To Nancy and Harry: Now Fear This

As Turkana helpfully pointed out in a recent (and excellent) diary, the Democrats won the 2006 election.  The American people repudiated the Cheney Regime and stripped the Publican party of control of both houses of Congress.  Voters wanted change, especially with respect to the Iraq War.

So, what are the results of the Democratic takeover?  Their performance so far has been a miserable failure.  More troops in Iraq than ever before.  More no-strings-attached funding for the disaster in Iraq.  Congress not only failed to fix FISA, they endorsed the administration's gutting of it and the Constitution.

Now, the Bush administration wants to throw even more money at the Iraq War, while our bridges are collapsing and our debt to the Chinese Communists spirals out of control.  And, surprise, our "leadership" is too afraid not to give it to them.

The majority of our party is on the right side of most every question, but they are cut off at the knees by the Blue Dogs (excepting Patrick Murphy) and our leaders.  I'm tired of pleading with our leadership to do something. We should do something, ourselves.  Failure and betrayal shouldn't be rewarded.  We're not Republicans.

If the Democratic Congress caves in -- again -- on Iraq, the blogosphere should demand a new Speaker and a new Senate Majority Leader.

Disunity in an election year?  Why not?  Nancy and Harry have shown nothing but disunity with the majority of Democrats when it comes to standing up against the Republicans. Any grass/netroots demand for a new Speaker and Leader couldn't do any more harm than their repeated acquiescence to the Cheney regime is doing. Their capitulation has wasted any political capital they earned in the '06 elections.  They are hollowing out the Democratic Party.  

We need to make our leadership fear us more than they fear Republicans.  We need to make sure that electing the Democratic Party means a difference in the direction of the country, not more of the same (or worse).

•  No timetable. No funding. No excuses. (n/t)

  by HarveyMilk on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:27:32 AM PDT

  •  I'm with you

    but we may be putting too much blame on the leadership.

    I hear there's a sizable contigent of House Dems who won't vote to block funding no matter what Bush vetoes.  In the Senate we don't even have a majority on Iraq.

    Still, Reid and Pelosi shouldn't even allow these bills up for a vote.  They should send a pit-bull like Emmanuel or someone to whip votes with promises of cover and threats of primaries and witheld support if they continue to put their own political prospects ahead of those of the country.

    Also, a 41-man filibuster is all it takes to prevent another supplemental from getting through on Bush terms.  Come to think of it, they are cowards.

    by Cream Puff on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:37:39 AM PDT

    •  They Are Not Going To Cut Off Corporate War

      Profiteering.  They'd rather hide behind the troops they're sending off to die.  They'd rather phrase it as, "not hurting the troops."  Well, we have all seen enough of this game, to know that, "Change the Course," became, "Stay the Course," soon after November 2006.

      by leonard145b on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:46:25 AM PDT

      •  That's harsh

        you're suggesting that Reid and Pelosi are profiting financially from sending soldiers to die?

        by Cream Puff on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:50:41 AM PDT

        •  Um, Maybe! And Certainly The Corporations

          that benefit from the Ear-Marks, Defense Contracts, etc., brought back to their respective states, profit, from the War.  

          by leonard145b on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:02:29 AM PDT

          •  bi-partisan WAR PARTY

            Just two divisions of the War Party, with the Republican division more focused on ultra greedy rich people, and the dems focused on do-gooder rich people, but they both bow to the all-mighty military-industrial complex that has run this country since 1940.

            by MD patriot on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:12:29 AM PDT

            •  Don't lump all the Dems in there

              There are a lot of them, like my rep Lloyd Doggett, who have been fighting the good fight, and taking the subsequent abuse, all their lives.

              by brainiacamor on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:25:04 AM PDT

              •  democratic wing of the democratic party

                He must be from the democratic wing of the party instead of the big-money corrupts everything wing of the party!

                by MD patriot on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:00:00 PM PDT

        •  Oh, And Please Ask Them To Explain,

          why our Soldiers are still killing and dying in Iraq.  Please ask them to explain why they may fork over $200,000,000,000, more.  All I've heard from them, and my Senators as well, is that they "Don't want to hurt the Troops."

          by leonard145b on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:06:07 AM PDT

  •  Why wait?

    Let's do it NOW! They have had too many chances and have failed to support those that elected them.

    by goofygringirl on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:04:44 AM PDT

•  Who would replace them?

  I'm not in favor of keeping them or tossing them out just yet, but I think we should consider who would replace them before we start thinking about tossing them out.

  by droogie6655321 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:34:42 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't much matter to me.

    But whomever replaced them would be very aware that they have to answer to their own party for their actions.

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

    •  Would they?

      No really. Would they?

      by droogie6655321 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:43:23 AM PDT

  •  Wexler and Feingold

    or Frank and Boxer, or Markey and Kerry.  They all know when it's time to force a showdown.

    by Cream Puff on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:39:43 AM PDT

    •  Feingold and Waxman would rock. n/t

      by Reagan Smash on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:04:14 AM PDT

      •  Feingold and Schakowsky

        Let's have a female Speaker of the House who is really ready for fight, and who isn't afraid to step on a few toes.

        by Noah Jenda on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:48:14 AM PDT

•  I Don't Think They Should Make

  A decision based on Fear one way of the other.

  by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:35:46 AM PDT

  •  In a perfect world,

    I'd agree with you.

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:39:45 AM PDT

•  Sorry Dems

  I'm an independent voter, you'll never have me by the curlies. I'm all for putting them on notice.

  by pseudopod on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:36:30 AM PDT

  •  Funny How

    Independents give Republicans the Benefit of the Doubt more than they give Dems the Benefit of the Doubt.

    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:38:57 AM PDT

    •  Indies

      gave the Democrats the benefit of the doubt in November 2006.  

      by HarveyMilk on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:40:14 AM PDT

      •  They Gave the Repubs the Benefit of the Doubt

        in 92, 94, 96, 98, 2000, 2002.

        They can work with us for a year or two.

        Point is your position on this is right.

        Not that Politicians should agree with you out of Political Necessity.

        by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:44:38 AM PDT

    •  not this one

      I wish the Dems could convince me to be a joiner, but it's probably just not my style.

      For what it's worth, I've probably voted once for a repub (McCain against Bush in the '00 primaries) so it's more a point of pride than anything else for me, but still..

      by pseudopod on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:50:46 AM PDT

      •  Nope

        There's Never any "not this ones" with Indies and Republicans.

        There appears to me to always be a Negotiaition there that doesn't exist between Dems and Indies.

        by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:53:17 AM PDT

        •  Are you calling me a liar?

          because it kinda sounds like you are.

          by pseudopod on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:55:31 AM PDT

          •  No

            There's no basis for calling you a Liar here.

            There might be a basis for putting it back on Independents that they be just as inclined to give Dems the Benefit of the Doubt as they appear to have been with Repubs.

            by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:58:02 AM PDT

            •  I understand your point

              but I think you're overgeneralizing. I don't display the characteristics you're describing.

              by pseudopod on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:02:23 AM PDT

              •  I Do Get The Sense

                That You're not Giving The Dems the benefit of the Doubt on This issue.

                Is there an issue on which you have not given Republicans the Benefit of the Doubt?

                As an Independent.

                by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:08:02 AM PDT

                •  yeah

                  The war in Iraq, for starters. You're mistaking independence for Independents, I think. You obviously haven't read my comments in the past, or you'd have a better handle on where I come down on positions.

                  I try to be pragmatic, but I'm not going to toe the line for anybody (even those beloved Dems).

                  In fact, I am much more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt than Repubs. You don't know me. You just want to argue.

                  by pseudopod on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:15:13 AM PDT

    •  Funny how some Dems will make any excuse...

      for the lack of leadership. Who's really blind here?

      by Hornito on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:08:24 AM PDT

•  The leadership is doing an EXCELLENT job...

  ...and that's NOT a good thing.

  I don't want to sound too Naderish (or Marxist for that matter), but the Democratic Party is NOT about serving the needs wants and desires of the rank-and-file. Reid and Pelosi know how the "bread is buttered" inside the DC-Beltway and are acting accordingly.

  2006 was just the opening salvo in a battle over the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, a choice between the DLC/pro-corporate "insider-ocracy" and the wants and needs of the rank-and-file common folks. I can't wait for 2008 and beyond!!!!

  by lams712 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:42:05 AM PDT

  •  Hoyer is the "inside the beltway type"

    This is the crowd that pretends to disagree with the bushite scum, then gives them whatever they want.  Part of the vast bi-partisan WAR PARTY.

    This is what we really have here in EastAsia (oh wait, they are the enemy):

    One Party rule, with two divisions of the WAR PARTY

    War and Ultra Greed Party:  Repubs

    War and some Greed Party:  Dems

    by MD patriot on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:10:41 AM PDT

•  It should be clear that there will be no

  money for their campaigns, no votes at the ballot box, no support of other kinds until they are clear that Iraq has to be ended immediately.

  It's not about "benefits of the doubt."  It's about whether or not they understand what used to be called "participatory democracy."  We should be making it clear that we've told them what we want and doing otherwise is at the peril of their "jobs."

  by davidseth on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:42:19 AM PDT

  •  sounds very productive.... snark

    by swissffun on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:19:01 AM PDT

  •  Only problem is

    that the DNC, DSCC etc. are getting donations at record levels.  While those of us in the party base may be withholding our $50 checks in disgust, they're raking in cash from the lobbyists like nobody's business.

    All of which just tightens the embrace between the Democratic wing of the Property Party and its corporate paymasters.

    by corvo on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:56:03 AM PDT

  •  Not one red cent to the national party

    I won't give the national party or any of its campaign committees one red cent until Capitol Hill Democrats stand up to George W. Bush.

    My time and money will go to downticket challengers. Failing that, it will go to civil-liberties and human-rights organizations.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:35:50 AM PDT

•  Good article on Pelosi:

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  by KingGeorgeVA on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:45:05 AM PDT

  •  Makes her look positively heroic.

    Is Leni Riefenstahl still around?  Maybe we could get her to film it.

    by dov12348 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:49:40 AM PDT

•  Pelosi has effectively single-handedly...

  ...removed the impeachment clause from the Constitution.  Justice would call for her to be ousted next election on that alone.

  by dov12348 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:46:16 AM PDT

•  No funding. No money for contractors. No checks

  Congress has to act and for no better reason than the boy-king's menacing in the region may very well escalate.  No money. None. They have all the money they need to march to the borders or the Kurdish region.  

  Congress can negotiate, collaborate, whatever waiting game they think they can get away with.  We have a different responsibility to the Constitution.

  We people must demand and hold accountable. And those military volunteers? It's time for 1960's type of aggressive, organized counter actions for recruiting. HS students should be educated - myspace? - against joining the military under Bush.

  Timetables are a joke. The US has no influence in Iraq.  Congress should force Bush/Cheney to do the only legitimate tactic to end the violence in Iraq that they have not tried - leave.

  by kck on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:55:09 AM PDT

•  I'm probably as much of an idiot

  as Pelosi and Reid are about Bush in writing this, but I'm inclined to give them a little more time.

  I want to see how things shake out during the next month or so, before calling for their heads.

  We've got the "Petreaus Report", war funding, and a possible run-up to military action against Iran coming up in Sept. I'm hoping they can come up with responses that can rally us.

  I'm looking for backbone.

  Pelosi and Reid will have to call the cherry-picked report what it is: The White House Report. They will have to insist that the goal posts not be moved.

  Pelosi and Reid will have to stand up for de-funding Iraq, including calling the "Bush Dogs" out, even if we ultimately lose.

  Pelosi and Reid will have to take the lead in exposing the presposterousness of taking military action against Iran.

  by Mind That on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:10:20 AM PDT

•  another rant about N and H because they dont

  tow someone's line 100%?!! sad seriously. you want idealistic politicians, you'll also want to be in the endless minority then. it's about compromise. to blast Pelosi and Reid as two icons of evil right-wing in disguise is absurd and totally counter-productive.

  by swissffun on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:21:59 AM PDT

  •  I agree we can't demonize them

    but we also need to kick their butts.

    by Mind That on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:27:41 AM PDT

  •  It's not about towing someone's line

    It's about doing what it right. Copromise is one thing and politicians are supposed to compromise it's part of the job. But capitulation is another thing all together. Besides There was nothing in Harvey's diary about Pelosi and Reid being "icons of evil right-wing". Only an advocation to make elected government officials responsive to the will of the people they serve.

    by Wes Opinion on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:31:51 AM PDT

    •  well every week the winds seem to change here

      one week Nancy is a hero, then she votes one way and is a demon. FUCK all. If I wanted, and succeded in pilloring every politco that voted or didn't fight strong as I hoped for gay rights, well we'd have fucking 3 DEMS in congress.

      my problem is the foisting of one position and threatening to bring down a DEM for going against it, when well there are issues of more concern to other people here ----  and damn if this community wouldn't blast me for calling for the primaring or impeachment of every DEM that didn't vote 100% for gay rights.

      I'm sick of this threatening our generally good DEMs. Lieberman, Nancy and Harry are NOT. Get over it is what I'm saying.

      by swissffun on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:18:06 AM PDT

      •  You know when I'll "get over it"?

        When the last American soldier comes home from Iraq and the Bush administration's Executive Branch power grab is reversed. Not one moment sooner.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:36:59 AM PDT

        •  great but then how do you feel

          about kicking out any DEM that votes against or doesn't fully support gay rights?

          I'm just saying voicing an opinion, and lobbying DEM reps is one thing, but trying to organise a grass roots effort to oust a DEM that is DEM on 99.9% of issues is a bit selfish. I happen to WANT Nancy in office as long as possible because she's a FAR CRY better on gay rights issues than many anti-war DEMS.

          by swissffun on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:07:57 AM PDT

  •  Get real, No one said "100%" did they? Frankly...

    most of us would be happy for now with 25%, as long as it included getting out of Iraq, and restoring our constitution. Is that too much to ask? I think not, after all, it's what we were promised in 06'.

    by Hornito on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:03:40 AM PDT

    •  sounds like 100% on 1 issue

      by swissffun on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:52:18 AM PDT

•  Being the movie buff I am

  I like to give you this quote from V for Vendetta as response to your diary.

  People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

  If the only way they'll listen is for us to make them fear for their jobs. Then I for one say go for it.

  by Wes Opinion on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:23:23 AM PDT

  •  Maybe you should blow up congress

    this November 5th. :-)

    Well. That will get me on some government computer.

    by Tyrannocaster on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:16:23 AM PDT

    •  No Thanks

      I'd probably just wind up blowing myself up.

      by Wes Opinion on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:33:04 AM PDT

•  Nader right?

  You mean about Al Gore being worse than George Bush? Please leave Nader out of any points you want to make. He jumped the shark big time a long time ago.

  by brainiacamor on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:23:28 AM PDT

•  The Dems fight a two-front war...

  One against the Republicans and one against the media who do the bidding of the GOP whenever a Dem stands up. Witness Dick Durbin and his Gulag perception concern. Or Harry Reid saying we had lost in Iraq, when what he said is we are lost IF we keep following Bush.

  We are trying to get them to fear us as much as the GOP and their talking points, but if we want to do that we need to do something about their problem with the media.

  by brainiacamor on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:31:41 AM PDT

•  DC Dems are 0-for-this-administration

  Their latest lame excuse is "we can't do anything until a Democrat is elected president." In other words, they're so lousy at strategy that they couldn't beat a third-grade class in checkers and have the debating skills of mynah birds.

  Here, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. The alternate explanation is that they're spineless.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:32:30 AM PDT

•  Yup

  Doesn't matter how compassionate or liberal they are, if they are ineffective, they have to go. It is their god damned job and we are their employers.

  by YetiMonk on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 01:16:28 AM PDT