Why won't DC Democrats stand up to a president with just 36% support?

[Atman]

Poll question: Why won't DC Democrats stand up to a president with just 36% support?

I'm dumbfounded. Even my wife noticed the Feingold thing in the paper this morning and asked "how come no democrats are standing with Feingold?" It is a great question! All over the news this morning, the Republicans Talking Heads, including Donna Brazillion, are pushing the meme that Feingold embarrassed us and set back the progress the Democrats have been finally making. WTF? Why aren't our party leaders willing to stand up to this man? It just makes no sense!

So what are your guesses?

[meegbear]

1. THERE ALL HILLARY LOVING DLCERS!!!11!

[Atman]

2. No starting Hillary fights until after 9:00 am EST, please!

:evilgrin:

[meegbear]

6. Ooops, sorry ...

still getting my legs here.

[mtnsnake]

15. HEY NOW THAT MAKES GREAT CENTS!!!11!!

Yikes

[Cocoa]

3. I reject the premise

they are standing up to him and they stood up to him when his popularity was higher.

[Atman]

4. How many are backing the Feingold resolution again?

I'm just looking for a headcount...what have the Dems stood up to Bush on? I don't see it, sorry.

[Cocoa]

9. Republicans are more important for the censure

and I reject using Russ to bash the dems.

[converted_democrat]

29. You don't think it's odd that they are letting Russ twist in the

wind? I do.. I think it's really strange.. What * did was wrong, and the lack of people supporting Russ really bothers me.. I think it's completely wrong to send out the message that breaking the law is okay, and that is exactly what is happening.. Right is right, and wrong is wrong..

[EST]

5. All of the above.

I'm sure the mix varies from pol to pol, but nearly all are indentured by their greed and directed by one or more of the others.

Edit to add: I think many of the older members have fallen under the beguiling sway of their own rhetoric about the genteel manners and inherent honor of themselves and their associates. This is the only coherent explanation that fits, for me, their demonstrated capacity to embrace graft, corruption and other highly illegal conduct while believing in their own integrity and infallibility. Self hypnosis is a powerful tool.

[HughBeaumont]

7. I vote "they're wealthy corporate whores like BushCo".

Standing up to these shits would involve stepping on the toes of corporations with guns and no scruples, many of whom put the dems we have now in office. Wouldn't want to get "Wellstoned", now would we?

No one is on the side of the working class anymore. It's a choice between a Republican pro-war offshorer and a Moderate pro-war offshorer. This is why we need new blood in the Blight house.

[DanCa]

8. There's safety in numbers (nt).

[ret5hd]

10. Someone here explained it quite well yesterday...

the battle is NOT over who will lead us...
the battle is over who will RULE us.

therefor, the powers-that-be, dem and repug, cannot battle the status quo (Rule vs Lead) and are left to fight over (relative) trivialities.

[skipos]

11. Because most Americans support NSA spying?

Disturbing but verified in most polls I have seen.

[Atman]

13. It's NOT "NSA Spying!"

It's the "Terrorist Surviellance Program!" You haven't been reading your Newsspeak Updates!

[bullimiami]

14. they do not. its just the way the questions are posed.

and what the corporate media wants you to think they mean.

[skipos]

17. Links to polls that verify this?

Also, do we believe the MSM polls that show low approval numbers for Bush, but not MSM polls that show moderate support of this domestic spying?

[nuxvomica]

12. I had to go with the "bubble" choice

I think they are clueless, thinking they're playing it safe when that strategy has never worked for them. The public doesn't crave forbearance from our party, they crave unity. I'd like to see them united on a stand that somehow distinguishes them from the other party and I think that would win them votes cuz folks might think they have a real choice, for chrissakes!

[TayTay]

16. Because some of them don't believe in it

and don't believe it's the right action to take. The case, for these folks, has not been made or proven enough. Sigh!

[Atman]

18. Perhaps I should have added another choice...MOLE INFILTRATION

There are some series DINOS in the party, the ones which have never crossed Bush despite their Donkey badges. And we KNOW lots of repubilcans will be running as stealth dems this November...it's the only way they can hope to get into office.

Click OTHER and mention the DINO MOLES in your reply.

[mtnsnake]

19. What is this, a bash every Democrat but Feingold poll? Where's your

choice that says maybe Feingold jumped the gun before the other Democrats had a chance to go at it as a group?

[Atman]

20. I don't think it is a valid choice

To me, that is just another excuse to be wishy-washy and lilly-livered. Why can't we stand up in unity for ANYTHING? Name ONE THING the dems have shown unity on, full-on unity of purpose, no stragglers, to take on/take out BushCo?

[mtnsnake]

22. I agree unity is a problem, but did Feingold lend towards solving the

problem of unity by going out on his own with this? Did he give the other Senators enough of a chance to board ship with him or did he just want to go it on his own? Just asking.

[Atman]

24. How much "chance to board ship" is required?

That is my point, I guess. The other dems <say it in a nasally, whiney voice> just need a little more tiiiime! How does this show any kind of leadership abilities? To me, if helps cement the impression that if perhaps we actually do get attacked or in some sort of crisis situation, the democrats will want to go to a retreat and meditate on our response for a while. Exactly what more do they need to know? Is anything Bush has done a big surprise? Like another poster stated so well, "Do you support criminality, or the rule of law?" If you have to think about, what is that saying about our leadership? Yeah, maybe we support criminality? What's to think about anymore? How much more does this president have to do, how many more laws must he break, how many more of our kids must he kill, how many more sovereigns must he invade, before democrats are willing to show some backbone and say ENOUGH!?

[depakid]

30. You can't name one thing

because there isn't one thing.

I don't know why the Dems think people are going to vote for them. The "we're not Republicans, but we sometimes vote with them" strategy hasn't worked for the past 6 years+

It's not going to work any better this year- or in 2008.

[ClassWarrior]

21. Ask your Senators this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2512789&mesg_id=2512789

NGU.

[Vinnie From Indy]

23. Many in the Senate have their own dream of being the Presidential

candidate in '08. I think a good many of them are more focused on grabbing the brass ring than doing the right thing. That is why I like Feingold. He puts honor first and politics second.

[supernova]

25. More afraid of swing voters than of their base

sadly.

They are more afraid of alienting swing voters than they are of catering to their base.

[FredStembottom]

26. There simply is no one like me or you there in D.C.

They comprise a completely closed society worried what might happen if they should accidentally do something that enables an army of bus drivers and massage therapists to arrive at real power.

And while they feel some genuine guilt for being part of a tiny, privileged elite, no senator wants to take rash actions that could spin out of control resulting in red leather Nascar jackets in the Senate cloak-room!

[Atman]

27. kickaroo

:kick:

[Catchawave]

28. Other: All of the Above

It was hard to choose just one !

[Love Bug]

31. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

Spineless weasels!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

32. kick

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Other, of course.

The reason is that two places Bush still does enjoy majority support are the Senate and the Congress.

[electropop]

34. Anthrax worked for the "Patriot" Act.

It's surefire and Frist has access to an unlimited supply from the federal labs.

[LaPera]

42. I know yor correct!

[Corey_Baker08]

35. HMM...Thats Ah 33% support actually

A latest poll posted in GDP I read this morning.

[Atman]

36. This poll was created before the latest polling debacle for Bush

That's fine...I'd be happy to update it daily if Bush would just drop another couple points every day...which I think he may be doing anyway.

[pinto]

39. Feingold seemed fine with this taking some time. I assume he

knows he has to line up support while his Censure motion is in committee. Frist seems anxious to bring this to the Senate floor for a vote, thinking to short circuit the whole thing, I'd guess. Time may be on our side here.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. OTHER ......... cuz they're beholding to the money givers ......

..... and until we have 100% public financing of campaigns and get the bagmen out of politics, this is what we'll get.

I have lived this first hand. I am a member of a professional association. I also served on its board and rose to serve as its president.

For all its history (founded in 1954) the officers all paid their own way for meetings, events, expenses, etc. The professional staff was paid from member dues. And for the entire time this system was in place, only the fat cat company owners served on the board and rose to the presidency.

In my time of the board, I was part of a rabble rousing group that insisted that the association pay the expenses of those who were elected to serve. That passed and the board now has better members .... and none of them are from the moribund fat cat companies. Since this change, there has been better overall governance, more fresh ideas, better member satisfaction, a more in-touch and responsive governing body.

The old boy network is not just dead. It has been stomped and squashed, drawn and quartered. And the association is all the better for it.

The same needs to happen to our elected reps.

As long as we have the current system, I am in favor of term limits.

If we go to 100% publically financed campaigns, I would no longer be in favor of term limits.

[guidod]

38. BushCo has them all afraid,

besides that they're EGO's are so big they're trying to keep their image of being a U.S. SENATOR. Ooooooooooooooooooo
The only senator in Wasington that cares about the people is Feingold. Boxer also waited to see which way the wind was blowing.

[ToeBot]

40. The only power the left has is to withhold its vote and the DC Dem's know

that. They also know that the left will never, and I mean NEVER, withhold its vote if there is any chance that doing so would allow a Republican to win. So why take a courageous stand, why do anything that may turn off the centrists, the undecideds or anyone else too stupid to formulate an opinion? I hear allot of loud talk about running progressives in the primaries, but can they take on both the Republicans and the Democratic establishment? I wont hold my breath. In the end the only power you have is to withhold your vote and until you're willing to do that you are impotent.

[Zinfandel]

41. Actually 34% and sinking...if you believe 36% this week, you'll accept 38%

next week, rising, on and on...before you know it... the quivering Dem's will be changing strategy.

Old Rove, again!

"NSA "Terrorist Surveillance Program" got the goods on them."

Hmmmm...I think I voted too soon...everyone with power does indeed fuck up and will expose, weaknesses (for others) political gain. (If all else fails...SMEAR)...Hmmmm...maybe the Dem's do have something to be frightened of some sleazy shit? ...So what, so then --- Get out of the fucking way...

The Dem's, I think we agree...really, do, have to stop letting the republicans dictate the pace and the format all the way to the elections, again. Or it will be over before it starts.

Unity!