HuffPo: "Don't Vote Democrat"

[BurtWorm]

Greg Saunders, a freelance writer, is the author of this advice. Setting aside the grating misuse of "Democrat" as an adjective in the title and copy, his points about the timidity of the Democrats in power are well taken. I wish the Chavez bullshit would get dropped so people could focus on the vastly more important fact of how ineffectual the Dems were on the torture issue. They have some 'splainin' to do.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-saunders/dont-vote-democrat_b_30046.html

Don't Vote Democrat (67 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, 2006, Politics

I'm not kidding. If the last week is any indicator of what we've got to look forward to in a Democratic Congress, then don't bother. The last time they were in charge we got the Patriot Act, the Iraq War resolution, and the Medicare drug bill. Now with every poll supporting the Democrats and the Republicans on the ropes, these cowards are still afraid to throw the first punch.

Instead, we see the torture issue (yeah, that's how far we've sunk) being co-opted by a group the media have dubbed the Republican "Rebels" whose grand act of rebellion consisted of giving the President the right to do whatever he wants. Charles Peirce has it exactly right :

And the Democratic Party was nowhere in this debate. It contributed nothing. On the question of whether or not the United States will reconfigure itself as a nation which tortures its purported enemies and then grants itself absolution through adjectives -- "Aggressive interrogation techniques" -- the Democratic Party had...no opinion. On the issue of allowing a demonstrably incompetent president as many of the de facto powers of a despot that you could wedge into a bill without having the Constitution spontaneously combust in the Archives, well, the Democratic Party was more pissed off at Hugo Chavez.

This was as tactically idiotic as it was morally blind. On the subject of what kind of a nation we are, and to what extent we will live up to the best of our ideals, the Democratic Party was as mute and neutral as a stone. Human rights no longer have a viable political constituency in the United States of America.

Since the Democrats don't seem to be interested in convincing the public to vote for them, then here's a better idea : This November vote against every incumbent on the ballot. Whether they're part of the Republican, Democrat, or Connecticut for Lieberman parties, throw out the whole damn lot of them. If the choice is between a party that openly supports the destruction of habeas corpus or a party that's too timid to take a stand in favor of basic human decency, then I'd rather just roll the dice and try to start over with a clean slate.

[madame defarge]

1. I've heard many people say...

"I'll vote for anyone but the incumbent!" Makes a lot of sense to me (especially since the incumbent congresscritter in my district is a rubber stamp republican).

[Warpy]

3. Same here in NM

People are boiling mad at this Congress, at Stupid, at the way the country is being destroyed. House races will be interesting, and the Senate race may be a whole lot closer than anticipated, even with the GOP offering only a token candidate and running no ads.

[vickitulsa]

14. I'm in the same boat here.

Oklahoma is rife with "veteran" incumbents of the radical Repuke stripe, so simply voting the incumbents out here would serve a useful purpose.

Not sure how this tack would play out overall, but I'm as disgusted with the DemocratIC "leadership" and many of the followers-along as I can get. There's way too much collusion and collaboration among Dems in office these days, and far too little courage and conviction.

I wonder how it WOULD play out if we all did that? Since the R's hold the majority overall, wouldn't we end up with a cleaner slate if we simply vote out the entrenched members? I can't tell you how many times when I'm talking to friends or strangers about how imperative it is that we gut the heart of this neocon criminal bunch come November, and they respond with criticism of prominent Dems (or any Dems) that is quite fair.

When all I have to fall back on at that point is to say, "But the Democratic party is the only entity with even a HOPE of ousting the Republicans...," I feel I'm arguing from a very weak stance.

There has to be a better way to let EVERYONE presently holding down a cushy, profitable seat in Congress and the White House, as well as the many other corporatists and media whore types who think they benefit from the status quo, know once and for all that we are fed up to HERE with what they're all doing and won't sit quietly by or go meekly to the polls to vote the straight Dem ticket.

Ineffective, cowardly Democrats who have some degree of influence and power should not be allowed to recline and observe and "go along to get along," confident that everyone who hates having a Republican majority will keep right on voting for them....

Collaborators in crime are NOT deserving of my support!

[BurtWorm]

18. I'm undecided about how to spend my vote in the NY Senate election.

If HRC makes a convincing sound of contrition for her vote for IWR, or if she makes an even more convincing sound of movement toward getting the US out of Iraq, I'll vote for her. If she doesn't, I may actually vote for Hawkins, the Green.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

59. Vote Democratic- Impeach Bush. Put John Conyers in charge of Judiciary.

n/t

[Subdivisions]

23. Hutchison here. I'm afraid we may be stuck with her if we don't

get more support for her challenger Barbara Ann Radnofsky.

Please donate to the campaign of Barbara Ann Radnofsky for US Senate http://www.radnofsky.com">HERE!

Our prospects for Chris Bell are looking up as Kinky Friedman plays the spoiler. But don't put it past Texans to hire the quintesential Texan out of sheer novelty.

At least my district (TX-17) is safe with Edwards sure to clobber that dolt Van Taylor.

[vickitulsa]

49. Yikes, you talking about the despicable Kay Bailey H?

Man, I'm really hoping her opponent has a chance of beating that witch. (Apologies to any respectable witches out there.)

If there's one member of Congress I can LEAST stand to watch or listen to, it's KBH. How anyone can be proud to say s/he voted for her is beyond my ken....

The neocons seem to love to trot her out there as a female who will spout their line of crap far and wide with no instruction or prodding. A classic picture of what's wrong with people in her camp, IMO.

:puke:

Good luck down there! I've lived in TX a lot and it's sort of my second home. So sad to see what's developed there since I left. Dubya stole the governorship when I moved to Dallas in '94, and when I left in late '97, everything was going down the tubes fast.

I don't even want to VISIT Texas anymore! :cry:

[UTUSN]

2. Yeah-right, the way to end Shrubofascism is NOT to vote Dem. Check. n/t

[BurtWorm]

6. I have an opportunity to punish Charlie Rangel for his Chavez remark.

I'm planning to reward him for voting against the Iraq war and mostly being a thorn in the Bushists' side.

[Plausible]

4. I only vote Democratic

Keeping Pennsylvania blue, next the country.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Fuck that vote the bums out.

If a Democratic congress doesn't have the balls to stand up, we will deal with that when it happens. I don't disagree with the analysis, it is very likely true, I disagree with the prescription. Throw the bums out. If it's 'here comes the new boss same as the old boss', oh well, what else is new? We will get fooled again, but it will be worth it to see the look on the asshat's faces when they have to share power. Plus there are some good Democrats and they will suddenly have subpoena power. Shit will hit the fan.

[Toots]

8. Yep just like it did for the two year Dems controlled the Senate.

.............:shrug: well it could have.....

[n2doc]

7. It is too important a time to do this

I agree totally on the points made about the Torture 'debate'. But we all know exactly what we will get with a return of the repuke controlled congress. And we most definitely can agree that we don't want another 2 years of that. So, no, I will be voting for my DEMOCRATIC party candidates, and hoping that they take the majority in the house and senate. And hoping that the message sent by this action will be clear enough so that even the most hard core DLC'ers hear it. But damn near ANYTHING is better than what we have now.

[BurtWorm]

10. Most of them need their spines steeled.

They need to be made afraid of what voters will do if they don't stand up against torture and other Bushist bullshit.

[Caution]

13. And the best way to do this is to allow Republicans to institutionalize

torture as soon as all those awful Democrats who criticized Hugo Chavez are kicked out of office and replaced with Republicans. Yep. Good plan.

[blondeatlast]

34. The way to do that is to get a Democratic majority and hold their asses

right above the fire.

It's safer to vote your conscience as an incumbent from the majority party.

[ruggerson]

9. Isn't this blatantly contrary to the purpose of DU?

n/t

[skipos]

15. Yes, but many people here strongly dislike Democrats

Why they come to DU, I don't know. Maybe it is to try to talk the rest of us out of voting for Democrats? :shrug:

[ruggerson]

17. Well then they should get the fuck out of here nt/t

[UTUSN]

16. That's what *I* say n/t

[sandnsea]

63. I alerted - anybody else?

I am sick of this crap. Somebody needs to make their own Anarchists Underground to post this crazy crap at.

[Greeby]

11. FFS

This torture "compromise" came out on Friday when Congress was not in session, most Democrats were either in their districts or out on the campaign trail.

Can they at least get on the floor and state their opinion before people demand their heads? :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

24. We knew for at least days what was going on with the torture bill.

Wasn't that enough time for Democrats to stage a national campaign against torture, from the road? Yes, it was.

[Caution]

12. Once again Democrats prove they are single issue voters incapable

of seeing beyond the smallest trangression and who refuse to look at the big picture. Because you know, not voting Democratic is really going to help slow the tide of torture. It's really going to get us out of Iraq faster. It's really going to ensure a woman's right to choose. It's going to ensure that veterans get the benefits they deserve, that our children get the education they deserve, that our right to privacy will be preserved, that our ports will be properly protected, that worker's rights will be protected, that we'll see a rise in the minimum wage, that all americans will get healthcare, that civil rghts will be protected, that social security will be preserved, etc etc.

Yeah. Because a few Democrats criticized Hugo Chavez we should go ahead and not vote for them. That's the best way to show these bastards that we're serious about the above issues. Put in more Republicans. Let them completely gut all of the above. That'll show em.

[originalpckelly]

19. If the majority of incumbents are Republicans...

wouldn't the majority of new Congress people be Democrats?

[BurtWorm]

22. Oddly enough, I'll argue against that

The fact is, only Democrats--or lefties--would be pure enough (or dumb enough) to vote against their Democratic incumbents for not being sufficiently pure. When right wingers talk about sitting on their hands to try to scare the Repubs, the Repubs actually listen and froth on cue. And if they don't froth frothily enough, the wingers head to the polls and vote Republican anyway.

So if this message were to spread like wildfire this election, the Dems would ultimately pay the price. It's a miserable state of affairs for the left in the US. Our incumbents take us for granted, and when we get pissed off about that, we abandon them, they lose, and the right-wing only gets more entrenched.

You'd think the solution would be to strike fear into the hearts of the incumbents so they stop taking the left for granted. But something about the system gets in the way of enabling the left to have anywhere near the same measure of control over their politicians as the right exerts over theirs.

[janx]

25. BUT--

The RW couldn't do that until Republicans were in power. This is not the time to demand the perfect ideology; it's time to get as many Dems elected as possible (over incumbent Repubs). For instance, I'm in a district that is a toss-up between an 8-year incumbent Repub who has been very tight with the Chimp and a Dem who is running against her.

I'm not supposed to vote for the Dem?!

I'm not happy with certain Dem incumbents, but I'm smart enough to know that there will be time to deal with those (like Lieberman)--during the primaries.

[BurtWorm]

27. In your case, you're SUPPOSED to vote for the Dem

Because in your case, voting against the incumbent is voting FOR the Dem. Saunders' (and this thread's) title is not reflective of his actual argument, which is more against INCUMBENTS. Theoretically, this would turn the Congressional power structure on its head. Practically, I fear it would just mean more Dems getting tossed out, because, as I say, when the going gets tough, the Repubs come out in force while the Dems fade away.

(Why did I post this if I don't fully agree with it? Because I agree with the point about the Dems being absent from the torture debate. Like a lot of lefty Democrats, I want the people in office to show some sign that they know we're out here and aren't taking us for granted. I want them to be a lot more afraid of us than they are.)

[janx]

32. This is turning into a circular argument.

The Dems have no power. Until we get some more elected, the situation will stay the same. The 50-state strategy will yield some interesting results, no doubt. I fully agree with you that a lot of Dems in office right now are centered more on their own interests than the interests of the people who elected them, and I agree that they should go. But for now--in a general, mid-term election--we have to concentrate on getting whatever new Dems elected as we can and on kicking out Republican incumbents.

Then, in the next primaries, we can do a Lamont in every district, every state, every level.

It's going to take time. :toast:

[BurtWorm]

33. You're right on all counts.

:toast:

Dems need to get into power before we can punish them for not using it well. ;)

[vickitulsa]

52. That's how I see it too.

What infuriates me no end is the way most Dems in office, and especially the veterans with more influence and power than others, seem to take us all for granted and assume we'll hate the Repugs so much we'll still keep right on voting for them no matter what they do -- or FAIL to do.

EVERYONE dislikes being taken for granted ... except perhaps a lot of those automaton R's and fundies who simply think that's how life is supposed to be. Obedience to the leadership of one's chosen group, no matter how insane they prove to be. Like those who followed Jim Jones and David Koresh (really Vernon Howell) even to their deaths. Mindboggling....

I sorta thought the article's title was intended to provoke thought rather than to "guide," but I wasn't certain. And I hope like hell that sentiment ("Don't vote Democrat") doesn't sweep like wildfire across the country, or we're sunk fer sure.

When I talk with people who criticize Dems but clearly want an alternative to the Bu$h criminal element and all who've backed them, I ask them to consider that the only chance we have is to vote Dem because no other party or group or person has the means to combat the Republicans with any chance of winning -- and taking the POWER back from them that they've abused so badly for so long. People really ARE sick of that, and tired of feeling helpless about it ... even a bit panicky about feeling helpless to stop the madness. I'm hoping at least a few of the people I talk with on a regular basis are seeing the light.

I don't "blame Nader" or the Greens, really, for what happened in 2000, but sometimes I find it helps to remind people of that as a way to illustrate what can happen if the opposing vote gets split several ways.

[BurtWorm]

55. Excellent post.

:toast:

*I* intended to provoke thought by posting this, and in your case, I think I did.

I think the dynamic in the Republican party is different from the one among the Dems. There, the right-right wing knows better that it ISN'T being taken for granted. They actually get to hear their most sacred (insane) beliefs being spouted by politicians in power and given utter respect by TV talking heads from "all" perspectives (meaning all parts of the tiny spectrum the media can tolerate on its airwaves). Former Democrat Joe Lieberman gives them all due deference, and he's not alone; who in the Republican party gives a shit about what the left believes?

[Caution]

26. That assumes that there is an alternative and that ALL voters who would

normally vote Democratic would follow the HuffPo article's advice. This is the real world and the end result of posts like this is that Democrats lose votes which does nothing except help Republicans. Also to point out, the HuffPo article advised against voting Democratic. He wasn't referring to voting against all incumbents (which good luck convincing a Republican to vote against Rick Santorum because the Democrats aren't leftist enough).

If we were in a time of relative sanity this might not be a terrible idea. However, we are in real danger of losing our basic rights and the things that make America a great place to live. I'm not willing to do that so that I can teach Charlie Rangel not to criticize the leader of some other country, no matter how much i may disagree with what he said. Overall Rangel has been good for the people of America, would we take votes away from him that would end up with him being replaced by another whackjob Republican just because of this small and ultimately meaningless "transgression" ?

[BurtWorm]

28. Are you in Rangel's district?

I am, and I agree with you. I support Rangel for all the good he's done. I want him to head the Ways and Means committee.

[Caution]

30. Unfortunately I'm not. My district is about as safe Dem as it can get so

I often wish I had moved someplace where my vote would have more impact. My Rep John Tierney is freakin fantastic. One of the single best representatives in the House. I wish that someday he could be President. Seriously, look up the guy's record sometime. He's damned near perfect :)

[BurtWorm]

31. Massachusetts, right?

You're blessed with a great Congressional delegation. Lousy governors, though.

[Caution]

35. Yep MA. We'll rectify the governor thing in a couple of months

Deval Patrick is going to crush Healey.

[BurtWorm]

36. He looks good.

:thumbsup:

He came out of nowhere, didn't he? I never heard of him before he won the primary. But I like what I've read about him since then.

[Caution]

38. He's a family friend of my wife's best friend so I knew of him

But yeah he's pretty new in the political arena, though he did serve as Assistant Attorney General in charge of Civil Rights under Clinton.

He's as sincere as they come and a true progressive. Can't wait to see what he can accomplish with a Democratic legislature in MA.

[vickitulsa]

20. Your points are well taken.

But I didn't see anywhere that anyone was suggesting we "put more Republicans in office" by any means.

How can it be contrary to the purpose of DU, as one poster here asked, to engage in some critical thinking and an effort to find the absolute BEST plan of attack in November? Do we want to ensure that the DINO's and cowards and cop-outs, sell-outs, and collaborators never have to worry about our loyalty to them?

It's just that I'm still thinking this whole issue through and haven't yet decided for certain what the best tack to take is. I understand both sides, or the many sides, of this issue. What I don't understand is how we can convince independent types and those who are fed up with their own Republican party to switch 180 degrees and vote for the Dems they already know enough about to despise.

If we decide we still must "hold our nose and vote Democratic," then we'll have to find some better, more persuasive arguments to fence-sitters and others out there than the ones we currently have, IMO. I'm so often at a loss when a savvy person points out the disgusting lack of courage on the part of especially the prominent Dems, it's simply very hard to win my case with people I talk to about all this.

I absolutely hate having to defend some of those Democrats, and in fact I find I simply cannot do so on many accounts. I'm even beginning to worry that perhaps our Constitutional Democratic Republic could be reaching either the end of its sensible run as things are going or else there's a dire need for the sort of tumultuous uprising it would take to get this mess straightened out. It seems like all of our options are less than desirable in some way or the other.

And it sucks to the max to have no really GOOD option at this point! Or at least not to have one that would truly accomplish what we Americans need and want for our country, ourselves, and the world.

[ruggerson]

21. Because the OP is titled DON"T VOTE DEMOCRAT

It's not asking for critical thinking. It's a hit piece on Democrats.

[vickitulsa]

45. Can't argue with that. "Hit piece" might be a bit strong

but probably not. The article did offer only one alternative instead of providing a balanced assessment of the situation.

I endorse what Pitchforks said below. Perhaps the writer of that article in the OP used the wording he did in his title just to provoke thought and (mainly) to get people to READ his piece. You know, a variant of what many DUers do to get us to read their posts. ;)

I don't like his conclusions as they stand, however, and I definitely plan to vote Dem myself! I'm just so very frustrated with how many of them are handling this entire situation we find ourselves in with such powerful and threatening pukes in control in our country.

And it worries me that so many people are considering once again simply "making a statement" by voting Green or any other way, splitting the opposing vote and weakening our chances of ever getting some power back....

[many a good man]

29. Americans are clamoring for Democratic leadership

I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with moderate Republicans and independents who can't stand what the GOP is doing to our country but can't see Democrats as a viable alternative. They will join in denouncing bush and his Congress and beg for an alternative, but they see Democrats as weak and feckless, unsure of themselves and unwilling to take a stand to stop the madness going on.

They keep asking why aren't the Democrats doing anything to stop this? I tell them they can't really do much until they have majority. They say why can't they at least speak out forcefully? I tell them some are but the media doesn't report it. Then they point to the latest example of mush-mouthed crap coming out of the mouths of some of our leaders and there's not much I can say about it but admit they're right.

We are our own worst enemy most of the time.

[The Count]

37. Isn't "democrat" the name freepers call our party? Instead of Democratic?

I am angry like hell about the hijinks the Dems did lately and I won't be a happy voter. But OTOH, when my kid asks me why are we living in a fascist regime (as I know, they'll steal these elections too), at least I'll be able to tell her I did all I could to try to avoid it. Including holding my nose in the voting booth and voting Dem no matter what.

[BurtWorm]

41. He's probably a Naderite.

They do the same shit.

[mom cat]

39. I talked to a self proclaimed, died in the woll Republican yesterday

who said he did not understand why the Democrats were not taking advantage of all of Bush's errors!
Why are the Dems pulling their punches?

[symbolman]

40. According to a researcher on Congress on the Jon Stewart show

she said that 98% of ALL INCUMBENTS RETURN to Congress, and that it's been that way for a LONG time. I was STUNNED to hear that number, I knew they had an advantage, but nothing like this..

She also indicated that THIS was one of the ONLY THINGS that ALL PARTIES agreed upon, a non- partisan issue, they ALL work together to keep riding that GRAVY TRAIN... Scary, huh?

As for us, here in Hawaii, we have Ed Case running against Incumbent Akaka, who Case is INSULTING as being a Liberal, one of the top 6 Liberals most reviled for their progressivism, for STANDING UP to the Bush machine.

For me that NAILED it, I'm voting for AKAKA, he's a TRUE Progressive Liberal, and I've met Ed Case who proved himself to be a slimy Yellow DOG DINO, and I just may make a sign tomorrow and stand by the side of the road, that says, "ED CASE IS A REPUBLICAN."

What really burned my grits was that CASE has been working with LIEberman on top of it all.

FUCK THEM.

I WILL be voting for an INCUMBENT, ONE of VALUE, instead of letting some snot nosed little Republican LITE DINO take over that position - so let's choose wisely, shall we?

[BurtWorm]

42. Okay, that really is sickening about Case.

:puke:

But I knew that about incumbents. They're what a friend of mine used to call "wet boogers"--hard to shake loose. ;)

[vickitulsa]

53. I heard that figure recently too.

In fact, a report I heard somewhere or other indicated that there were really only a VERY FEW seats that were likely to be up for grabs in November. Considering that the incumbents have so strong an advantage over their challengers, not a lot of seats are likely to revert to the opposing party in any case.

That's scary as hell, all right, but it doesn't surprise me. Once even the best-intentioned, purist progressive politicians get in office (if they do) and are subjected to the pressures to corrupt at every turn, to do what their leadership wants them to, to join in the grand big game they're all playing whereby the main thing they're interested in doing is lining their own pockets and packing them full of $$$ and favors-for-life, how can we trust any of them to remain true to their reasons for running in the first place?

It's the "beltway syndrome," or something like that. Once absent from their home states for a good long while and steeped in the atmosphere and culture of D.C., they forget what they went there for, possibly in part because of how frustrating it can be to try to CHANGE things there, and simply decide to make the best of it for personal gain that they can while it lasts for them.

A truly sorry state of affairs.

I found it interesting and ironic that that article in the OP was from the people at Grist. Indeed, we are all mere grist for the mill of that powerful money machine in Washington D.C. that heeds our cries and demands about as much as a gristmill pays attention to the corn it grinds to a fine powder.

[never cry wolf]

43. 5 words. John Conyers with supoena power....

Keep your eyes on the prize guys!

Also, from the OP I don't get the following lines:

I'm not kidding. If the last week is any indicator of what we've got to look forward to in a Democratic Congress, then don't bother. The last time they were in charge we got the Patriot Act, the Iraq War resolution, and the Medicare drug bill.

They have not been in charge of the house since '94 or the senate since '02.

[BurtWorm]

44. That should be the title of a thread of its own

:toast:

[never cry wolf]

61. AMEN!

:toast:

[goforit]

46. We need more than just an election... we need the tea thrown overboard!

[Radical Activist]

47. Actually, Democrats did contribute to the debate.

So why not promote the liberal Democrats who are speaking out that the corporate media is censoring. Its unfair to punish them for the failures of moderate Democrats and the media.

[brentspeak]

48. The Democrats were not "ineffectual" on the torture issue

It turns out they did the right thing by staying on the sidelines. Now there's a good chance Bush's entire torture proposal will be canned. Had the Democrats piped in, the GOP would not have fought Bush on the issue, and the torture bill would have a chance of being passed.

[MODemocrat]

50. What would be the point of letting the fascists stay in power?

I'm not going to listen to this propaganda anymore. It's my medicare the republicans are going to cut
by 37%, and the re-doing the social security, etc., that worries me. That's all the republican party is
good for. I've been around long enough to know what they stand for, and to know that don't care about
anyone else besides their own. :+ :+ :+ :+

[Rex]

51. Chavez bullshit.

:rofl:

[BurtWorm]

57. Want a definition of "the Chavez bullshit?"

It's not what Chavez said. It's what DUers, in particular, have been wallowing in since Chavez said it. It's an obstacle to progress because it's only served to divide Democrats and keep us infighting. I don't think it's had that effect on Republicans. They've even got their constipated asses working in unison on torture now.

[Rex]

60. I never knew Chavez could push so many buttons.

Divide Dems? Hardly. The only thing I see on DU that divides Dems are posts by people who claim 'Dems are divide by such and such issue'. These divisive claims are a real hoot - not true at all, but still funny none the less.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2204560

You posted a Chavez thread a few hours before this thread and now call it Chavez bullshit.

EDIT - sorry Burtworm, not really meaning this at you I'm just dissapointed seeing smart people (or at least people I think are smart) falling for the Chavez boogyman meme. He will end up being just another footnote in history. Don't let little things get under the skin, not worth it.

Okay, off the soapbox I go!

[BurtWorm]

64. As I say, "the Chavez bullshit" has less to do with what Chavez said

than with how some on the left have reacted to it, expecting Democrats to saying something nice about Chavez's calling Bush a devil just about a month away from the election.

What Democrats in office say about the president of Venezuela is so vastly less significant than what they say and do about torture and illegal wiretapping, for example. But the only time you ever get a mass of DUers up in arms over something is when it's high-concept, ready-made and prepackaged from the media. I do it too, so I'm not saying it's not me. It's because I happen to respect Charlie Rangel (he's my Representative) that I'm more pissed off about this particular distraction than others. I can see how stupid people have been about this, writing him off for this one infraction when the last time they ever thought of him it was to praise him for being a voice in the wilderness, which is what he usually is. I loath the kind of fickleness DUers display, jumping from worshipping to spitting on someone because they don't perfectly reflect the Bush-bash fad-o-the-day.

[ComerPerro]

54. I can't believe you fall for this bullshit

You know why Dems are silent?

Because the majority shuts them out of committees and prevents them from coming to the floor with amendments to legislation.

They aren't speaking up in Congress because they have no power.

[BurtWorm]

56. That's part of the problem.

Also that the media aren't interested in what Dems have to say if it doesn't fit in with the Republican agenda.

But why are the Dems so inept at getting anyone to pay attention to their message, if that message really is anti-torture? Do we know for sure it is anti-torture? How would we know that?

[ComerPerro]

58. No one in the media wants to report on it

[AnnieBW]

62. In a Quandary

My Rep is Steny (DINO) Hoyer, the supposed DemocratIC Whip. Some Whip! I realize that being the DemocratIC Whip is the equivalent of Chief Cat Herder, but he's doing a piss-poor job of getting people to vote as a bloc. But, whatever no-name Repuke they come up with to run against him is usually a RW-nut, which I refuse to vote for. Besides, Steny takes good care of the Federal employees, of which I am one. So, it's Steny or nothing. Oh, well. :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

67. Did anyone run against him in the primaries?

[Eric J in MN]

65. Even his facts are wrong.

When the Patriot Act passed, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

Greg Saunders writes:

If the last week is any indicator of what we've got to look forward to in a Democratic Congress, then don't bother. The last time they were in charge we got the Patriot Act, the Iraq War resolution, and the Medicare drug bill.

[BurtWorm]

66. Not true. The Patriot Act passed not long after 9/11

when Daschle was majority leader. It wasn't until 2003 that the Repubs officially took back control of the Senate.

[bbgrunt]

68. somebody had to say it. I agree entirely.

[maddezmom]

69. locking

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Thanks.