Democratic response to election fraud, 9-11 and Iraq invasion?

[Q]

- Help me understand. Democrats should be angry after they were cheated out of an election, kept from the truth about 9-11 and lied to about the urgent need to invade Iraq.

- Where's the concern? The outrage? The debate?

- Something seems to have sapped the spirit and fight from the Democratic party. Was it the Clinton impeachment? The hostile takeover of the American Media by far-right Conservatives?

- What happened?

[LoneStarLiberal]

1. We Need Alternatives To Win, Not Outrage

A sadly simple answer: Most of America does not share our outrage and concern for what has happened.

If we take a message full of outrage and indignation to the general election, to a nation that does not embrace the same outrage and indignation, we'll assure ourselves four more years of crap to be outraged and indignant about.

Even if we don't feel moderate about the things that have gone on, we have to temper our outrage into a moderate platform in order to have a chance in 2004. Note that a moderate platform does not mean you have to ditch the outrage or concern. It simply means you need to have concrete alternatives to couple with the outrage and concern when you hit back.

[Q]

4. Most Americans don't share our 'outrage' because they've been lied to...

...about what's really happening. As the loyal opposition...doesn't this make it our responsibility to spread the truth?

- If we can't be 'outraged' about election fraud, 9-11 and an illegal invasion...what CAN we be outraged about?

- Republicans have kicked out asses since 1994 and impeached Clinton by showing their 'outrage'.

- Could it be that our lack of outrage is interpreted as weakness?

[rwork]

6. They have the suspicion that they have been lied to

but no one says anything, so it must be ok. The **** people keep saying it is ok, so it must be ok. Everytime he says they hate us for our freedoms, or we have to protect the peace and they hold up the applause signs and he gets the standing ovation they figure it must be ok.

[Q]

44. Why do the Democrats have to play along?

- There's a difference between supporting the president* during a 'time of war' and supporting him when we KNOW the fraudulent reasons behind the war.

- How can any Democrat remain quiet knowing what they know? I'm at a loss to explain why we 'must' sit by quietly while Bush* screws us.

[LoneStarLiberal]

13. Our Lack of Articulation Is Our Weakness

Our lack of articulation, not our lack of outrage, is what is interpreted as our weakness.

We need to be articulate in our outrage, i.e. be outraged, but link it to a viable alternative. Here are some examples:

Corporate fraud-mandantory prosecutions for executives with tough sentencing guidelines. AND MAKE IT RETROACTIVE! Tough laws should be enacted to punish EVERYONE involved.

Cooking the intelligence-appoint a special counsel to investigate this (with a separate special counsel to investigate the Plame smear). Insist that anything less is a criminal act of conspiracy. Future alternatives include a standardized policy making decision based solely on NIE information.

Articulating this anger into policy is not a difficult thing, but so far few of the candidates seem to get it. My own guy doesn't (all policy no anger), his most popular competitor doesn't (all anger no policy), in fact the only one who does right now is John Edwards.

[Q]

31. I'm using the word 'outrage'...

...as an example of how the RWingers rally the troops and push their agenda. Call it what you will...but there's no concerted effort within the Democratic party to OPPOSE the outrageous Bush* policies.

- Well...it WAS an outrage when the party left Kennedy swinging in the wind after he came out and said what many around the world know to be true: Bush's* war is a fraud and it's being 'fought' for the benefit of a secretive government and the Republican party.

- This leads one to believe that the party either has no fight left in them...or they like being stepped on and considered the party of the 'weak'.

- We need to stand up and fight for the Dem party and the people we supposedly represent.

[Ladyhawk]

67. Many fundy freeps I know are willfully ignorant.

They don't want to hear the truth because they cannot handle it. :(

I've pretty much given up hope of ever convincing anyone. Because I am an atheist, anything else I say is suspect. Religiosity puts manacles on the mind. And most of the rigidly religious are happy to stay in chains.

[G_j]

15. I don't know, it seems to me

that many Americans are more than willing to be "outraged". Rush and others use this everyday. Look at the "outrage" that the RW was able to stir up towards France. Many Dems are missing the boat. We actually have genuine 'facts' to get people outraged about.

However, the media is a major part of the problem. When Dems do speak up what happens? It barely gets reported. Byrd for instance, has been absolutely tireless, but most Americans don't have an inkling about that aside from a few sound bites.

Another big problem with many Dems in Congress is that that are not supportive of those who do speak up. Cynthia McKinney comes to mind.

[Q]

33. You can't blame it ALL on the media...

- Some Dems (like Kennedy) got front page news position when he called Bush's* war a fraud. The problem? There was no followup from the party. No one else joined with him to MAKE it a story and keep it in the news.

[F.Gordon]

18. Thank you

The "outraged" rightwing nuts spent 8 years going after Clinton. If not for term limits I suspect he'd still be President. Didn't his approval numbers go UP after the Impeachment Vote?

Here's a simple suggestion for DUers. Shut off your computer, get off your chair, walk out your front door, and talk to your neighbor. What ARE their concerns? What IS important to them?

What we need here is a little less "preaching" and a little more "listening". Americans don't want to be told what is "important". They want people who will listen to THEM and understand what their concerns....their needs are.

IMHO
Peace

[Eloriel]

19. I can't get past your first sentence

Most of America does not share our outrage and concern for what has happened.


Of COURSE they don't share the outrage -- there's no one telling them they SHOULD be outraged. No debate or opposition to the Bush juggernaut at all.

In actuality, many ARE outraged but are completely voiceless, or were until Howard Dean came on the scene.

Your whole damn post is nothing but rightwing talking points designed to further blunt well-deserved criticism of Bush&Co. Totally disgusting. Wake up and get a CLUE.

Eloriel

[shance]

47. We wont get alternatives unless we have the necessary outrage.

What is happening is outrageous. Please take note of where diplomacy has gotten us.

Diplomacy is also another word for cowardice, when used to avoid necessary confrontation.

[jmcgowanjm]

2. Only things in the MiddleoftheRoad are yellowlines&deadArmadillos

And you think the DemsPrez is gonna pull
out of Iraq?
The Dems have been going along for the
ride since 40years ago- 112263.

But aren't those new $20's pretty!

[Terwilliger]

3. yep...you're right

The Dems have been going along for the
ride since 40years ago- 112263.

[Q]

7. Let's put 'outrage' into the context...

...of the Clinton impeachment. Republicans and conservatives pounded home the point that Clinton was unfit to govern because of his lack of morals. They knew he had committed no real crimes or that his 'affair' would keep him from performing his duties as president. They forced impeachment by the sheer force of their collective outrage.

- But where's our outrage about issues that make Clinton's affair look silly by comparison? Where in the Dem party are the DeLays and Bennetts to keep the scandals in the news? Where are the calls for hearings, investigations and impeachment?

- Why were the RWingers able to muster so much outrage at Clinton over minor things while WE can't even get our own party pissed at the blatant crimes of the Bushies?

[Terwilliger]

21. I think Democrats see attacking Bush as `a losing issue'

which seems to be the measure of eveything these days

I saw a bit on Fox News last night (yes, I know :puke:) but Hannity had Ed Rendell on, and the people in the audience (conservative hand-picked I'm sure) cheered at Hannity's irrelevant and inaccurate points, while Rendell, who didn't agree with Kennedy's remarks, suggested that Bush lied about the war and got a hall full of boos.

Michael Moore goes asround saying how Bush essentially manufactured the whole thing, and people look at him as if he's lost his mind.

There is still a POWERFUL media-induced mania at work in this country, and it's going to take a LOT to get people over it. I still think it will end-up being a cataclysm that changes things. I'm not hoping for one, but I've seen (here and other places) just how intransigent people can be when their mind is set on something.

[nannygoat]

40. Part of the reason we don't have Delays and Bennetts

is because we don't have anyone so clueless, hypocritical and asinine and as much as I am for us fighting back, I don't think we need to showcase people who are dishonest, lowlifes to do it for us.

[Zan_of_Texas]

68. McKinney. Wellstone.

Cleland.

Oh yeah, and highly weaponized anthrax sent to two of the most powerful Democrats on the hill, Daschle and Leahy.

And, maybe you missed it, but there was a sniper running around DC shooting people at the same time as the Iraq authorization vote was being taken last fall.

And, Senators were warned.

U.S. senators warned of al Qaeda snipers on golf courses

Friday, October 18, 2002 Posted: 9:19 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. senators were warned earlier this week that those who play golf may be targets of al Qaeda snipers on golf courses and were given tips on how to protect themselves, a U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman said.

Police were notified about the potential threat to senators, said Marcia Krug, a Capitol Police spokeswoman. She would not say which agency notified the Capitol Police or when exactly they were told. But she said her department, in turn, notified the sergeant-at-arms, who then notified the senators that al Qaeda snipers might be looming near golf courses, ready to pick them off. The sergeant-at-arms, who is in charge of lawmakers' security, did suggest precautions the senators should take, Krug said. She would not elaborate.

The threat information was passed as a sniper, who has killed nine people and wounded two others in the Washington area, remains at large. Authorities investigating that case have said there is no evidence suggesting that a sniper working for a terrorist group is behind the shootings. Meanwhile, FBI agents have been questioning an al Qaeda suspect being held in Belgium who bragged to his interrogators that he had witnessed al Qaeda training for snipers, European intelligence sources said Friday. The FBI, one of many agencies involved in the Washington-area sniper shooting investigation, refused to confirm or deny it had sent agents to Brussels. <more>

[jmcgowanjm]

10. howdy Terwilliger, I follow your posts-kick ass

And his son, who was about 10, stood there with tears of rage streaming down his cheeks and quietly said, “We want 5 troops dead for each tree they cut down… five troops."-
Patrick Cockburn

[Toby109]

62. 112263

[displacedtexan]

5. their mics are turned off.

imho, the 'leftwing media' = stating the facts. nothing 'sexy' about facts. don't help ratings = no voice.

[Q]

8. If Bush* lied about the urgent need to attack Iraq...

...doesn't that make this 'war' illegal and immoral? If the Bushies covered up the truth about what really happened on 9-11...isn't this obstruction of justice?

- Americans aren't outraged at these things because WE'RE not outraged.

[jmcgowanjm]

14. for whatit's worth-a purported BehindtheCurtain...

He went on to say that these memos set forth directives about what material was, and was not, to be aired on the various outlets of the network.

Oct 4-There is no way this can be kept from the public and we are all agreed to give it full rein without the usual Rovespins.

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a663.htm

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Nice of the media to decide what we should be outraged about

isn't it? Nice of the media to decide what facts to spoon feed their viewers in the name of ratings. I daresay facts about stolen elections and illegal invasions and lies about the real economic numbers and jobless rates, not mention the numerous cover-ups by this MisAdministration of save their sorry a**es, would stir up more ratings then missing pregnant wives or shark attacks or over paid sports "heros" on trial for alledged rape charges. It's not about what is sexy, it's about protecting their fat paychecks, falling in line and bending over for their Corporate bosses, whose only concerns are not for the general welfare of the American people, but for their bottom line. When we stop letting them dictate to us what we should and shouldn't know about, only then will they be forced to report the facts sexy or not.

[madfloridian]

9. Ten days before 11/22/63, remarks by JFK.

"The high office of the
President has been used to
foment a plot to destroy the
American's freedom, and
before I leave office I must
inform the citizen of his
plight." ____ John F.
Kennedy at Columbia
University, 12th November,
1963 - 10 days before his
murder on November 22,
1963."

Does anyone have the rest of the speech? Would love to see this in context. I have tried to find it.

[rman]

11. hostile takeover of the American Politics by far-right Conservatives?

was/is it not official policy of the DLC to move to the Right (supposedly to end up in the center), in order to try and 'steal' repub voters.
Looks like they moved allright. I wouldn't be surprised if they got help from some RW-ers.

[joanski01]

12. Because the DLC told them

not to. I remember watching a DLC or DNC meeting way back before the 2000 campaign. At the meeting, they all agreed that there would be no bashing of Repukes. Just talk about the issues. We see where that has gotten us. I want OUTRAGE. Get the people riled up. Be leaders, not wussies. The DLC has ruined the Dem Party.

[Cocoa]

17. you still haven't forgiven them for the Estrada filibuster have you?

please get over it, it's water under the bridge.

And don't put too much hope in Pickering, because it looks like Daschle and the dems are going to filubuster him too.

[Q]

20. Stopping a couple judges is impressive to you...

...when Bush* has been able to establish a virtual dictatorship in this once democratic republic? You sure don't expect much from Democrats...do you?

- Such low expectations only encourages the party to do nothing as the Bushies destroy our country.

- Where is the fight about the Bush* Doctrine of preemptive strikes against countries that pose little or not threat to the United States? Where is their outrage about the Bush* administration's obstruction of justice concerning 9-11? Or about the Lies Bush* used to rush this nation into unnecessary war?

- If all you can bring to the table is the Dem party stopping a few judges from joining the already RWing dominated judicial system...then you have no argument at all.

- Is it your position than that Democrats shouldn't be angered and outraged at all these insults against our country and party?

[Cocoa]

26. federal judges are extremely important

Aside from the fact that they make decisions that affect people's lives in a concrete way, there are political and balance-of-power issues also.

The dems faced a LOT of heat for taking that drastic action, and they did it and survived. Bush raised the stakes big time, and lost. Very important defeat for Bush.

It also represents the dems holding their ground on something in their control. They drew a line in the sand on Bush's attempt to complete the politicization of the judiciary, something that would have long-lasting effects.

[Q]

43. I'd like to know what you think Democrats should be doing...

...about the Bush* junta and their many illegal acts?

- I can see you're barely on the verge of saying 'move on'. Hell...you DID say 'get over it'. Do you really want Americans to 'get over' election fraud? Obstruction of justice in the matter of 9-11? Do you want them (us) to 'get over' Bush's* lies that drove this nation to war?

- Don't we have an obligation to uphold the laws of the land and make sure the electorate is informed about their leadership?

- I'm really at a loss at understanding your attitude.

[gully]

22. Where've you been? How many Democrats do you need to 'speak out'?

Dems are concerned, outraged, debating...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. cumulative of all of the above...and some fear of vote losses for being

labeled weak on national defense...:shrug:

[RichM]

24. The Democratic Party has outlived its period of historic usefulness. It

is merely a stage prop kept alive in a semi-comatose state by the country's ruling elite, to sustain the useful illusion that we still have a functioning democracy that offers the citizenry a "choice." The Dem Party is riddled by internal inconsistency & multiple fatal weaknesses. It has no unifying philosophy, no accurate or honest analysis of the current crisis, no media presence or strategy, & is at a hopeless disadvantage in terms of raw financial power.

In its political makeup, the party consists of about 20% real progressives; the rest are all sell-outs realistically conceived of as Republicans wearing a 'D' on their jersey.

Power in America is incredibly concentrated. Republicans serve the interests of the ruling elite in an efficient ruthless unified way. The Democrats, OTOH, are torn between several competing tendencies, & on balance do not serve the rulers nearly so well. From the rulers' point of view, it is best to consign the Democrats to life support. (They do not want to destroy them altogether, because the illusion of democracy is a useful one.)

From the viewpoint of "the people," the Democrats arouse as much genuine enthusiasm as a warmed-over baloney sandwich. They have proven themselves unwilling and unable to fight to protect democratic rights & the interests of working people. They are rightly seen by many would-be supporters as weaklings who talk nicely but when the chips are down, collaborate with the class enemy. Therefore, many would-be supporters won't bother to vote for them.

Even in the current presidential competition, the battle is an uneven one. The two parties are scarcely even playing the same game. The Republicans play to win. They are deadly serious. They play hardball. They are absolutely prepared to go for the other guy's throat. Democrats, by contrast, merely show up to offer token opposition. They are too cowardly to say things that might make Republicans mad. They accept humiliation (like the CNN debate Thurs) without retaliation or complaint. They are absolutely willing to send out candidates who are quasi-Republican themselves, & to try to pretend they are something everyone knows they're not. General Clark is a nice man, but using his military aura in a desperate attempt to convince people that "Democrats can be tough guys, too" -- this betrays a lack of pride & self-confidence. It's like saying to the public, "OK, if you want me to dress up in a hula skirt & wiggle around on stage, I'll do it. I'll be whoever you want me to be -- if only you'll love me again!"

[Cocoa]

28. It looks different outside of Berkeley, CA

I know where you're coming from, I saw the Dem Party that way when I lived in Madison, WI.

But in much of the country, the dems in a real way represent real constituencies like labor and minorities, they are solid on abortion rights, and they are the home of true progressives like Kucinich and Wellstone.

I trust Kucinich and Wellstone. If they see value in the party, I'm not going to write off the dems.

[RichM]

39. The Bay Area is a Dem Party stronghold. The outlook is WORSE for

Democrats - far worse - outside the Bay Area.

In the Calif Recall last week, the labor union bureaucracy supported Davis. However, despite their energetic input, labor union rank & file did NOT support Davis. That is a very bad omen.

Kucinich and Wellstone - Yeah, I like(d) these guys too. But one of them is dead, & the other is at 1% in the polls. The very fact that someone like DK could be at 1% shows how hopeless Democrats are.

[Cocoa]

42. but they both chose the Dem party

and your point about Dennis's poll numbers shows a defeatism that contrasts with your idealism.

The democratic party has no obligation to make Dennis the front-runner, that's up to Dennis and his supporters.

I don't see Dennis looking at his poll numbers and crying about how bad the democratic party is. He's out there making his case against the odds. I'd say if people write him off before a single person has voted, that's their problem.

[Q]

46. What exactly IS this 'defeatism'...

...you keep referring to? Do you call it defeatism when someone warns you that the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train?

- Defeatism is when you give up and lose all hope. I still have hope for the Democratic party...but not as RWing clones or a rubber stamp for the Bush* junta.

[Terwilliger]

45. You trust Kucinich and Wellsone, but don't support the priniples...

that make(made) them what they are :eyes:

[maggrwaggr]

25. Well, Q, there's this guy named Howard Dean ....

who pretty much personifies what you're talking about.

And he's the front runner because of it.

[lifelong_Dem]

27. Don't bother Q with facts

They get in the way of his ranting.

[Q]

29. What facts are you offering?

- I don't see much except a hit and run post.

- I'm tired of this shit from the 'moderates' of the party. We can't do anything against the 'popular' Bush*. We can't oppose HIS war and preemptive strike doctrine or insist that the death of 3000 people on 9-11 be investigated. We don't want to discuss his lies to push this nation into an unjust war or his unfair attacks against Democrats.

- Does the Democratic party REALLY expect to win in 2004 with this type of pitiful record of appeasement and complicity?

- And all the centrists have to offer is cheerleading and the trashing of anyone that wants the party to respond and fight the most corrupt WH in the history of the US.

[lifelong_Dem]

48. Hello?????

Did you not read the post I responded to? Howard Dean is an excellent example of a Dem going after Bush*. The last Democratic debate featured all of our candidates offering STRONG criticisms of the Bush* administration.

There are PLENTY of examples of Dems standing up to Bush* out there. You just don't want to see them.

[Q]

49. I've given example after example of Dems speaking out...

...but it does no good unless the PARTY backs them up. Believe me...I 'see' them.

- Dean IS an excellent example. So is Byrd and Kennedy...and many others. But their words gain no footing as long as the party won't stand behind them.

[gully]

50. What do you consider the 'party'. ???

:shrug:

We are the party!

[Cocoa]

32. the problem with Dean...

he's actually running. Q cannot support someone who is a real-life candidate, he chose to support Al Gore over the declared candidates after Gore dropped out.

Seem strange for an idealistic progressive to support Al Gore over, say, Dennis Kucinich? I agree, but it makes sense if you realize that above all, Q does not want to be in any way positive on any candidates that are competing to replace Bush. His need to be consistently negative about the dems that are running trumps his ideology.

[Q]

34. Nice of you to tell me who I will or won't support...

...but you're way off base. In my entire life I've never supported ANY candidate this early in the process. I find it distasteful that you're trying to browbeat others into supporting a candidate when they're not ready.

- I don't support any candidate at this point. That you're making it an issue tells me that you have little to contribute on the main focus of this thread.

[bvar22]

30. Don't want to upset the applecart.

The DLC message of centrism and moderation has worked well for the New Democrats. The two party system has been fine tuned into a mega-money machine.

The Dems lost the presidency, House of Reps, the Senate, and some state positions, but are setting records in collecting the money. In some places, outperforming the repubs. Why should they change their strategy? Winning elections is no longer the goal. (see 2000, 2002, and 2003Calif.)

Most Big Corps (the source of the BIG BUCKS) could care less about whether you can or cannot buy a gun....can or cannot have a safe abortion..etc. The Big Corps are happy for the two parties to define themselves with these issues. As long as both parties accommodate their wishes to dominate the World through global conglomeration, global banking, and military enforcement, why make waves?

To their credit, some Dems (and Bernie Sanders) have NOT SOLD OUT. The DLC has, and will work very hard to maintain the status quo.
Unfortunately, the dems who do raise hell are either killed (Wellstone) or discredited by the New Dems (Cynthia McKinney).

[Q]

35. In fact...many Dems have not 'sold out'...

...but the DLC and party leadership's advice to play a game of 'low key' is killing the party. We're known as the party that rubber stamps everything the 'popular' Bush* does with the minor exceptions of blocking a few judges.

- Where ARE we on the important issues of the day? What happened to the Enron criminals? Is Bush's buddy Ken Lay in jail? Hell...he hasn't even had his hand slapped yet. What about the issue of the Bushies hiding the presidential papers of Reagan and Poppy? The obstruction of justice in the matter of 9-11?

- Why did the Dem party just recently announce they had no plans to 'pursue' the many lies the Bushies told to drive this nation into invading Iraq? How can the Dems sleep at night knowing they're helping to coverup crimes and treason?

- Is THIS the type of party that can win against the media's favorite in 2004? Dems should be MAKING the news...not feebly responding to the crap that comes out of the WH.

[Q]

36. From looking at the response to threads on DU...

...it becomes obvious that many 'Dems' don't have a problem with the 2000 election, 9-11 and the Iraq invasion.

- Is it that you don't believe the 'conspiracy theories'? Do you still think that 2000 was just a 'close' election with the SC acting in a non-partisan fashion? do you believe that an investigation really isn't needed into the events surrounding 9-11? Is it easier for you to accept Bush's* version of events? How about the PROVEN lies Bush* used to rush this nation to war? Does it bother you that the Bushies unnecessarily killed thousands of innocent Iraqis?

- What will be your excuse for not speaking up if Bush* stays in the WH after 2004?

[Q]

37. Where are the Democrats?

Published on Friday, March 7, 2003 by NOW with Bill Moyers

Where are the Democrats?

by Bill Moyers

There was news a report in Washington this week about how Democrats and Republicans in Congress conspired to close down the investigation of an alleged abuse of power by a leading member of the House. Now we'll never know the truth of the matter. The story reminded me of a conversation I had many years ago with a constitutional scholar who said the most important function of one political party is to keep the other party honest. "No party investigates itself," he said, "so the public safety depends on each party shining the spotlight of scrutiny on the shenanigans of the other."

Once upon a time, this happened quite often. Both parties could be counted on to mock the deceit, hypocrisy, and pretensions of the opposition, while they cloaked their own vices in the warm pieties of patriotism and altruism. They also challenged one another's belief systems with the two-fisted ferocity of street brawlers. Such spirited partisanship wasn't a pretty sight for children, but it offered choices, got the public's attention, and aroused a robust and sometimes ribald participation in democracy. Politics mattered.

Things have changed. Republicans still love a good brawl - they could appreciate the movie the Gangs of New York. Because they will claw, scratch, jam their knee to your groin and land an uppercut to the jaw after the bell has rung - and if they don't finish the job their partisan press will do it for them: Rush Limbaugh and the Darth Vaders of talk radio; the pamphleteers at the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and a host of publications aided by big business.

But where are the Democrats? As the Republicans were coming back from the wilderness - lean, mean and hungry - Democrats were busy assimilating their opponents' belief system. In no small part because they coveted the same corporate money, Democrats practically walked away from the politics of struggle, leaving millions of working people with no one to fight for them. We see the consequences all around us in what a friend of mine calls "a suffocating consensus." Even as poverty spreads, inequality grows, and our quality of life diminishes, Democrats have become the doves of class warfare.

Then there's the other war that's about to happen. Whether you are for or against it, invading Iraq is a reckless diversion of resources and a huge distraction from what ails us. But Democrats signed a blank check over to the President last fall because their leaders wanted "to move on to more important things," namely the mid-term elections, which they lost anyway...."



http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0307-05.htm

[madfloridian]

38. WHAT are you talking about?

You don't have a clue about my activism. How dare you? I have been fighting the steamroller since it hit Florida first. How dare you.

[Q]

41. I was 'generalizing'...

...you might have recognized that since I spoke in general terms. My apologies if you took it personally. But even you must admit you're in a minority.

- But have you studied the threads about election 2000, 9-11 and the Iraq WMD lies? There are a surprising number of DUers who just don't think they are important or give the Bushies the benefit of doubt.

- There is no fight left in the Democratic party in general...and certainly none in the leadership. They've rolled over and seem no more hopeful than just hanging on.

[Woodstock]

51. I don't see the anger either - and I want to

Check out the first paragraph of this article and tell me why Daschle is still in a leadership position:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.montopoli.html

In January 2002, Dick Cheney placed a series of phone calls to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. The Senate was preparing to begin limited, closed-door hearings on the intelligence failures that led to the September 11 attacks, and Cheney wanted to warn Daschle that the White House would not take kindly to suggestions from Democrats for a more public inquiry. Over the phone, the vice president implied that calls for wider hearings by Democrats would be met by accusations that they were hampering the war on terror. President Bush repeated the same message soon after, in a closed door meeting with Daschle. In the months following, Democrats, well aware of the credibility gap between the two parties on national security, largely kept their mouths shut.

In May, however, Democrats got some political cover: The families of those killed in the attacks began a push for an independent commission with a much wider scope than the Senate inquiry. "We thought the investigation into our husbands' deaths would be a no-brainer," says Kristen Breitweiser, one of a group of New Jersey widows who banded together to lobby for the commission. "If my husband had been killed in a car accident, there would have been an investigation immediately. This was 3,000 people. We just assumed it would happen." To press the issue, the families went public with their horror stories. In tearful interviews with politicians and members of the press, they produced pictures of their children and recounted stories of final conversations with their spouses. Breitweiser showed lawmakers her husband's wedding band, which had been recovered at Ground Zero, still attached to a piece of his finger. Mindy Kleinberg, another New Jersey widow, told of her conversations with her 11-year-old son in the days after the attack, when the boy insisted that he was willing to take his father back blind, or take him back burnt, so long as he returned.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration continued to argue against the commission. "I think it's the wrong way to go," Cheney told Fox News on May 19. He claimed that national security concerns trumped the families' appeals. Behind closed doors, however, many lawmakers in both parties were outraged by the administration's position. The benefits of a wide-ranging investigation, they said, which would both detail the failures that led to the attacks and make suggestions as to how to address those failures, would surely outweigh the short-term security concerns trumpeted by the administration. Many believed that the real motivation behind the White House's position was its desire to avoid potentially embarrassing revelations about what it might have done to prevent the tragedy. It was an understandable strategy. In August 2002, details emerged in the press that the Bush administration had ignored a Clinton-era plan to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan before the terrorist attacks. Despite the emphatic protestations of then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, the administration had put fighting terrorism low on its list of priorities--thanks in part to hostility towards Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration. It was later reported that despite the fact that Osama bin Laden had been spotted by Predator drones as many as three times in late 2000, the administration took no action against him. Weeks before the September 11 attacks, Bush was warned that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes, but the administration continued to promote a missile shield, its top military priority, to counteract, as the president put it, "terrorist threats that face us."

...

[Q]

52. Could it be that...

...the Democratic party has become like the Republican party...but we're too afraid too admit it?

[Woodstock]

64. I was just listening to the Diane Rehm Show from today

A guy from the Brookings Institute who professed to be a Democrat was on (presumably to provide the viewpoint of the left.) But all he did was make excuses for the Bush Admin. It got to a point where if he said one more time "In all fairness to the Bush Administration" I was going to barf right then and there. So instead of him providing counterpoint to the conservative guest, Diane actually had to provide the other side to the so called liberal guest instead (yet she continues to use Brookings people as "liberals" on the show.)

[JanMichael]

53. Raw Anger and Amazing Perseverance!

We can ask for no more!

[frank frankly]

54. they are scared, overmatched, and they are too rich, out of touch

maybe some fighters will emerge from this

but I honestly don't know why the dems don't go after this

[frank frankly]

55. they are scared, overmatched, and they are too rich, out of touch

maybe some fighters will emerge from this

but I honestly don't know why the dems don't go after this

[ComerPerro]

56. The Official Democratic Response:

We support the President.

Remember:
If you are being tormented by a bully, make sure you kiss his ass. Give him your lunch money, call him "sir", be polite, smile and thank him when he punches you in the stomach, offer to do his homework for him, and serve his detentions for him.
He will respect you for it. And he will stop picking on you, and start playing fair and by the rules.


Of course, most people know this is a load of shit. The bully will keep kicking your ass as long as he can get away with it.

Why don't most Dems understand this?

[Q]

59. And today we hear that Bush's* 'approval ratings' are going up...

...even though there's no evidence that he has done anything to deserve such ratings.

- It's a sure bet that the American media will once again be on Bush's* side before, during and after the next national election. Will the Democrats fight back and counter the spin with the truth?

- Stay tuned and don't bet the farm on it.

[ComerPerro]

66. I think the Democrats will finally stand up to them

Sometime around Bush's fourth term.

[Sterling]

57. Kinda makes you think the game is rigged?

Anyone get the feeling they've been cheated?

[Q]

58. Informed Consent...

...is where citizens make decisions based on factual information given them by the free press. But in today's America the free press is beholden to the Republican party in general and the Bushies specifically.

- This leaves the loyal opposition with the duty to fill in the gaps. That's not happening. Thus... the average American is unable to learn the truth and vote for the leadership that will best serve their interests.

- The Bushies commit crimes and unethical acts and the public is never informed...by either parry or the media. This gives the Bushies a real advantage in the 2004 election.

[welshTerrier2]

60. $87 billion

if the dems roll over on this, i may very well join the Greenies ...

i mean, if they are going to keep enabling bush, what's the point of being a democrat ...

but fear not, loyal dems ... there's still a little time ... maybe all our candidate heroes will stand up and do the right thing this time ...

continued funding for this madness would be the greatest betrayal of democratic values i can imagine ... let's hope it doesn't happen ...

i've given up calling my senators ... both are democrats ... one will oppose the funding ... and the other doesn't listen to his callers anyway ... i hope he votes against it ...

[Q]

61. "Patriotic" Dems have already said they'll give the Little Dictator...

...the 87 or so billion he needs to enrich his friends, fans and supporters.

- Sure...they'll bitch a bit about six thousand dollar cell phones and war profiteering...and then promptly vote yes so they don't look 'unpatriotic' to the RWingers.

[welshTerrier2]

63. Fool Me Twice

many on DU, especially many of the Kerry supporters, have decried the pounding dem candidates who supported the IWR frequently receive here ...

they say we have beaten the issue to death ... well, the "war" is still going on ... why shouldn't we remind votes about the terrible votes every time they bring up the good votes ???

so, now a second chance has arrived for these democrats ... a chance to put an end to this madness ... they have the luxury of a much more receptive electorate ... they have the benefit of bush's plummeting poll numbers ... they have news coverage that talks about americans dying every day ... they have our failing economy ... and we certainly aren't welcomed as liberators ... most can see that ... and americans can see that bush has no exit strategy whatsoever ...

the time is right for the democrats to offer the country a real choice ...to fund the continued madness in Iraq would do nothing but rub salt in the wounds the IWR vote already caused ... it would revisit the same rift in the party that was so prevalent when the Congress, many democrats included, told bush to do whatever he thought was best ...

the time is now to see whether our candidates have heard our outcry ... the time is now to see whether they have the courage to lead ... i've stayed onboard with the party in the hope that democrats would awaken from the post-9/11 darkness ... i hope i have not been foolish for doing so ... we need a national democratic party that knows when it sees a hawkish policy gone adrift ... if all we're offered is "legislative equivocation", perhaps i've signed up for the wrong team ...

this really is a make or break issue for the party ... choose wrong, and the setbacks will last for years ... let's hope they say no to continued military funding in Iraq ...

[Toby109]

65. You're right. A little fucking SOLIDARITY

would be nice. Even if it's only every so often. I'm not greedy. But I am getting a little impatient.