Who the hell came up with DEMS holding their fire for later?

[DistressedAmerican]

I have heard in the media and posts here that the Dems. have to play ball with the Repugs on confirmations of Rice, Gonzales etc. so we can save our ammo for judicial nominees. Since when do we have limits to the ammount we can oppose Republican nonsense.

As far as I am concerned, We should be trying to block everything that comes down the line this term. Do not give them a moment's rest! Create massive gridlock. Opposing Condi does not mean we still can't oppose Scalia when they try to bump him up to the big chair.

Are folks here generally in favor of playing ball now and "saving ammo" for later or do you think we stand to loose nothing by fighting them every chance we get? Any thoughts on the strategy?

WE CALL OURSELVES THE OPPOSITION BUT, WE ARE AFFRAID TO OPPOSE FOR FEAR OF BEING LABELED ODSTRUCTIONISTS!

I do not get it! If rejecting an immoral war, a failing economy and the very people who got us there is "obstructionism", I'm guilty!
Do we all want to be Joe Lieberman?

Distressed American
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[forgethell]

1. We will lose on Condi

I think we bleed credibility when we go all out on something, and then lose. Ever hear of the 'boy who cried "wolf"'? Still, it's not like we have too much further we can drop, so I may be wrong.

[DistressedAmerican]

11. So, we just give them everything

as long as they have more seats?

[forgethell]

12. Not at all,

we pick our fights. Guerilla warfare, so to speak. Fight where we have a chance, a good chance. Don't blow our resources on unwinnable fights. Of course, what's unwinnable is a judgment call, but I don't think our leaders are showing any.

Hey, honestly or not, we lost the election. The Repukes get to run things for a while. that's the way it works.

so we have to limit the damage. But if we filibuster everything it will be like in the Reagan years, only in reverse. The Democrats were able to obstruct his agenda and put the label "obstructionist" on him because they had the numbers and the media wasn't completely whored to the Repukes. Now the situation is not the same. What media do we have? What house of Congress do we have? What supreme Court do we have? We will get the label "obstructionist" and it will cost us in 2006. And if we ever do regain power, we can't complain when the Repukes use our tactics on us.

We aren't bringing a knife to a gun fight, we're just bringing our fists. what kind of plan is that?

[DistressedAmerican]

13. The Deck Is Stacked.

What battles do you see as winnable. Where would you invest your efforts. I do not see the battle we will win with the possible exception of Social Security (since many Repugs do not want to put their necks out). I am not so deluded to think we will beat a Condi nomination or anything else they want to ram down our throats bad enough. However, we can still be on record as opposing their machinations. That is the best the minority can ever really do.

[forgethell]

14. The supreme court

nominations are the only ones that count. I wouldd'dt bother with cabinet members. Let him have the ones he wants, they'll get him into trouble and they won't be around but 4 years.

I'm iffy on lower court judges. Yes, they'll last longer, but we are in trouble and I don't know if I want to waste the political capital. We don't have much of it.

[DistressedAmerican]

15. Do you really believe that we will beat many of those?

And if so, Does standing up to them on these things stop us from opposing those nominations too? They have to votes to confirm anyone they want. Sec. of State or Supreme Court the end result is the same. They could put Hitler on the bench these days if they chose to.

I still do not see how working with them on things now helps the oter process later? If we vote with them now, will they vote with us on Court appointments? I do not think so. Help me out here.

[forgethell]

16. No, not really, but

I think we have a chance. If we have any credibility left. If it looks like we're being bipartisan, then when we object people might at least listen. did I mention abouot the boy who cried "wolf"? Did you ever read the story?

Of course they are not going to vote against the President. Not most of them anyway. We lost the election, and we cannot have things all our own way. Let me ask you a question? Do you think the Dems in the Senate have the balls to do as they did last year after what happend to Tom Daaschle? Maybe they do, but then look for the nucleur option to become a reality.

But you are not looking far enough ahead. We're setting precedents which are going to come back and bite us in the ass if we ever regain power, which we will. And we will have no legitimate complaint when they do. And, in the short term, if we are labeled obstructionists, look for further Dem losses in the Senate and HOuse in 2006.

Look bi-partisan, Save the ammo for the SC fights. We might can win that one, but we can't win them all.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. I admit you may be right about a backlash factor

But, I'm really not sure. I think there may well be a backlash if these folks cozy up to the Repugs, too. I am going to have a hard time voting for dems in 2006 that played nice with these criminals. Hillary and Schumer are mine.

We haven't won many republican hearts and minds through this. They were not voting for these folks in large part in the first place. We can not loose votes we were not getting.

I argue it may be better to fire up the base by making a stand. Then democrats might be EXCITED to go support someone rather than ending up in anybody but Bush hell for the remainder of George and two Jeb terms.

As far as "crying wolf" is concerned. Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest cried the loudest wolf in our country's history and we are the townsfolk. Do we vote with them on nominations like this and come running when Iran is the wolf?

[forgethell]

18. We're not looking

for Republican voters but the moderates, independents and previous non-voters. You know, the 'sheeple'.

And what does Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the rest have to do with this? Maybe they did, but unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who believe the wolf exists. How do you think Bush won, unless you buy into election fraud. But even if you do, there are still plenty of people who believe in the wolf.

And as long as they do, are they going to support people whom they think are trying to harm the shepherd (Bush) and the sheepdog (Rice)? I don't know. I understand the urge to obstruct everything, I just think we make Bush stronger and us weaker when we fail.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. The issue is that the wolf does NOT exist

Didn't at the time they were crying about it. They have everything to do with it. As I read it you are suggesting that moderates and independents are going to line up with us if we line up with Bushco. Who does that leave fighting for the TRUTH? Does that not just make us Republican light?

[forgethell]

25. I am sorry that

I didn't make myself clear.

If we obstruct the more powerful party constantly we will pay a price that we will not like. We have no current ability to do anything ourselves. The most we can do is obstruct. I don't think the voter will like that.

Which isn't to say we can't point out the mistakes, errors, or crimes of the administration.

But, hey, do it your way. Or rather, encourage your Senators to do it. I could be wrong, but my money goes on continued losses in 2006 if we do.

Peace.

[DistressedAmerican]

31. OK that seems reasonable to me, too.

As it turns out there are senators in the mix for both of us.

[annabanana]

21. nonsense.

What resources are we "blowing"? Standing on principle GAINS us credibility.

[forgethell]

26. OK.

[Rose Siding]

2. Every capitulation weakens us

By disagreeing with the ones who tell the truth about Rice, they reinforce repub strength. There is nothing to be gained from that.

[Tamyrlin79]

5. Many Democrats are nothing but Republican Appeasers.

[Pam-Moby]

39. I posted on another thread

that the time is now to bombard our democratic representatives to know how we feel right NOW!!! Either they start listening to us our WE WELL FIND A WAY TO REPLACE THEM WITH DEMOCRATS THAT WILL STAND UP TO B*SH AND COMPANY!!!!! WE NEED TO ORGANIZE A MESSAGE AND GET IT OUT TO ALL OF THEM!! IN NUMBERS WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE!!!

[moggie12]

3. Glad you asked -- I wish all Dems had voted NO on Condi

How better to say we were lied to and that Iraq is a big gigantic mess and it's all Bush fault (as well as that of syncophants like Rice who helped him push it)?

There's no inconsistency in the Dems who voted for the IWR now saying "Jeez, Bush screwed it up". There is inconsistency in pointing out all the ways she screwed up and then voting for her anyway! No wonder so many Americans can't figure out what's wrong with Bush: We ain't telling them!! Mixed messages don't help in a time when everything is so damn confusing.

[Tamyrlin79]

4. I don't get this either...

If you subscribe to the "political capital" frame, then every action can either yield dividends or a loss on our investment. If you pick the RIGHT things to act on, it will INCREASE your political capital, not spend it. That is why Barbara Boxer has gone up so much in my own personal estimation. Her political capital has increased because of her Jan. 6 and Condi Rice actions. She is more powerful now than she was the moment she walked in as a returning Senator this term. On Jan. 5, she could have called for a national effort for this or that and I would have "Ho Hummed" about it. But on Jan. 7, I would have answered her call without a doubt.

The fact is that the Dems are *RISK AVERSE* to the point of not being able to risk anything except on things they HAVE to spend capital on (like supreme court nominations) or they risk losing even MORE for doing nothing. This is, essentially, the democrats problem, the flaw in their perspective. They aren't investing what they have to increase what they will have in the future. They are so afraid of losing, that they won't risk anything to try and win.

[DistressedAmerican]

6. The Appeasers are Voting on Condi Right Now

There are a hell of a lot of them! 85-13! though, I admit there were more no votes than I expected.

To the rest I ask "How do we beat them by supporting them?" I just do not get it.

[Cocoa]

7. it's about credibility

if you're knee-jerk, people don't believe your actions and words are based on thought, they think you're on automatic.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Credibility is based on acting as you believe...

Voting your conscience! How does it make up credible to make speeches against something then vote for it. There is no consistency.

Biden is a great case in point. He said that those that were voting NO were doing a service to the nation by forcing some accountability. Then he turns right around and voted YES. How credible is that?

These people vote based on positioning themselves for future jobs. (Yes Hillary, I will be voting against you next time around. You do not represent me as a New Yorker.)

[Cocoa]

9. and Boxer expressed admiration for Biden

so have you lost faith in Boxer?

[DistressedAmerican]

10. She can have her opinions

That's her right. Besides it does not bear on public policy. I have been a Biden lover for a long time but, he really disapponted me on this one! While most of America does not remember what our senators did last month, I have a long memory.

[annabanana]

22. How is credibility enhanced by ROLLING OVER?

[msgadget]

19. I believe Reid did.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. I admit 13 was far better than I expected...

Good for those 13. What do we do with the rest?

[msgadget]

29. I'm also delighted by the 13 nays,

because I expected only 2. As for the rest, this is the beginning of the session and she was going to get in anyway. It's over. I'm way more concerned about Social Security, taxes, immigration reform, health care, and corporate dominance to continue to fret about them. We'll see how truly brave they are in the months to come.

Buckle up, it's gonna be rocky! :bounce:

[DistressedAmerican]

32. How about a filibuster of Gonzalez.

Do not let them get away with putting Ashcroft II the revenge? We have a good start with the split vote to send it to the floor.

[msgadget]

33. I heard on the news the dems were satisfied with their Nay

votes and that a fillibuster wasn't expected. Ya never know.

[DistressedAmerican]

34. We've got to keep our fingers crossed.

No torture apologists in the Dept. of Justice! Why always with the token efforts. Make a big speech against them and vote with them. I am so puzzled by the strategy. Make a difference not a speech.

[msgadget]

35. If you'll pardon my cynicism,

I think they recognize how closely they're being watched and criticized and some of their actions are in answer to that scrutiny. I agree with you completely, token efforts are not enough. Keep track, judge over the entire term, speak loudly and make them accountable.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. Can I Gen An "Amen"!

[John_H]

23. JUDO CHESS, BABEEEEEE! Guess who's still running the Dem show?

You got it!!!! The same people that brought us Greorge W. Bush and the biggest rethug majorities in years. Thank god for clever children.........says Karl Rove.

[Albert Einstein]

27. I think the Free Republic infiltrators want us to wait until later.

The rest want to stop these nominees now.

[NuttyFluffers]

28. with all their held fire i'm starting to get indigestion.

maybe i'll just take an antiacid tablet and move on... don't wanna develop an ulcer waiting for results from them.

[KissMeKate]

30. how long till the Democrats stand up?

God, every day I hear stories of how the democrats are talking capitulation, and it sickens me.

[Mountainman]

37. We are like a bunch of knights sitting around polishing our armor

then finding out that we lost the war without a fight.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. Good Metaphor. Please don't mind if I steal it.

Would make a great grahic. We'll see if I have some time.
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[depakid]

40. Oh, just the same sellouts who said we shouldn't fight Goss

despite what he would obviously do to the CIA.

It's he same old cowardly argument that's been made for years... back in 2002, the same people were making the same style argument over IWR. Before that, it was the budget busting tax cut....

[DistressedAmerican]

41. Looks at it this way (also posted to another thread),

We can not vote for this war, confirm promotions to VERY critical posts for architects of the war and criticize its failures with credibility.

Let me temper my rhetoric a tad. I'll concede that there may come down the pipeline a nominee or piece of legislation that that we could agree on. However few are on the horizon as I see it. There is social security, various nominations for the cabinet and bench, and who knows what else.

However, We should look at our past actions a bit. I feel strongly that democratic votes for the confirmation of Ashcroft, for the patriot act, and for the war in particular are perfect examples of how OUR OWN fear of a backlash has locked us into embarrassing and difficult to defend positions regarding our own voting records and worse yet VERY bad public policy.

That is how they got Kerry. For it on the voting record and against it in print. Hard to look like you have a vision when you vote for the very things you are criticizing.

As far as Gonzalez the nominee my only comment is this (pre election graphic but, just as true as the day I made it):



Gonzalez OK'd this. We can not OK him. Simple. Rice lied to Congress and the people to get us into this miserable failure of a war. We should not have confirmed her. Also simple.