male behavior (you women out there know what I'm talking about) but it has no place in Congress.  If she is Speaker, they'd better fall into line.  It's hard enough keeping 220+ Congresscritters in order without Steny and his middle aged white male attitude f$%^*ing things up.  They act like they can just ignore her whenever they feel like the 'support the troops' crap is ruffling their feathers. Steny's and the other Blue Dog's behavior shows absolutely no respect for her and I really resent it.  So, get Steny on the hot seat.

     

    And this is what I have argued. I have argued going after vulnerable Republicans, making them choose between supporting Bush and losing at the polls in 2008 or finding a new direction in Iraq.

    •  We have the majority in the House (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, mcartri

      If Democrats don't like a bill they don't have to pass it.

      No time table for withdrawal no bill.

      We shall overcome, someday.

      by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:46:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gee, how come this is so hard to understand? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      otto, ChiGirl88

      Are we just a weird minority?  I'm going to chalk this up to Kossack baitball frenzy.  I think when the fury wears off, they'll see that they need to change their tactics.  
      I hope.

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:49:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

        I hate to say this, but I think that some people are just impossible to please. Some people just don't want to accept political reality for what is. I've tried to explain that until I've been blue in the face here. It doesn't work. You just can't reason with people who just don't and won't understand.

    •  thank you (0+ / 0-)

      And despite everyone's hatred for the Blue Dogs there are some unconformable truths. First of all many of these Blue Dogs represent congressional districts and states where Bush is still (relatively) popular. They represent constituencies that are still (somewhat) supportive of the war and the Bush administration. They are not going to vote like a Democrat better suited for an urban district in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, or Seattle. In most cases they represent moderate to conservative districts in the interior of this country, where "progressive politics" (as envisioned by some people on this site) just don't sell.

      THANK YOU. I think a lot of people miss this point when they bash the Blue Dogs or talk about primary-ing them.

      I happen to remember when this site  and its members supported Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, and when it supported '06 candidates like Mike Arcuri, Gabrielle Giffords, Chris Carney, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Kirsten Gillibrand, Baron Hill, Nick Lampson, Patrick Murphy, Heath Shuler, Zack Space, and Charlie Wilson. We celebrated when these Dems won, as well we should have, because they helped us get in the majority.  These former candidates are now all Blue Dogs, and we can't wait to just rip on them left and right. When they vote the way we want them to, however, we suddenly forget our ire.  For instance, Dennis Moore, who is one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs, voted against the FISA bill and came out in support of impeaching Gonzales, yet he and others like him are constantly battered on this site, as if no one remembers that they live in tough districts and thus are elected as moderates. I'm sick of the constant attacks on Democrats on this site.  We should be fighting Republicans, not our own party.

  •  And yet you attack Edwards (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, DelRPCV, moira977, YetiMonk

    for speaking out? LOL? Physician, heal thyself.

    Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

    by okamichan13 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:47:14 PM PDT

    •  Not attacking him (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChiGirl88

      I understand why he's doing it.  He is rallying his base.  It's necessary if he wants to win.  But he is taking certain risks by putting so much of his plan out there for the GOP to start to discredit.  
      In a way, the media blackout of his campaign has forced him to go this route.  
      On the other hand, his targetting of Democrats is not going to endear them to him when they all have to campaign together next year.  He's making them look weak.  Not the message you want to send if you want your party in the majority.  But if you want to channel your base's anger over the choices the Blue Dogs has pushed your Congress into making, this is the way to do it.  
      It's working brilliantly.  The Kossacks are eating right out of his hands.  But what has he said that actually makes it more likely that Congress will do what they need to do?  Is there anything new or original?  Or is he simply giving you a place to direct your anger and frustration?  
      I'm not jumping on his bandwagon until he gives me a way out of this mess and IMHO, bashing Congressional Democrats isn't going to be enough.  
      Your mileage may vary.  
      BTW, Kos has been wrong before.  It happens.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:56:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Physician heal thyself (5+ / 0-)

    your whole diary is a circular firing squad. Criticizing Kossacks (and Edwards) for saying things you don't like. For actually having the audacity to demand that our representatives do something radical - represent.

    Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

    by okamichan13 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:50:42 PM PDT

  •  Goddamnit, man. This statement is BS - (9+ / 0-)

    It makes Democrats look weak ...

    What makes the democrats look weak is BEING weak. It's their duty to be strong, and ours to beat the shit out of them when they're not.

    Screw that conciliatory crap. That sounds like Hillary and Obama.

    We need to "take back our party" - John Edwards.

    •  ronlib, I've added one word to your title (0+ / 0-)

      "Goddammit, man. This statement is [PURE] BS-" I will keep bashing the Democrats as long as they keep voting like Republicans. Did I miss something in the results of the Nov. 2006 elections? Apologists for the spineless Democrats, stand at attention. Your President wants to spit in your face and tell you it's raining.

  •  Thank you!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    otto, ChiGirl88

    I touched the Universe -- And back it slid -- and I alone -- A Speck upon a Ball -- Went out upon Circumference -- Beyond the Dip of Bell --

    by Elise on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:51:45 PM PDT

  •  There's no circular squad -there's huge consensus (8+ / 0-)

    that Pelosi and the party "leaders" are failing to represent the people in general as well as dissing this particular community.  Folks are making plenty of thoughtful points, mostly not against each other.

    It only looks "circular" to those who think party "leaders" should consistently overrule 60% of voters and 80% of Democrats on every important issue.

    To call consensus about change a "circular firing squad" is just the spin we've come to expect from some folks here, but that's what weakens us when we should be gaining strength in our numbers and taking a hard look at the truth, even if it means change within the party.

  •  most of us would be happy with stalemate. What we (4+ / 0-)

    are getting is unmitigated capitulation. And now as I am typing this there is a bullshit commercial on CNN about 9/11  surge  9/11

    where are the messages from the Dems, this is the fucking NYC market and they are here where they don't stand a fucking chance.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:56:35 PM PDT

    •  toldja (0+ / 0-)

      9/11, OBL, BOO!  
      Be afraid, be very afraid.  Those nasty al qaeda people are going to CUT your head off if we bring the troops home.  
      Ya' know, sometimes, being right is not all it's made out to be.

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:13:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah if they are stupid enough to believe this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        goldberry

        bullshit. OBL not talking about the koran but instead Chompsky. It's fucking ridiculous as L.C. Johnson's diary points out.

        To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

        by Tanya on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:28:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ooo, that's clever (0+ / 0-)

          Chomsky the pacifist.  Lay down your arms.  Yep, I can see why the Bushies held this one til now.  It plays right into the idea that if we leave Iraq and study war no more, we are vulnerable to terrorists like OBL.  
          Wicked.  
          I gotta hand it to them, they are really good at stirring up the shadow archetypes buried in the minds of the average joe.  
          It's positively occult.  

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:32:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wrong analogy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, InquisitiveRaven, mcartri

    It's not a circular firing squad.  It's tug of war, and we've been losing badly ever since the election.  Y'all may be happy with a blank check, but I'm not.  Their credit is no good anymore, and it's time for results.  I'd much rather see another diary about how much the Democratic leadership sucks -- which, by the way, it does -- than another diary about blog triumphalism or some re-hash of an AP wire story.  And if they go along with war with Iran, they are war criminals and will deserve to be tried as such.  I'd say some criticism on a blog is awfully mild compared to what they deserve.

    When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

    by DelRPCV on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:57:28 PM PDT

  •  Don't Have the Numbers. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, John Driscoll, mcartri

    Who cares?

    Bring it up for a vote.  Today.  Tomorrow.  The day after that.

    Make the bastards go on the record as supporting Bush, whether it's Holy Joe, Sam Brownback or whoever.

    Even I'd like to see who is on what side of the vote.  Since the Dem leadership seems to want to wring their hands and whine "we don't have the votes," I say...

    "Shut up and try anyway!"

    "Try again."

    "And again."

    "And again."

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:58:01 PM PDT

  •  Circular firing squad? (7+ / 0-)

    We're not even close to being in the same "circle" as the jerk-off Dems in DC.

    It's called holding their feet to the fire for utterly lacking principles, ideas and balls.

  •  answering your own question (4+ / 0-)

    But the GOP reason for being until 2008 is to frustrate Democrats in any way possible.  The president will ALWAYS veto and the Republicans will ALWAYS back him up.  They announced this as their intended modus operandi on Fox News right after the 2006 election.  Their base LOVES it because they think Democrats are the enemy.

    So, why are you beating up on Democrats for at least trying to compromise?  The media has been on their case to compromise for months now.  The GOP wurlitzer rolls out the "support the troops" meme until every stay-at-home mom knows what it means.  And now, the White House has another OBL tape to pull out just at the convergence of funding bills and surge reports and 9/11.  

    Why beat up on Democrats for trying to compromise?  Maybe because, as you admit, the only thing the Republicans are going to do is obstruct any and all Democratic efforts.  Which means trying to compromise with them is the height of stupidity.  Compromising with those who won't compromise with you accomplishes nothing but making you look weak and foolish.

  •  This is BS. (6+ / 0-)

    I am sick
    Of criticism being couched in the corporate establishment frame of "Circular Firing Squad(tm)" rhetoric.

    Some people around here better get something straight. Crashing the Gate involves breaking some eggshells to make electoral omlets. You are either interested in electing Democrats that reflect a modern vision of a progressive America based on the the constitution and progressive values or you aren't. Success does not mean more D's than R's if all you end up with is more of the same. Success does not mean leaving BushDogs(tm) alone just because they have "D" after their name. If that is your vision of success than you are going to feel really successful come next summer when you see so called 'moderate' R's switching to the Democratic Party in order to save their Congressional Health Plan Coverage. By that same token, the whole reason for this website is to rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up and to surgicaly remove the cancer of DLC Dems from the party, which ARE NOT Really Dems at all. If anything they are merely, at best, Eisenhauer Republicans.

    Nobody, including Markos, ever said this was going to happen overnight, or in one or two election cycles. It is almost generational. It is realisticly going to take a very long time.

    All of that being said. If OUR elected 'leaders', such as Nancy Pelosi aren't willing to listen to us, than who the hell is she representing, and why should we protect her? I am sick of being told that if we don't protect her, then we will end up with more Denny Hastert or Tom Delay. Things are different now. We and a whole helluva lot more Americans are talking to each other. Crashing the Gates means throwing the "Gate Keepers" of the DEMOCRATIC party aside. Not the Rethugs. Screw the so called "conservatives" their time is over, the jig is up. Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Leahy, et. al., are acting EXACTLY how we expected them to act. That is EXACTLY WHY we are here!
    I got my own problems. I am in the CA 28th, Berman (D,MPAA,RIAA). I watched some C-Span this morning as he was pushing through "U.S. Patent Reform" that looked extremely scary. Of course, I don't have any knowledge of exactly what the minute details of what was happening, but there was a progressive sounding female Dem Rep from Ohio named Marcy something or ever that was opposed to it because she called them out on the fact that it was big money lobbyists from Adobe, Microsoft, Sony, Apple etc., that was driving the Legislation. Conyers was also there in his white blazer (After Labor day John?) pushing this through.

    It is the "Lions" of the Democratic Party that are leftovers from the bad old days of the 70's and 80's that we have to get rid of. Remember all of the wonderful talk of "Constitution in Crisis" from Conyers and Durbin?

    We HAVE to stop couching this debate in the "Circular Firing Squad(tm)" Framing of the corporate MSM. It infers that everything would be OK, if we would just leave the establishment Dems alone. It completely misrepresents the truth of the matter, which is that, it is this EXACT INACTION and FAILURE TO STAND AND FIGHT which is CAUSING the loss of elections by the Democratic Party.

    It is NOT our criticism that will lose us more elections. It is the failure to act by those in office in the interest of those that put them in in the first place. It causes a huge demoralyzation in those that are energised to change the system.....which, when you boil it all down, is exactly what they DON'T want to do. The DC Leadership wants things to stay just the way it is. It has kept them in office for Decades.

    In closing, I am locked and loaded.

    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

    by irishamerican on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:11:15 PM PDT

  •  Dems need feet held to fire (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, John Driscoll

    We will never make progress in this country until we can start ridding ourselves of Democrats who are destroying our cause. So we need to push to get all of the "Bush Dog" democrats out of Congress, to challenge them in primaries, as moveon.org is hopefully on a path to do.

    But our leadership is woefully inadequate as well. Nancy Pelosi clearly wants us out of the war in Iraq. But what was she doing rushing through a vote on the FISA bill giving Bush even more power to destroy our civil liberties. It was rushed through so fast that no one voting on it even had any idea of what they were voting for. The only thing I can think is that this was sheer cowardice.

    Yes, lets fight the Republicans and try to elect more "good" Dems to office. But fighting Republicans will be useless if we don't change the Democrats, because the way the Democratic Party is now it is completely worthless. I'd guess we need at least 80% of the Democratice congresspeople to be supportive of progressive causes before we start to see positive change in this country. We are far below that right now.

  •  It's tough (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank, hopscotch1997, ChiGirl88, Elise

    It's really hard to write a diary like this.  

    Everytime I open this webpage- I open it every day, all day- I see so much frustration with Democrats in congress.  

    But, when I look at how the votes go down, Democrats are mostly voting for the things I want.  Republicans, on the other hand, are voting against the things I want.  

  •  Here here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise

    I've made a bunch of comments recently that pretty much say the same thing: stop attacking Dems, as it won't change them, and start attacking Repubs, because it WILL.

    And it bothers me that now even OBL has started to parrot some of these attacks on Dems by fellow Dems in his latest video, which the GOP is sure to tout next week:

    "One should pause, think and reflect," the speaker says, according to the transcript. "Why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?"

    The answer to that question, he later says, is "the same reasons which led to the failure of former President Kennedy to stop the Vietnam War. Those with with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment -- and there isn't any -- in the Democrats' failure to stop the war."

    Here's another version of the transcript of this tape:

    "People of America:  the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped.  Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning.  On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

    When Bin Laden latches onto Dems' attacking Dems, I start to worry. Not because I give a damn about that lunatic opportunistic scumbag, but because I worry about what the lunatic opportunistic scumbags on the other side of the aisle here in the USA will do with it. It is THEY whom we should be focusing the bulk of our ire and attacks on, not on our side.

    •  Well, I'd say (0+ / 0-)

      OBL would prefer a Republican in office after 2008.

      •  Like I said (0+ / 0-)

        I could care less what HE wants and prefers, and am focused on going after the creeps who are responsible for one, not catching and ENDING him, and two, starting a whole other unnecessary front instead because they could care less about our actual security.

        Enough talk about balls and spine. I want to hear more about necks--as in Republican necks and going after them as we approach '08.

        •  you imply that more d's than r's = change. (0+ / 0-)

          how do you figure that?

          we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

          by 2nd balcony on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:58:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you truly believe in such cynicism (0+ / 0-)

            then you clearly do not belong on this site, which is expressly meant for people who actually believe in the cause of advancing the Democratic party. Check out the FAQ. It's right there in black and white. You might want to spend more time at Nader08.com

          •  And btw, in case you haven't noticed (0+ / 0-)

            Dems have managed to pass quite a few very progressive laws since taking over. Got a problem with raising the minimum wage, expanding health insurance for children, ethics reform, lobbying reform, or stem cell research? Or is it ALL about the war for you?

  •  Dear Kossacks, Thanks and Good Night (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, hopscotch1997, ChiGirl88, FOS

    I understand your anger and fury, both with Congressional Democrats and with this hastily flung together diary.  (If it takes moer than twenty minutes to write, I usually pass.  Thanks for being gentle on the grammar and spelling.)

    It's clear that we are all a bit frustrated and we have different ideas about how to solve the problem.  But we are all on the same side and I'm sure we will think of something.  

    I'm going to go home and watch some "Xena: Warrior Princess"

    Bon soir, mes amis!

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:39:27 PM PDT

    •  I respectfully disagree with your take on things- (0+ / 0-)

      and think we NEED to pressure the Dems.  But grant that you're in your right to air your opinion on things here.  And for that, thanks.

      BenGoshi
      _____________________________________________________

      The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:02:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pressure the right ones (0+ / 0-)

        but don't stop there.  
        We focus too much on what the Dems are doing while ignoring all these contributing factors.  Think about the hyperconcentration has on the general public.  
        Compare and contrast John Edwards' statement to Hillary Clinton's.  If you were a Dem representative next year, who would YOU want to campaign with?  Someone who uses you as a way to score cheap points with the base or someone who puts the focus on the person(s) most responsible for this mess, ie the president?  
        One of these candidates is carefully laying the ground work; one is desperate and is promising the world.  I don't make this stuff up to piss Kossacks off.  I just call it as I see it.    

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:17:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This diary is idiocy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, SarahLee, moira977

    Why should we not be bashing the living shit out of Pelosi, Reid, and other Democrats who ignore our interests?  Are you so naive as to think these assholes actually represent us?  You need to understand that the netroots is awaking to the fact that Democrats -- with very few exceptions -- are COMPLICIT with the Republicans.  

    Complicit on Iraq.

    Complicit on the gutting of habeas corpus.

    Complicit on wiretapping.

    You wonder why people here are bashing these useless Benedict Arnolds?  Because they realize they've been betrayed -- and they are PISSED!

    "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"

    by asskicking annie on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:40:37 PM PDT

  •  It is because you start at home (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, tryptamine, moira977, Mad Mom

    Democrats don't have the frickin' numbers.

    And that is because they refuse to stand up for anything and push progressive agendas.  And stop funding the damned war they never should have let us get into in the first place.

    We have no control over the Republican party.

    The Democratic Party is the only party we have as progressives (unless you want us all to leave and join a 3rd party), so it is our duty to try and make it do something honorable and right.  

    •  At least in a DKos circular firing squad (4+ / 0-)

      Nobody gets killed.

      I'm sure our soldiers would love to trade places with us.

      As it is, they can't....and unless Pelosi & Co. stand up and show some SPINES and say NO MORE MONEY, NO MORE WAR, our troops will keep dying....all because we don't have the NUMBERS?

      F**k that.

      There's right and there's wrong.

      This is no damn time to keep the powder dry.  

      Our soldiers need to come HOME.

      We got your No Spin Zone right here, Mr. Murdoch.

      by Mad Mom on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:00:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  here's an eff you (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    hopscotch1997

    for your racist, sexist comments. WTF is a 'white, male attitude' exactly? This community would not tolerate such comments made about any other group, I hope we don't tolerate it about white males either.

    By the way, Hoyer IS an asshole, but that's beside the point. So again, to the racist, sexist, diarist. Eff you.

    George W. Bush: the WORST President in American history

    by nycdemocrat on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:46:59 PM PDT

    •  Umm, you're wrong but not a troll (0+ / 0-)

      So, whoever threw the TR, kindly remove it.  He's entitled to his opinion.  I received a lot of angry comments tonight.  I must have hit a nerve.  But stuff like this doesn't bother me.  When you write a provocative diary (unintentionally) this kind of response is to be expected.  I am challenging some deeply held beliefs and people get a pissed.  It's no big deal.  
      I know I'm not sexist or racist.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:48:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Dodd and John Edwards (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, moira977, redding888

    Kos was praising Dodd and Edwards at the same time he was criticizing Clinton and Obama, and he was absolutely right to do it. Why shouldn't we demand that the top candidates be outspoken on the biggest issue around? The September report and the supplemental are coming up, and some of the presidential candidates have spoken out about it, while others are strangely silent.

    As for the Pelosi diary, I think it's really unreasonable of people to expect her to post here. Just because she promised to do it, in so many words. Don't they realize how busy she is? In fact, when she made that promise last year, I don't think she could have anticipated just how busy she would be. After all, at that time, she had only been in the House for 19 years.

    45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

    by dconrad on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:49:59 PM PDT

  •  If you don't like it... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, tryptamine, moira977

    Get them to do something.  Just cuz Kos is telling the horrible, terrible truth doesn't make it a firing squad.

    It makes it amazingly stupid that people aren't jumping to correct things.  But no, instead let's just whine about the meanies telling the truth...  that's effective!  Republicans have done it for decades.

    "2009" The end of an error

    by sheddhead on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:07:59 PM PDT

  •  petulent demands? (6+ / 0-)

    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. - Thomas Jefferson

    I hope you're not referring to my Constitution... because I take that very seriously, and I'll smack around anyone that messes with it.  Period.  Either party.  I don't care.

    Once and for all -- 'my side' is the Constitution, law and morality.  I'd like to hope that the Democratic Party is also on this side, but actions speak louder than words.  So far, the action is lacking.

    Anyone against the Constitution of the United States, and my rights as a free citizen, is not on 'my side.'  Anyone who wants to take my freedom away while taking enormous sums of money from corporate America to work against my interests, promote an illegal and immoral war while allowing treasonous acts to go unpunished... will definitely draw my ire.

    We have every right to expect results.  When we don't get them, we have every right - and in fact an obligation to demand answers.  That is how freedom and democracy work.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people; we hold the government accountable.  When 'my side' starts acting like 'their side' than believe me, I'm no longer on either side, but on the side of justice, law and peace.

    I definitely lay this at the feet of the the Blue Dogs.  But Democratic leadership knew about them long before we voters did - they knew they didn't really have a majority, they were willing to win at any cost and with Blue dogs in the mix, and they knew they had no plan to really change anything once they took office.  Impeachment was off the table before the confetti was even swept up last November.  They obviously knew this going in.  The Democratic leadership loves this centrist BS because it makes the corporations happy -- their corporate donors.  But it certainly isn't doing anything for the people of this country, or the people of Iraq, or the environment.

    I don't care about happy corporations -- I want us out of Iraq, I want New Orleans rebuilt and I want our Constitutional rights restored.  None of this is debatable.  And if shame is the only tool I have to get these Democrats to stand up and act like representatives of the people - and to fulfill their campaign promises - than believe me I will use it in liberal doses.  I'm not taking any prisoners.  People are dying in Iraq as I type this comment. I really don't care if Nancy's feelings are hurt.  She's a big girl, and she wanted the job.  The job comes with expectations of results.

    As for things 'looking bad for the media;' the corporations OWN the media. They make the news.  They will spin whatever they want anyway.  Our job is to demand justice, over and over again, media be damned.

  •  Of course Democrats HAVE the numbers. (0+ / 0-)

    Only Pelosi -- ONE PERSON -- is blocking impeachment investigations.

    ONE.

  •  In any case, your racist, sexist comments... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977

    ...are undermining your case.  I'd delete them.

    •  Nope, I stand by that part particularly (0+ / 0-)

      I know Steny Hoyer types.  
      A lot of women in the worrking world know exactly what I'm talking about.
      BTW, I'm white and I don't have a racist bone in my body and never have, not that it matters.  I cannot be intimidated by false accusations.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:43:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if you had no racist bones you couldn't be white. (0+ / 0-)

        you couldn't say you were.  the very word "white" in the context you used it would be literally nonsensical to you.

        or maybe next time i'll sing: "we shall overcome (but goldberry's already got there)."

        we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

        by 2nd balcony on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:51:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So you'd see nothing wrong with... (0+ / 0-)

        ...people attributing a Steny Hoyer mindset to you, if you'd simply looked like him?

  •  There was a highly relevant diary posted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank

    re this subject a few months ago by one of our better-know community members.  I can't think tag right now.  What I remember was the recommendation to critize the Democrats but save the vitriol for the Republicans.

    I used to send angry calls to certain Republicans all time on many issues.  Reading goldberry's diary, it occurs to me I have not done this in a long time.  I need to add that to my list again.    

  •  Nope. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, demoKatz

    Whatever Clinton's and Obama's plans are for Iraq if one of them becomes president, they have to be somewhat vague to avoid the shredding that the GOP would give them.

    Oh, Nooooo!  If they took a stand they might get insulted!  And really stupid voters  out there might actually believe it!  And there might be lots of really stupid voters out there! So better for them to hide behind their rocks and say nothing and surprise us all after they're elected! And we don't want to have a fucking clue as to their real positions are up front because we LOOOOOVE surprises anyway!

              Hillary and Obama
    "Elect us and we'll tell you what we plan!!  But ya can't find out until you elect us!"

                    Voters
    YAAAAAAAAAAAY!!! We LOOOVE surprises!!!

  •  I disagreed with you until i read this: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, tryptamine, moira977

    "This is just typical male behavior (you women out there know what I'm talking about) but it has no place in Congress."

    Now I can't take you seriously at all.

    Dems get my wrath because they have done NOTHING but enable the deaths our young men and women, the deaths of innocent Iraqis, and the bankrupting of our country.  They were elected to do a god damned job, and instead have mastered the fine art of negotiating with themselves.

    Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
    P.S. I am not a crackpot.
    /> -Abe Simpson

    by fromer on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:08:27 PM PDT

    •  You wouldn't happen to be male? (0+ / 0-)

      Imagine you have been wrestling with an issue for several months and you fill your department head in on the problem.  You explain your proposed strategy and urge him to appoint someone at a more senior level to implement it.  
      Then imagine the first time you are in a meeting with the senior level person, you hear your strategy pouring out of his mouth verbatim.  But this senior level person never acknowledges you.  It's as if you don't exist.
      Now, imagine this happens over the lifetime of your career: You make a proposal, some guy steals it and never acknowledges where it came from. Or, even more common, cuts you out of the loop where once you had significant influence.
      Imagine you see this happen to other women as well.  
      Then, you see Steny Fucking Hoyer leading a renegade band of Blue Dogs almost in defiance of Pelosi.  In essence, he says, "You're not the boss of me.  You're ideas, instructions, directives are of no interest to me."  
      Hmmmmm, looks sooo familiar, say I.
      Chris Matthews is one of them.  We're all expected to   drool over the manly-men running for president but wonder if other manly-men will vote for Hillary.
      I didn't create the attitude.  I'm just pointing out one possible explanation to Steny's apallingly disrespectful behavior.  
      If you can come up with a better explanation why this man would consistently defy his leadership in order to lead his own little band of merry warriors, I'd love to hear it.  I dare you to find an instance when  a split this serious has happened before.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:38:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pelosi picked Hoyer over Murtha didn't she? (0+ / 0-)

    If you clasp a viper to your breast it is likely to bite you, don't you think?  I'd rather have a trained Bear on a leash than the snake she chose meeself.

    •  Nope, Pelosi supported Murtha (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blue Generalist, Keone Michaels

      But Murtha never had leadership ambitions until he saw the light on Iraq.  Hoyer had worked his way up and was in line to be majority leader.  He was the institutional choice.  Some of the freshman went with Steny as well as the Ellen Tauscher contingent.  I think most of us knew from the very beginning that Steny was not going to be a follower.  I think he sees himself as an equal to Pelosi, leading his own caucus parallel to hers.
      He needs to be taken down a notch.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:22:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The way it semed to me at the time she traded off (0+ / 0-)

        Murtha for some peace in the party.  The art of compromise, politics, my point.  That compromise continues to cost us all, just as the compromises made by the Dem leadership in the Lieberman reelection continue to cost.

        •  No, there was a vote and everything (0+ / 0-)

          It was all very legitimate.  She backed Murtha, probably because she could see that Steny was not going to be very cooperative.  But the problem was that Murtha was never groomed for leadership and Steny was.  A lot of freshman owed their loyalty to Steny because of their congressional mentors.  So, Steny beat Murtha in a legitimate vote.  
          Pelosi decided to smooth the waters and accepted Hoyer but it was not the ideal situation for her by any means.  

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:52:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've been involved in a lot of politics and these (0+ / 0-)

            things are always (I emphasize, ALWAYS) decided in caucus, behind closed doors before the vote.  The argument that it was a "legitimate vote" is a little disingenuous, since you seem to be one that seems to know the process.

            Trades and deals are made to decide these things.  The freshmen will do what their Rabbi tells them to do.  This decision, like the previous 100 years of others was decided before the vote in the manner I described.

            The people here are not stupid they understand how thing work, it is not productive to mischaracterize the process or suggest otherwise.

            She made a calculation, a trade, a compromise.  She made the deal and we are all stuck with Mr. Hoyer.

  •  I also disagree (0+ / 0-)

    with the gist of this diary. His number one recommendation is "Put pressure on the Republicans"? wtf? What a lot of the people are doing is actually the sensible thing to do --- put pressure on the democratic representatives. About the "we don't have the numbers" meme, that is the weakest argument you can make for not putting up a fight.

    We have to make the democratic representatives accountable for their actions in the same way we want accountability for the mistakes of this disastrous Bush administration.

    "this country is choking on bullshit". Bill Maher

    by urgello on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:24:34 PM PDT

  •  Thank you! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blue Generalist

    "It does not require many words to speak the truth." Chief Joseph - Nez Perce

    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:41:31 PM PDT

  •  Candidates should compromise (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, BenGoshi, fumie, demoKatz

    because the media says they should?  I don't think so.  We're in all the fucking trouble we are now because of COMPROMISE.  The dems have to learn there are times to compromise and there are times NOT to compromise.  As BushCo destroys our Constitution, aided and abetted by congress critters, we're supposed to play nice?  NOT. If the dems aren't doing the peoples' bidding, I'm not going to sit idly by and say, "Oh poor Dems.  I'll support you even when you're not doing what the people want you to do."  And frankly, I don't give a shit how unlikely something is to pass in Congress.  The point is to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT for what's right.  It's necessary to take the dems to task when they sit back and diddle while the world literally burns all around us.  

    Sorry, don't buy what you're selling.

    Practice random acts of kindness (favorite bumper sticker)

    by Sally in SF on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 06:46:41 PM PDT

  •  Most of the time most of us use the blogs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blue Generalist

    for venting our frustrations. A constructive use
    would be in putting our energy  into creating more ALLIES for our cause. That's ANYBODY on any position
    along the political spectrum, right or left, who leans
    in our direction for crucial issues. If you have somebody who's ROUGHLY on your side on the war, on
    immigration, on the environment, etc. (not perfectly
    on your side but even roughly), we need to make an
    ally of them, and not blow them away. It's logical,
    it's rational, it's strategic, and it's humane.

  •  Thanks, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blue Generalist

    I get so tired of the poor me - bitchy diaries around here. I sometimes feel they deserve the same ridicule as GBCW diaries.

    Justice is Fairness

    by rawls on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 07:53:59 PM PDT

  •  you ask a (verbose) simple question, (0+ / 0-)

    which has a simple answer:

    we demand that the democrats stand up for our values.

    we have a philosophy of history that shows that there are times that people have to stand and fight for what they believe in even though their ideas might not triumph and they might suffer for being on the losing side.

    the democratic party that we have now is not a particularly honorable or creditable institution.  but if the democratic party fails to become the platform for some pretty significant reforms in our politics and policies, and so things continue along the same lines and under the same prevailing wisdom as we've had, then we are screwed anyway.

    right now, this means that every democrat should premise every statement on iraq by noting that this "surge is working" stuff is pure, partisan gop bullshit.  they know it, and the voters better know it when they see it by now.  i'll be happy to hear from each dem where that leaves us and them right now.  legislatively and politically.

    here, the people rule.  the gopers have the bullshit market sown up.  buck up goldy, maybe a market adjustment is underway!

    we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

    by 2nd balcony on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:31:32 PM PDT

  •  You write as if we're all Democrats. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    123Mary123

    The fact is, there's an anti-war consensus out there that wants the troops out, or so we assume from the 2006 vote and various opinion polls. This consensus has every right to hold the Democratic Party to account, and no reason to equate the Democratic Party with its own interest. You might have forgotten this after nearly 200 years, but the Democratic Party is expendable. So is the Republican Party, as numerous anti-war conservatives should begin to realize. The only reason people stick to either institution is brand-name loyalty and fear of the other. But now we're at a point where the people can see that they have an agenda of their own, and at such a point, it shouldn't be a question of whether we'll support a Democrat's agenda, but whether we will find a politician who will support our agenda. If more Democrats realized that every single American voter has the power and the will to go elsewhere, they might actually earn an extra lease on life for their party.

    Smash the two-party system!

    by Samuel Wilson on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:00:06 PM PDT

  •  If I didn't see Edwards or many of the kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vox humana

    posters calling the two FRONTRUNNERS out when it comes to one of THE most important issues of our times, I would see ALL dems doing nothing... nothing. Who do you choose to criticize? the ones who are showing that democrats are capable of leadership. What's wrong with both parties? The republican house of cards is ready to fall and dems won't even blow softly... the ones who do are bad democrats who are making it hard for the good passive deomocrats to do what? nothing. What's wrong with you people? WHO WILL LEAD THIS COUNTRY?

  •  Aw c'mon. They are selling all of us out - WTF (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Annalize5

    why did they extend the bullshit "Terrorist Surveillance Act" to legitimize the very illegal activities that actually are impeachable offences?

    It is starting to feel like they are bought & paid for by the same money that owns the GOP.  

    We are not eating our own - we are taking a stark look at reality.  A reality where you're not quite sure who to trust.  We're just figuring out friend or foe...

    Sorry, the Blue Dog Democrats are really Bush Dog DINOS.  Time to call a spade a spade.

    We don't have any more time to put up with this shit.

    Our planet is fading, our country is going off the cliff and our treasurey is almost empty.

    Next time I tell you someone from Texas should NOT be president of the United States, please pay attention. In Memory of Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

    by truebeliever on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:00:32 PM PDT

  •  Dear Goldberry, when you mention Mike Ferguson, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vox humana

    many of the readers may not grasp the depth of my joy that but for a few miles in another direction (I live in Delaware Twp., Hunterdon County), Ferguson could be my Congressman also, but through the magic of Jersey gerrymandering, Rush Holt is my Rep.  A more intelligent and decent Representative to Congress is hard to imagine.  My only comment is that I remember a time when the Speaker of the House was an influential force to be reckoned with.  I am thinking of the Sam Rayburns and the Tip O'Niells'.  Whenever something happened in the world, the press automatically went to the Speaker"s Office for a comment or pontification.  It has been months since I have heard our current Speaker comment to the press, and I am a pretty news observant guy.  The entire legislative branch seems to be in a holding pattern, trying their best to do nothing controversial to derail Hillary's coronation by doing something that would paint the party as crazy liberal Democrats.  By their lack of courage in seeking to end the Iraq adventure in any concrete way, they are playing not to win, but attempting not to lose.  In the curent context, the Speaker of the House has become irrelevant, and to that extent, so has the effort of the Democrats to bring accountability to a rogue Executive Branch.  I's close enough that I may try to help Stender win the next time.  Good luck.  

    And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

    by MrJersey on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:06:28 PM PDT

  •  When Our Elected Politicians (0+ / 0-)

    make wise decisions it should be acknowledged.  Should the decisions be irrational, it, too, should be acknowledged.

  •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

    This diary is rididculous.

    Demanding accountability is a lot different than a "circular firing squad".

    That's just like the DLC and the Clintons saying that the progressive vs. spineless "moderate" debate is a "false choice".

    The real false choice is the stupid idea that progressive populists can't win and win big!

    (See John Edwards)

    And Edwards has led on every issue...and as far as the war goes...go HERE

    I am so sick of all of this "at least they're better than Republcians" bullshit.

    Why should we allow Bush Republicans to set the standard for us.

    If we don't take back our party we will NEVER take back out country.

    If you don't realize this, you need to wake the fuck up.

    It's not just about impeachment.  I would rather have us push hard to repeal Bush's worst power grabs and focus on ending the damn war than push for impeachment.  I do think that Bush needs to be held accountable eventually, but first things first.

    End the war, restore our civil liberties, elect a real progressive and expand our majorities.  While we do this we need to help the country understand that real national security and real "freedom" are damaged by the Bush/Cheney strategy.

    I might not agree with every sentiment that is expressed in some of these diaries, but the general idea of holding our leaders accountable is one that we must embrace.

    We need to fight for our values, not individual leaders. We aren't the Pelosicratic Party...so pushing her to do the right thing is something we need to encourage.

    This kind of Reaganesque whiny, "don't go after your own party" BS is a huge part of the problem.

    Our "leadersheep" has failed us in a massive way.
    Think of all that is on the line.

    You speak of a firing squad, but no one dies in a political "circular firing squad".  Right now, for both American soldiers and Iraqi civilian alike, the bullets are real.

    And from a political standpoint...if we don't end this war people will not trust out party.

    There is every reason in the world, both moral and political, to push our leadership to do what is right.  

  •  I totally disagree re Pelosi comment in diary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Freiheit

    Pelosi can't stand being held accountable for her weak, pro GOP leadership and that is why she does not come here.  She knows she cannot come here and pander.  That is good.  But that our media would also instill in her the same fear.

    Our commentary here regarding her feckless leadership is not petulant, it is the truth---the is a terrible leader, and has continued to enable Bush/Cheney to destroy the country.  In this, heck yeah, she needs to be held accountable, not given a pass.

    I'm glad dKos contributors in general would totally ask her the hard questions if she came here.

  •  Party Discipline Applies to Leaders Too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TL Eclipse

    The notion that the base should not criticize party leaders, and tha it is a form of suicide is ridiculous.  It might be true if this kind of criticism had no basis whatsoever, or were caused by infiltrators for the purpose of self-destruction.  But holding people accountable is not self-destruction.  It's a natural part of the process of democracy.  The notion that we can't do that is a continuation of what we currently have, with a different dear leader.  And that is not Democracy.

  •  A tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? (0+ / 0-)

        Thankyou Goldberry,  I have shared the same sentiment for the longest of times.  I know that people are frustrated as hell, impatient, petulent, for progress to bring our soldiers back home at last.  I feel the powerlessness to smack Bush upside the head and tell him get lost already.  One has to wonder if people actually know that the Right wing spin machine is just as healthy as it has ever been.  Ok, we have one spokesman on our side, Olberman, and that is it. The blind mice(networks), cable news, all subscribe to the notion that it is in their best interest to maintain the stenography status quo. Democrats are fighting an uphill battle to get their message out, without it being shredded into pieces by the press that refuses to hold the Republicans to account. The grassroots and the netroots need to focus their wrath on the Republicans for their corruption and obstruction.  I turn on the television news, take your pick for the channel, and I get bombarded with the lunacy of right wing tabloid journalism. Turn the channel to the three networks and you get bombarded by "FLUFF."  Iraq coverage is way down, aside from Couric, who appeared willing to carry the message she was given by her Military elders in Iraq.  Are they catching their breath in August, or trying to repair their reputations on the sly?  Or are they predicting and gearing up for the new ratings booster called Iran?
       I love to rant with the best of bloggers, it feels good after all, but blaming is a losing proposition in the end, because I get tired of the anger generated within that needs an outlet, so why direct it at Democrats, rather, than the media, who are the beneficiaries of Congressional gridlock, endless quagmire in Iraq, and soon to be Iran.  The media gives a shit who is in power, because they are quite comfortable, and unnaccountable, to the masses, unless they were to be boycotted on a mass scale.

  •  you're making excuses for losers who won't lead (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TL Eclipse

    and the excuses are 30 years old.

    The Dems been compromising with these bastards since that fucking fascist RayGun got elected with just over 1/2 of the votes cast, which was just over 1/2 of hte eligible voters participating.

    I've been listening to the excuses of these fucking lame ass losers since I was 21 in '81, and

    ya know what?

    they got hired to do the job of leader, they are paid more than 99% of the people they are in charge of, and they keep blaming the steny's while milking us peee-ons every 2 years for millions in volunteer hours and hundreds of millions of dollars.

    what about all the pensioners screwed since the leveraged buyout days, like LTV, that rolled into the savings and loan fiasco

    20 fucking years ago!

    and who did NOT stop bush's RUINOUS tax cuts on may 2001, Nevermind all the completely crappy things since, like alito and roberts

    and 80-14 senate vote funding the war.

    want to support whiny losers, fine.

    let's get a reality check - lying thieving fascists are doing EXACTLY what they've been doing since they fought the 40 hour work week or unemployment insurance or social security ... 70 and 80 and 100+ years ago.

    the problem is NOT the fascists, it is the fucking sell outs wasting seat space in congress by being sell outs OR by NOT getting rid of the sell outs, all of whom are supposedly on our side.

    people are finally getting sick of the sell outs' bullshit, and you're pulling out the 'circular firing squad' right wing meme used to shut up those who are fed up with their 'leaders' being sell outs or quiet about sell outs.

    whose the problem in the Dem side?

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 01:42:42 AM PDT

Meteor Blades, tk421, Greg Greene, Colorado Luis, Aexia, RobertInWisconsin, Ed in Montana, JWC, Schmendrick, akr nyc, Frank, Swopa, copithorne, LarryInNYC, goldstone, rawls, Jonathan, Radiowalla, taylormattd, dratman, Izixs, Forbes, Rayne, wystler, ghost2, talex, David, RonK Seattle, rashomon, Earl from Ohio, TrueBlueMajority, catfish, Unstable Isotope, sarac, madmsf, bosdcla14, dengre, Yoshimi, Wintermute, kpardue, tomcat, spitonmars, norabb, seeker, John Campanelli, jsmdlawyer, azale, Raven Brooks, zenbowl, Norwegian Chef, Joe B, patagonia, bumblebums, Pd, exNYinTX, Poika, foonk, Geotpf, BrentHartinger, memberofthejury, Noah Jenda, Paulie200, queen, gerbbils, PaintyKat, dianem, SusanHu, highacidity, CalvinV, rowlikewow, boilerman10, otto, roses, khloemi, Frederick Clarkson, lorax, exconservative, Swordsmith, alphaaqua, Glinda, diana04, splashy, navajo, dmsilev, Tomtech, edrie, hhex65, annan, cjfburke, danthrax, Chicago Lulu, YellowDogBlue, joemcginnissjr, Stampy51, cincylibrul, Caldonia, Dale Read, EuroDem, Penny Century, ohiolibrarian, 42, beachmom, Eddie Haskell, lubarsh, ChiGirl88, MH in PA, jj32, randallt, sfluke, Schwede, AaronBa, TexMex, Gowrie Gal, julifolo, vcmvo2, Bluesee, radarlady, beagledad, capelza, Gabriele Droz, Neuro Doc, Elise, Alegre, Explorer8939, LisaZ, chingchongchinaman, 5oclockshadow, stagemom, WinSmith, LNK, doberg, Sharon in MD, jorndorff, ivorybill, foxglove, Savvy813, DemHillStaffer, LisainNYC, Ekaterin, hcc in VA, JanF, rerutled, simplicio, Asinus Asinum Fricat, Reality Bites Back, forbodyandmind, kovie, Major Danby, gwilson, danmac, Pacifist, Keone Michaels, BlueInARedState, KenBee, dougymi, Aaron Bonn, play jurist, campdurning, SherriG, OhioCav, HairyTrueMan, DiesIrae, Chairman Bob, DJShay, justalittlebitcrazy, NearlyNormal, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Potus2020, Island Blue, doinaheckuvanutjob, MBNYC, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, philimus, means are the ends, scoff0165, Temmoku, blueintheface, Joelarama, GoldnI, anotherdemocrat, suburi, dallasdave, dotcommodity, tigercourse, David Jarman, lurks a lot, java4every1, Molly Martinez, phoenixdreamz, Kyle the Mainer, DarthParadox, College Progressive, Orange County Liberal, Canyon Lefty, rivamer, vbdietz, quadmom, DemMarineVet, JML9999, Biologist, BasharH, Sundoggy, chicago minx, gizmo59, Hairy Legs, MyBrainWorks, skymutt, gzodik, VelvetElvis, NYContrarian, laurenc, Countificus, Transplanted Texan, bythesea, blue guitar, Pegasus, Greasy Grant, smartdemmg, Taget, SyntaxFeline, jalenth, a night owl, BlueGenes, watercarrier4diogenes

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site