Official Reaction of Democratic leadership on DSM hearings?

[Dr Fate]

What is the official reaction of Democratic leaders on yesterday's historic hearings?

What has Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic national Committee said of his party's hearings?

What has Kerry, our Presidential nominee of 2004 specifically said of the hearings?

How about Hillary Clinton- Former 1st lady & high-profile Senator of important Blue state? What is her opinion on her party's actions?

How about Harry Reid or Obama or Kennedy or Wes Clark? What have they said about the hearings their party held?

We know what some DEM congressmen have said, and we know that Bush & the media are saying it is "old news."

But what are the top, "Big Gun" Democrats saying about their party's hearings?

Is it a better strategy to say something about their party's hearings NOW, while they are current- or is it a better strategy to join Bush & most of the media in not talking about this on TV?

[sasquatch]

1. Actually its the DSM forum

That Nazi bastard Sensenbrenner won't let them have a hearing.

[Dr Fate]

4. I'll call them "hearings", thank you. I'll also call Conyers "Chairman."

I did not ask whether we should contuinue to let Republicans define our language, I asked what the offical reaction of outr party's top stars & leaders with media access have said about their party's important hearings.

What is their official, on the record response to hearings?

Many of the 550,000 voters who demanded & supported those hearings would like to know.

[LiberalEsto]

7. Conyers WAS Chairman

of the House Judiciary Committee before the Rethugs offered up their "Contract on America" and took over the majority in 1994.


Given that we address Clinton, Carter and other ex-presidents as "Mr. President," I see no problem with addressing Conyers as "Mr. Chairman."

[AllyCat]

2. Dunno, but Bill Clinton stated on Letterman last night that he didn't

know anything about DSM. Way to be informed and working for the people Bill. :mad:

[Dr Fate]

5. I see. Perhaps Hillary plans on joining Bush & the media in ignoring this?

I hope she proves me wrong- but after Bill's interview, that is my hunch.

[AllyCat]

10. Remember, Hillary is trying to appeal the Christians

so I wouldn't put it past her. She is not going to talk about it and neither is Bill. They want to appease their buddies in the Bush Admin.

[Dr Fate]

12. I see. She prefers them over the base. I hope they volunteer for her...

...and write her lots of checks then. Good luck with that one, Hil.

[rhett o rick]

24. I think it is more important to Hillary to get elected than to end the

IWAR.

[AllyCat]

28. You mean elected back into her current seat?

That might be a trick if she keeps up her republican-like activities.

[Triana]

3. jellyfish. these people are *only* concerned...

...with protecting themselves and their own little corners of the world. They don't care what goes on nationally. It's too 'risky' for them to care.

Kennedy was at the hearings and he did sign onto the letter bytheway. The rest of them - NO EXCUSE.

[AllyCat]

19. I think there was someone there who looked like Kennedy, but it

wasn't him. It was on one of the many DSM threads from yesterday and someone identified the man, but it was not Kennedy.

[Triana]

42. Did Kennedy sign on ...

...the letter?

[KoKo]

6. Here's a theory:

They are trying to derail Bolton's nomination. If they go after Bush right now...it could turn off Repugs who would have to "stand by their Pres" who is being attacked rather than side with the Dems that Bolton is a hot head unfit to serve as UN Ambassador.

They are kind of caught here, because all the negotiating to try to persuade some Moderate Repugs and DINO Dems to resist pressure to bring Bolton to a vote could go down, and there is hope that Bolton will be tied into the Downing Street Memos before the final vote on him is taken.

:shrug: that's what I think, anyway.

[Dr Fate]

9. So they should join Bush/ media in ignoring this rather than...

...connecting to the memo to the same kind of things that Bolton did- specifically, fixing intellignece?

If Bolton is more important, wouldnt it be a better idea to go on TV and make that connection - that the DSM adds to evidence that Bush & Bolton were fixing intelligence in general?

It seems that the issues are directly connected and that they could kill two birds with one stone.

Reid did make a connection b/t Bolton & the DSM on the Senate floor yesterday, but swing-voters dont watch CSPAN - this needs to be said on TV news shows by Top Democrats.

[KoKo]

33. I'd give it another week to see how things go with Bolton, though.

Maybe Kerry was told to back off because of Bolton's confirmation, or maybe Kerry knew enough to back off when his statement was taken out of context about what he would do when he got back to DC about DSM.

What good would it do to "go on TV" and appear with two repugs and a conservative anchor going off the topic and attacking Kerry with smears like "are you still supported by Jane Fonda? Didn't you throw your medals over a fence? Did you lose the 04 Election are are now just using "sour grapes" to complain about the War you voted for."

It doesn't do any good for our folks to appear on TV to push for anything. That's probably why we only see Biden, Lieberman and Dodd. They are the "accepted DINO's" who are "above" getting the usual wolf pack attack treatment.

I'm not a fan of Kerry's but I think in this case giving him and the others another week can't hurt. At least we have yesterday's hearings as a huge start in getting focus on DSM. That will take a week to sort through and by then hopefully more crap about Bolton will hit the wall.
:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

38. I reject the notion that TV talking heads are difficult to debate.

I think all those hypothetical arguments you present could be easily countered by the average member of a high-school debate team, in fact.

Give it a week? Why not. I've already given them a month to allow Rove time to formulate counter hoaxes- what's another week?

[Padme Amidala]

8. I, too, would like some courage from the Democratic leadership

They need to set the pace by standing up and leading the discussion about the event. If they play it down, so will the world. Don't they care?

[Dr Fate]

11. I'm not even asking for courage- just a sentence or two responding...

...to the hearings- somthing quotable for the media to pick up.

Do they not feel strongly enouigh about this to say somthing about it?
Or is allowing the story to die part of some "secret strategy?"

[Spectral]

13. Ignore it, make it go away.

Conyers appeals to the progressive, anti-war base. The Dem leadership says "Downing Street Memo? What's that?" The illegal war goes on...

[Dr Fate]

15. I'll keep that in mind next time the DNC asks for money...

...unless I see a change.

Perhaps my funds should go to the CBC from now on, until I see a change.

[lyonn]

14. Reminds me of the vote to let bush take us to war

Go along to get along. Pitiful. Surely there are Dem. Senators that would back Conyers, wrong! You made an excellent point I had not given much thought to. If they have a hidden plan it would be nice to know but, we all know that is wishful thinking!

[AllyCat]

17. And even if they were still worried about "flip-flopping" on their

War vote, don't they see that if they voted based on lies and now the lies are proven, they will only look BETTER for going after the liars? Get on the record now saying how this affected their vote and having known then what they know now would have changed things. Then the 2006 elections see them into or back into office.

But this is why, I feel, this party has continued to lose elections all over the country, including my home state (supposedly "progressive"). That and the "supine press" as Ray McGovern so eloquently put it.

[Zensea]

16. I have a benign explanation

Actually I'm a little surprised at myself for not being bothered by this at this stage of things.
I think the Dem leadership should speak out about the DSM in general.
However I'm not so sure if they should say anything about the hearings themselves or need to do so.
This is the reason. It occurred to me yesterday that hearings by the House are of a higher order than general questioning, in that the House can impeach and they are the only ones who can do so.
Given that, I could see why Senators and citizens such as Dean might want to allow the members of the House to pursue their investigation and might be wary of overly politicizing the issue by making comments on the hearings themselves.

[Dr Fate]

22. How can we drum up support for investigations by remaining silent?

This is the mistake DEMs make- the ONLY way to get the word out is to TALK ABOUT IT YOURSELF.

This is the flaw in your analysis- this scandal will die on the vine unless SOMEONE with media access keeps it alive by- GASP- talking about it!!!!

Top DEMs have that media access to drum up public support of investigations.

I've never heard of getting support for investigations by not talking about it- oh well- I'm sure the "strategists" who lost the last 3 election cycles know best.

[Zensea]

26. Let the House members speak regarding hearings

Read what I said more closely.

I was addressing the specifics of why Senators might not want to tell the House what the House's business was. Is that so hard to fathom?

Nothing in what I said is about remaining silent about the DSM, only about why Senators might want to remain silent about these specific hearings for the moment. -- Something to do with a matter of "protocol."

[Dr Fate]

34. Speak where? On websites and CSPAN that only the base sees?

I'm talking about the DEMs who have media access- folks who can REALLY "catapult the propaganda" with repeatable quotes and make swing-voters aware of this.

For example- Conyers will NEVER get an hour on Meet the Press or other high-profile shows like the DEMs I named do.

[Zensea]

41. A little early to worry about swing voters

It's not about elections right now, it's about a process.
A lot goes on behind the scenes.
A lot does not need to be in the media to get done.

You missed the original point, I think. A bunch of no-name Reps like Conyers who can't get on Meet the Press (according to you) still have power because they are Representatives.

There are other such "no-names."

For example -- do you know who John Gibbons is? Have you ever heard of him? If you have heard of him, how many people do you think have heard of him? Think there's much chance he'd make it onto Meet the Press?

Funny thing though, he did some speaking "behind the scenes" and as a result there have been major repercussions going on right now whether the media covers it or not.

Look him up on google. That's Judge John Gibbons in the search engine, by the way.

I just don't buy the overly simplistic view that everything has to immediately become a media issue in a particular way or else the world will end, which is kind of the implication of your analysis it seems to me.

These historic events take awhile to unfold. nothing happens overnight no matter how much attention or spotlight is brought to the issue

[Dr Fate]

43. 2006 is a few months away. It's never too early...

...to destroy the politcal, moral & "strong on defense" capital the GOP generally enjoys.

I appreciate your analysis- but disagree.

It's my opinion that Republicans win because they steer the debate in the media and concentrate on making sure the public hears their talking points.

They dont wait until a few months b/f an election either- they constantly hammer us.

[Zensea]

44. Be sure to look up Gibbons

:)

[Dr Fate]

45. I will. Thanxs. n/t

n/t

[Larkspur]

18. The DNC allowed Conyers to hold the DSM hearings at their offices

after they were kicked out of the Captial Building by Sensenbrenner. Obviously, Dean permitted this use since he's the chairman.

Since Pelosi found a room for the hearings, the DNC allowed their building to host the overflow crowds.

So when is Dr. Fate going to stop bashing Howard Dean?

Maybe Dean has not said anything publicly about DSM at this point because he didn't want to take attention away from the great work Conyers is doing. Remember Conyers endorsed Dean for Prez and for DNC Chair.

Also, Dean is busy rebuilding the Dem Party infrastructure so that Dems can capitalize on the Repuke implosion that Conyers is helping along. I know that this grunt work is beneath Dr. Fate's respect, but it is important work.

[AllyCat]

21. Can someone educate me about the basement relegation

Why did Senlessbrenner have so much power over where Conyers' group met?

The greatest joy in moving from Milwaukee was that jerk is no longer my rep. What a complete a**hole.

[Larkspur]

35. Sensenbrenner denied Conyers use of their committee's conference

rooms, and I'm sure he had the other Repukes deny as many conference rooms as they could. It was Nancy Pelosi who got them the basement conference room, the only one she could get for Conyers. The other place available to Conyers was the DNC headquarters.

[AllyCat]

39. But what authority did he have to deny it? n/t

[Larkspur]

46. Sensenbrenner is the chairman of the committee Conyers is on

That's the authority he was using. Whether it is legit or not, I don't know, but that was the excuse Sensenbrenner used. Conyers countered Sensenbrenner with a Parlimentary tool that favored the Minority Party. I don't remember the name or exact nature of the tool, but it allowed the Minority Party to host hearings.

[Dr Fate]

23. I asked what he said about it, in order to help make the public aware.

I know he offered the DNC building- I DEFENDED Dean yesterday by bringing up that point.

This thread is about what top DEMs are doing to make the public aware of the hearings.

How does remaining silent take away from a story that is not getting covered much as it is? That makes no sense to me.

And it's not your place to to say what is beneath me or not- but thanks for your opinion.

What are they doing to make the non-Dem base public aware of the hearings?

[Larkspur]

29. Persistance by Conyers and the Dem base will keep the DSM

story alive.

If Dean says anything about it, the RW media will make Dean, not the DSM, the story, just as they are making Durbin, not the abuses at Gitmo, the story.

Conyers doesn't need Dean's personal help yet. He did need Pelosi's and she came through for him. Dean also came through for Conyers by offering the DNC headquarters, and I wouldn't be surprised if Dean directed some of the DNC staff to help Conyers if he needed them. If Conyers needs Dean's help, I sure Howard will come through for him.

[Dr Fate]

31. Good enough. I hope no-name DEMs and the GOP owned media...

...are enough to keep this story alive.

I dont think it is.

[KoKo]

37. We "No-Named Dems" have kept the story alive and shoved it on the

front burner. Where have you been? Have you checked out "BradBlog and Raw Story and After Downing Street.org, and read all the other blogs and sites that have been pushing this forward?

It isn't going to die. Really...

[Dr Fate]

40. No Democrats in my San Francisco office had heard of it...

until I told them about it.

And newsflash- swing voters and even most registered DEMs dont go to blogs for their news.

KoKo & Fate or even Conyers cant get an hour on MTP like the DEMs I mentioned can- see the difference?

[lyonn]

25. Dean wasn't the only Dem mentioned

I'm a Real Dean fan and can see reasons why Dean wouldn't need, at this point, to make a statement on Conyers' petition/hearing, but, the others I am disappointed in their silence. Actually I am for a Draft Dean for Pres Petition! We mustn't be too sensitive about our admiration for Dean. Our Washington leaders need to speak for their constituents not their billfolds.

[Dr Fate]

30. I know- folks think I'm doing this for the 2008 primaries or somthing.

I LIKE Dean, Kerry, Clark- all of them.

Right now I like Clark, Gore & Kerry for 2008,in that order- for the record.

That does not mean I think it's wise to join Bush/media in ignoring yesterday's hearings.

[Lexingtonian]

20. no, no, no

You've got the politics of this thing wrong.

This is a trial court where a witness has just revealed some nasty evidence. You don't want to dilute that effect on the jury by having the prosecutor turn to the jury and say the smarmy thing- "See, he's guilty, like I told you." It has the opposite effect.

The game here is to get a response out of the Bush people. It might take another week of stirring the pot in the media, until it gets to 'their' people, to do so.

When the Bush people have put out some attempt at a defense, that's when leading Democrats can line up and blast a few holes into the thing.

[Dr Fate]

27. But what if Bush/media completly drops it by Monday?

That seems to be the trend.

Oh well, whats one more free pass for Bush crimes out of hundreds?.

[Larkspur]

32. The Bush Media already tried to drop it in May, but Leftwing bloggers,

other anti-war activists, and another more damning memo released in Great Britain, forced them to start covering it.

Just because you can't see the Dem leaders helping Conyers, doesn't mean that they aren't or are unprepared to help him when he calls for it.

[Dr Fate]

36. I agree. WE did the work. Now I want the leaders to say somthing.

I think having the top DEMs talk about what we are doing is the best way to highlight & promote our hard work.

[sellitman]

47. You expect reaction from our spineless jelly fish leaders?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Dr Fate]

48. To be honest, no. But I'll demand it anyway.

I'll not let them make excuses come next election when they try to say "Oh we tried to fight Bush, but the media would not show us doing it." Bullshit.