Olberman said NO POLL HAS EVER SHOWN STONGER SUPPORT for takeover

[Atman]

Did I hear that right? He presented a poll showing that 50% of America thinks that democrats should take control of the govt in 2006 vs. 38% Republican. He said that no party, republican or democrat, has ever reached that 50% mark.

And the DC Democrats are STILL afraid to stand up to BushCo? What the bloody hell is it going to take?????

[Mr_Spock]

1. Winning in the fall will give them a boost

We need to do everything in our power to make sure our people are elected. There's no better confidence booster than winning :D

[sarcasmo]

34. Terra alert in either September or October, Bird Flu is my guess.

These Idiots will use fear in order to win again. Remember the Osama tape the week before the election in 04.

[centristo]

70. do you think the Bird Flu is going to strengthen the Bush Admin?

After Katrina, NOBODY trusts this government to protect them. Well, maybe that stubborn 34% do.

[sarcasmo]

80. It's not the Bird Flu on it's own it's the Fear it will create.

Faux news will have a field day scaring the Sheep with the Bird Flu TERRA.

[centristo]

83. true dat

but I'm just saying it will work against Bush this time. The analysis will soon revert to "what if this was a biological terrorist attack"? I don't think Americans feel safe under any type of crisis under Bush and a flu scare will work against him, not for him.

[Critters2]

108. And the Democratic "leadership" will help 'em out

by cowering, and giving 'em anything they ask for.

:banghead:

[RazzleDazzle]

112. AND the oppty for martial law, and possibly suspending

the elections or creating enough havoc all sorts of other things can go on during the elections.

Remember how hard this administration worked to try to have the oppty to install martial law in NOLA after Katrina. It's not out of their blood by any means.

[sarcasmo]

116. Your statement is the reason this will happen in a Red State. The Red

State Governor can go ahead and give the Dictator his wet dream, Martial Law.

[jbnow]

89. Maybe bush will be a hero

being shown choking chickens.

cheney's approval will soar to 21% as he shoots the caged ones.

[FiveGoodMen]

103. Showing Bush choking the chicken? Ewww!

[windy252]

104. Ah, yes the immovable 35% n/t

[katty]

88. this starts Now-They will DO ANYTHING to stay in power

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. No. Then they'll be stupid enough to vote in majority leaders that

represent Republican States or they'll vote in Joe Lieberman, which will result in the same thing.

[fishwax]

61. every day they fail to stand up, though, lowers their chances in the fall

Not that they have to be overly strident, but dancing around the * issue may allow them to pull defeat from the jaws of victory ...

[Mr_Spock]

68. Grumpy grimaces the lot of ya!

I've never in my life seen such negativity!

I was just stating a fact of life - winning makes all things better - I never expected such grating cynicism!

[sendero]

77. Dude...

.... have you been watching the Dem senate for the last 5 years? If so, and you are not thoroughly disgusted with the whole thing, why?

I've never seen a group of politicians fuck up a sure thing like the Democratic senate.

[Mr_Spock]

92. Yes, seen it and I'm disgusted

...but I don't go around poking a stick in the eye of anybody who dares to imagine a positive outcome to elections and the optimism that could create.

Scowl :P

[fishwax]

84. who is being cynical?

I agree with you that winning in the fall can embolden the democrats. But, unfortunately, winning in the fall is hardly a guarantee. Being bolder now serves two purposes: it increases are chance of winning in the fall (and therefore getting the ego boost), and it also will allow us to claim credit for winning, rather than simply winning b/c of the bad reactions to bush. Bush's poor approval numbers may help us this november, but it will take more than that to lay the groundwork for 2008. Better to offer a bold alternative now.

[Mr_Spock]

93. Nobody disagrees with you - but this was a POSITIVE poll

Why did it require the cynical grumpy responses?

Relax for just a minute and realize that some people are allowed to think in positive terms from time to time...

[fishwax]

96. well, i don't think i was being negative

or grumpy or cynica. Nor did I tell anyone how (or how not) to feel. I'm happy about the poll and I hope we take advantage of our position. :hi:

[Mr_Spock]

102. Me too!

Let's hope for the best - take back Congress!!

:hi:

[AndyTiedye]

138. What Is Winning Like? I Can't Remember.

winning makes all things better

We haven't won in so long, we have forgotten what it feels like.

[sendero]

75. I agree...

... the polls don't mean anything unless the Dems come forth with a REASON to vote for them. I wish I were more optimistic that they will.

[AndyTiedye]

136. Robbing Us (Again) Would Give THEM A Boost. Big Time.

It sure did in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Is there anything we can do to stop our elections from being stolen again?

[fearnobush]

2. My Guess is, there internal polling told them that, the 50% mark

a week before the censure move and that they got scared. Scared that a failed censure move would embolden the pukes. Dumb ass DLC's. On the other hand, perhaps the public has had enough of the GOP mantra were strong and terror, Fiengold is with Bin Laden crap that they no longer care what Bush or Rove or RNC has to say about it. I doubt it though, Dems need to stress that it was the Republicans that supported the Dubai Port sale, before they opposed it.

[mzmolly]

3. THIS is why we must be patient.

Food for thought below:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/15/impeachable_strategy.php

[Writer]

10. What a TERRIFIC commentary.

I especially like this quote:

"There's a realistic way to defy political realities and an unrealistic way to do so. It's no sellout or surrender to recognize the difference."

PRECISELY.

[heidler1]

21. I agree with the Tom P. article completely. The time to get rid of Bush

will be after we win back Congress. I thought the Republicans attempt to sack Clinton made them look like fools. IMO Many people stood by Clinton because they felt sorry for him. Every talking head news man on TV was against him. We've got Bush on the run and his macho facade don't wear well under these conditions.

[mattclearing]

67. No, people stuck by Clinton because they thought the case was bullshit.

I don't think anyone felt sorry for the guy getting blowjobs in the Oval Office and cheating on his wife.

They did feel sorry for the fact that he was persecuted every day he was in office, though.

Bush isn't like that. Half the electorate has no sympathy for him whatsoever.

52% of a Zogby poll favored his impeachment in January.

[juajen]

86. I agree

I never felt sorry for him, but was outraged on his behalf. I did feel sorry for Hillary and Chelsea, though.

[msgadget]

31. "You may as well ask them to impeach themselves."

Exactly. I would very much like for them to have to debate this, to defend the indefensible even IF the democrats can't get the votes. Citizens of the United States are uneasy about this, democrat and republican alike. I want them to have to live with a vote in favor of deception and illegal domestic spying. Yes, I am asking them to impeach themselves.

Edit for spell check :)

[mzmolly]

52. I disagree. What would happen is that Bush's failures will be taken out

of the news - and the MSM is just BEGINNING to be critical of him. Sorry, I like the downward slide and I think talk of impeachment will actually help Bush. Republicans who want to see Democrats take over right now might just get their dander up if we start talking about a futile attempt to impeach.

Let's wait until A) it can actually happen and B) we can afford to change the dialog

We're in the best position we've been in - in SIX years, we can't afford to roll the dice.

[msgadget]

79. You're saying the press will stop the bad press if the censure

resolution is advanced? Why do you think that? I'd think the opposite would happen, there'd be even more reporting on his past lies and misdeeds.

[mzmolly]

81. I think that because when Clinton was impeached that was ALL

we heard about. I also think we'd be re-debating the war when Americans who can be swayed against it already are. Further a futile impeachment attempt will weaken a REAL go at it when we take back congress IMHO.

[msgadget]

85. Hmmm, I'm trying to recall Clinton's impeachment...

and there's no comparison, imo. He was being impeached for lying under oath about adultery, basically, and during the whole thing every single rock they could overturn was, the press replayed every negative or suspicious thing anyone ever thought about the man. They demonized him with such a broad brush voters on the other side can't even recall the stability of those times or consider him without a visceral reaction of outrage. I'd love for every lie this administration has perpetrated to be reported on widely, over and over, day after day. I do not see the same rallying behind the man I saw from our side for Clinton. This guy lies and people lose their rights and die. Unlike Clinton, the implications of his deceptions are positively stunning in their negative impact on us, our worldwide reputation and our safety. He has to be called to task and if this censure is only about the NSA spying, I feel confident there are other actions for which impeachment could become a possibility. I don't expect the censure resolution to pass - I must repeat that - I want him to painted with that same loathesome brush during the process. That's sufficient to weaken the party's cheerleaders come election time in '06 and '08. IMHO. :)

[mzmolly]

90. Clinton was impeached by a majority Republican congress -

that's the main point we must recall. ;)

Don't ask the majority of Americans to focus on facts msgadget, it doesn't work. They like one or two salacious details to chew on or they get confused.

Peace

[msgadget]

105. Actually, the point is this: We're AMERICANS first, not republicans

or democrats, and we should expect Congress to provide oversight. It's that simple. I expect the rule of law to be enforced regardless the majority. We all must push more for that than support some political strategy. I'm not a politician, how they win their elections is up to them and once they win they're accountable to ALL of us, not just their party or their president. We voters are not facilitators. We are the employers of these people and, frankly, I don't help my employees avoid the yucky stuff. I do not support this passive strategy even a little bit.

It looks like neither of us can be swayed from our positions which is way cool. I like to understand those who don't think like me because it's important to consider all sides and I usually learn something from the experience.

[mzmolly]

106. Of course, but to expect this congress to provide oversight is

absurd given their track record. What should be - isn't always.

Peace

[msgadget]

107. True, but we never, every stop demanding it as our due.

:thumbsup: (there's no peace smiley :))

[mzmolly]

109. I'm not suggesting we do.

Glad you are able to consider another opinion. If we realize simply that there are others with valid views, that is a start.

[0007]

98. What goes up must come down.

One need not champion impeachment to whack the president. Consider Senator Russell Feingold. On Monday he introduced a resolution to censure Bush. "The president," Feingold said on the Senate floor, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about he existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm that rule of law by condemning the president's actions." There is no chance that this resolution will be adopted by the Republican-controlled Senate. But Feingold has taken a stand and provided a rallying point for those (in and out of the Senate) who share his belief that Bush trampled the Constitution by okaying warrantless wiretapping. There's a realistic way to defy political realities and an unrealistic way to do so. It's no sellout or surrender to recognize the difference.

Lapham elegantly concludes his article with these words: "It is the business of the Congress to prevent the president from doing more damage than he's already done to the people, interests, health, well-being, safety, good name and reputation of the United States—to cauterize the wound and stem the flows of money, stupidity and blood." In theory, the grand man (and wonderful writer) is right. But the Republicans in charge of Congress have been partners with Bush every bloody, stupid, costly step along the way. You may as well ask them to impeach themselves. For that matter, you may as well call on Bush and Dick Cheney to recognize their disastrous mistakes and resign. Let's remember that politics is about gaining and using power—and that gravity does apply.

[IndyOp]

38. David Corn is an idiot - but he does support Feingold's censure...

"One need not champion impeachment to whack the president. Consider Senator Russell Feingold. On Monday he introduced a resolution to censure Bush. "The president," Feingold said on the Senate floor, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about he existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm that rule of law by condemning the president's actions." There is no chance that this resolution will be adopted by the Republican-controlled Senate. But Feingold has taken a stand and provided a rallying point for those (in and out of the Senate) who share his belief that Bush trampled the Constitution by okaying warrantless wiretapping. There's a realistic way to defy political realities and an unrealistic way to do so. It's no sellout or surrender to recognize the difference."

No one, right now, has introduced a bill of impeachment - Conyers has called for an investigation and Feingold for censure -- I believe that we *must* act now to separate ourselves from the Rethugs. The polls have been showing for *months* that the public wants Congress to check the power of the president.

[mzmolly]

51. Actually I think Conyers has the right idea.

I don't think the article was meant to critique Conyers. I think it was addressed at others who are demanding impeachment yesterday. Conyers knows what he's doing, he's preparing for 2006.

[SeanQ]

66. Exactly!

I agree we couldn't impeach Bush now. But by moving on censure and starting investigations, we start laying the groundwork. We also start to show voters that we (as a party) mean business and are serious about accountability! Here a post I just made related to this, in response to an email I got from the DCCC:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x667612#675213

[free_belmont]

46. Repugnants are very aware of this strategy

that's why Diebold will be on overdrive this fall. Trust me.

[mzmolly]

55. Welcome.

Diebold can't explain away an 11 point lead in the polls. The presidential election had about a 1 pt spread. I don't think the CAN steal the congressional election given the reality. Also, they no longer have the media under their wing like they did a short time ago.

[free_belmont]

56. let's hope you're right

but polls won't stop these criminals. They have too much at stake.

[mzmolly]

59. Yes, but I don't think they are willing to risk being questioned/jailed

when it comes to election theft. The Presidential election was close enough to tweak -

Peace

[free_belmont]

60. lol

wrong. It's if they LOSE that they go to jail. If they lose, Democrats get subpoena power, that means indictments and impeachment.

Stealing elections rarely lands anyone in jail, look at 2000, 2002, 2004, etc etc

[mzmolly]

63. And Libby and Abramoff are facing what?

If they steal an election with a 16 point spread they won't be able to cover it up. As for jail if we win, I'm certain they've shred every bit of evidence in their patriotic shredding machines in the spirit of Ollie North. They've got time to cover their tracks.

[free_belmont]

91. Libby and Abramoff

are not facing jail for stealing an election, helloooo???

And by the time November comes, there won't be a 16 point spread, you seem to forget that Republicans control the media as well. It'll be in the margin of error, and they will steal it again, it is over.

[mzmolly]

95. Votes stolen by diebold are forever gone thus is any evidence.

Hellooooooo. Do you think they kept a friggen notebook?

I predict the spread will be the same or greater, the republicans do control the media but fortunately they like money most of all - and the money will be in talking about the failed * presidency and his republican enablers.

[free_belmont]

97. you are contradicting yourself

first you write that they will go to jail for stealing an election then that there's no evidence possible of the crime.

Rove is hoping that most Democrats think like you, that the polls and the elections won't be rigged. That's how he managed to steal the last 3 elections.

[mzmolly]

99. I said IF they steel the NEXT election, it would be so apparent

that they'd not dare. It's easy to steal a close election, not so easy to steal one based on today poll numbers.

Rove is hoping that most Democrats/voters think like YOU, that it's futile to vote.

Let me clue you in. First, see the average of polls the day/week before the last presidential election, according to the "average" Bush was ahead in Ohio by just over 2 points. I'm not convinced exit polls give us the entire story.

See here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/oh_polls.html

The Presidential election showed a closer margin, with Bush still ahead:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

If Kerry did win, the average of polls before the election did not indicate that.

Check out the same websites average of the congressional races/pres approval ratings:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

It's all over but the cryin for the junta, sans any odd events - so get out and vote!

[free_belmont]

100. Rove won't stop me from voting

but it's naive to think that they will not steal yet again, regardless of approval ratings, which by November (Iran War) will also be heavily rigged.

[mzmolly]

101. See my edited post above for why I'm not convinced election 2004 had

to be stolen. I think 2000 was stolen with the help of Jeb Bush and purging voters, but I remain open minded about the rest.

[SeanQ]

64. Talk to the people in Ohio about it

Sounds like they did explain away 20+pnt poll to result election switches on a few key resolutions last fall. :(

[mzmolly]

65. I'd be interested in more information on that.

I'm not talking exit polls though, I'm talking pre-election polls.

Thanks SeanQ

[Stevepol]

111. Dieboold never explains anything. They just rig the election.

They leave the explaining to others.

In GA (02), Roy Barnes had an 11%-point lead 4 days before the election and lost by 5% points.

Diebold as far as I know never deigned to explain how that happened.

Cleland had about an 8% point lead and lost by 5%, a 13-point swing. Diebold never bothered to explain that.

Similar swings occurred in MN and CO, not wholly on Diebold as in GA but I believe pretty clearly the fix was in.

And as far as I can tell the fix remains. We just don't have a democracy anymore, and for now dissent is useless.

I personally believe we have to have the honest Repubs to help us. You can't have a democracy without having the sincere desire of both sides to have such a system. You can disagree about policies but if you want to have a democracy, there are certain things you have to agree on. For now, the moneyed party, the Repubs, just keeps looking the other way while the vendors of these machines continue to rig elections and cheat in every conceivable way without suffering anything for it: kick-backs, bribes, rebates, empty promises, lies, collusion. The elections officials are over-matched when they face these guys with their lies and their pretended non-partisanship. And the Feds keep pushing the officials to get with the program. The Repubs will have to help us in this battle with big money and the mafia electronic voting machine manufacturers and programmers.

[mzmolly]

119. Well thankfully paper trails are becoming the law of the land.

I'm not convinced anything was stolen, but I damned well want a paper trail and random audits.

[sellitman]

122. Your not convinced it was stolen?

The evidence it was is massive. What makes you doubt it for one second?

[mzmolly]

123. I don't think it is massive.

At least I haven't seen the massive evidence - personally. Above in this thread I posted average poll numbers from before the election, Bush was slightly ahead. Exit polls indicate that Bush voters did not want to talk about voting for *, I can understand that.

:shrug:

[Atman]

114. BIRD FLU can

I've been flamed for this repeatedly, but do the math! Chertoff was on teevee last week saying BIRD FLU will be here, right around election time (he actually said "in six months").

How will BushCo explain winning the mid-terms despite a 15-point deficit in the polls? BIRD FLU! They're panicking America about a disease which they cannot catch, and by October/November, I promise you, the panic will be ratcheted up a notch so that everyone will STAY HOME. Don't go out in big crowds with snotty kids and old folks (re: polling places). They won't cancel the election. Bush will give a fife-and-drum speech about democracy must go on...and when they win the election despite a 15 point deficit, it will be because, gosh, BIRD FLU scared people into staying home. There was no way polling could have predicted this outcome! Gosh! Amazing!

I've learned one thing above all others from Bush' administration so far...DON'T TRUST ANYTHING THEY SAY.

[mzmolly]

117. They might try it, but given we poll well above them in terms of health

care they'd be idiots to try it. ;)

[AndyTiedye]

121. Georgia. 2002. Gov. Barnes 11 Point Lead Gone With the Wind

Diebold can't explain away an 11 point lead in the polls.

Diebold just steals the elections, the Rovian media explains the theft away.

In the 2002 GA gubernatorial election, Roy Barnes was leading by at least 11 points
in the polls. He lost by 5. A 16-point shift statewide. There was a 12-point shift
in Senator Cleland's race.

The media made up some BS about "angry white men", even though many of the unexpected
Republican votes came in black precincts. All the votes were counted on their new
Diebold paperless voting machines, running software loaded off of a file called
"rob-georgia.zip". Exit polls were MIA due to some unexplained
"computer failure".

In 2004, Kerry was up about 5 points in the polls and "lost". Not as big a shift as
in Georgia, but there were still a lot of machines and tabulators that they did not
control. Exit polls exhibited some very strange behavior in that election, making
impossible shifts as they tried to cover up the theft that was going on.

Many of the machinez they did not control have been replaced under HAVA. They are now bringing the
Diebold Republican Electing Machinez into California, by executive fiat, with no
opportunity for public participation and completely ignoring all prior public input.

Their model is Ohio, where the very reform initiatives that would have prevented election thefts
saw unexplainable shifts of over 30% of the statewide vote compared to pre-election polling.
A landslide in favor turned into a landslide against, and nobody batted an eyelash.
Exit polls went missing again, as I recall.

It seems that the more unpopular they become, the more secure their grip on power.

[mzmolly]

124. That is suspect.

I don't put much stake in the exit polls, but in several pre-election polls???

USA Today reported on Nov. 3, 2002, "In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss." Cox News Service, based in Atlanta, reported just after the election (Nov. 7) that, "Pollsters may have goofed" because "Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them."

Just as amazing was the 2002 Georgia governor's race. "Similarly," the Zogby polling organization reported on Nov. 7, "no polls predicted the upset victory in Georgia of Republican Sonny Perdue over incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes. Perdue won by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. The most recent Mason Dixon Poll had shown Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent last month with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points."

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5797

Some scary shit.

Sounds like Georgia is attempting a solution: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb790.htm

A step in the right direction, thankfully.

This is really about voter confidence, what you and I think are only relevant if voters stay home out of fear that their votes are not being counted.

Looking at this map is hopeful:

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/



~ Legislation ~
Regulation Requiring Paper Ballots (26)

Mixed Requirement (1)

Proposed, Not Yet Enacted (13+DC)

Not Yet Proposed (10)

I remain open minded to the possibility that elections were stolen or not, however - as I said the issue is voter confidence at the very least.

[AndyTiedye]

126. But Legislation Requiring Paper Ballots IS BEING IGNORED in Many States

It was ignored in Nevada, and now McPherson is ignoring it in California.
It has been ignored in many other states as well.

[mzmolly]

134. Are you planning to vote?

That is the bottom line I guess.

[AndyTiedye]

135. I Always Vote -- At Least Make THEM Go to the Trouble of Stealing It

I have pretty much run out of hope that it will do any good though.

[SeattleGirl]

4. Yes, he did say that.

As to what it will take? It will take us -- we the people -- to keep hounding them, pushing them, yelling at them, whatever we need to do until we can get through the bubble they live in and they hear us.

[Tom Joad]

8. Damn straight! We lead them, not the other way around.

[SeattleGirl]

24. That's what some people don't seem to realize

Yes, they are there to do their jobs, but it's our job to make sure that they do.

[Writer]

5. Mmmmaybe they don't need to,

Maybe the Republicans are destroying themselves, so the American people have made the Democratic Party the NATURAL choice for a strong security, a more measured policy in Iraq, and better domestic policy.

Democrats are recapturing the red-blooded flag waving vote. And they didn't scream and shout to get there. They did this by being the ADULTS in Congress.

[laheina]

13. I agree with you

so please don't take this the wrong way. I am only playing devil's advocate.

But there is another side to the Dems being the Natural choice. That is that the Dems are the ONLY OTHER choice. The only other plausible choice, anyway.

While I agree that they were the adults in Congress and that the Repugs were going to hang themselves with their underhanded tactics. What have we actually accomplished in all of this?

[Writer]

27. That is a good point.

I think the DNC understands this, however. I think they know that the American people are simply trading one apple for another, so by sitting still they can achieve control of Congress knowing that the Republican parties have overreached.

If this plan were faulty, I think there would be room for a third party to rise and take control. However, we are socialized into believing that we have one of two choices, therefore, our media wrap themselves about those choices. It's what we expect... except for that eventual Ross Perot or John Anderson. Then we demand that they give a third party attention, too.

It also comes down to financing, networking, connections, and public structure that makes a party survive past one election cycle. I suppose, in a way, that the Republican and Democratic parties have become the corporations of American politics. All smaller parties cannot compete with either of them.

What have we actually accomplished in all of this? In my opinion it's the recapture of true checks and balances in our system. Even if it's through the Tweedle-Dee Party and not the Tweedle-Dum Party, it's still a movement back to normalcy.

[EFerrari]

33. Adults understand logical consequence.

What about, they've been the older teens?

lol

[Erika]

6. Americans have brought up their own non-partisan voice

We want no more of Bush. We want no more of Iraq. We want no more of environmental pollution. We want no more of division. We want no more of cutting benefits to the poor and needy.

If the democrats don't take advantage, they are fools.

[CoffeeCat]

7. They are all being blackmailed...

It's the only explanation for their lack of spines.

Seriously.

We've got the worst, most corrupt group of thugs EVER to hit American politics. The Dems (and the decent Reps for that matter) should be all over this sick, twisted administration.

It's a no brainer!!!

Going up against this administration would be EASY. Anyone at DU could craft a speech--outlining the most egregious offenses of BushCo--that would blow this administration out of the water.

They aren't going it because they've all been blackmailed with SOMETHING.

It's the only explanation.

I used to think that they were wimps. That's truly not the case. Bush is so unpopular and this administration has made so many glaring, disastrous, unpopular decisions---that a wimp could take them on!

They're AFRAID...they're afraid because this administration has probably engaged in a dirty-tricks campaign that we cannot even imagine. Some brave politician, needs to come forward and expose it all.

[Tom Joad]

9. Perhaps they are all serving their rich donors?

[Atman]

12. Wow. I agree with you 100%

I think.

Seriously, though...I've really been thinking along these same lines for quite a while now. I simply cannot fathom any other reason why no one will stand up to them. The "fear of being labeled weak on defense" is silly. That happens every election cycle. These people have kids and families, too...so why would they wish Bush's policies on their own? They'd have to have a reason to sell out their own family's future.

[Atman]

48. I just contradicted this post in post #47, sort of.

Not so much contradicted, as offered the other likeliest scenerio. That is why I started the post this responds to with "I think." I'm not married to it, but at times I get so frustrated, it seems as if the reason can only be something sinister, like anthrax. Those times are usually late at night when I'm cranky after listening to another day of BushCo Bullshit.

I shouldn't have said I agree 100%. I don't agree 100%, I simply agree that it often seems as likely a scenerio as any. I still go back to the Daschle and Leahy (D) and the Hart Senate Office Building being shut down in a panic, without anyone having any time to turn off their computers, lock their file cabinets and hide their Polaroid with the teenage hookers...BushCo's cleaning crew had unfettered access to all those Senators offices for week after week, with absolutely no supervision of any kind. They even blacked out all the windows while they were "cleaning," claiming that light weakened the process.

So, I guess...maybe I agree with both theories 100%. Maybe the anthrax and blackmail are part of what is helping get some of them on that bus. IOW, I don't see that the two theories have to be necessarily mutually exclusive.

[electropop]

15. Anthrax.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the Anthrax attacks were all on Dems (mainly in Congress)? A coincidence that they happened during the "Patriot" Act debate? A coincidence that the Senate majority leader has medical training?

[Atman]

17. Were you the one person who voted in this poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2512786&mesg_id=2512786

[electropop]

20. No, but I'm the 2nd now.

:-)

[kestrel91316]

22. There ARE no "coincidences", my dear.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

16. This is not a recent phenomena

This has been going on since the Reagan years, at least.

If Dems, who controlled Congress at the time, had impeached Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra like they should have, we would not be dealing with Chimpy and all of Poppy crooked henchmen today.

Them's the facts.

[Old and In the Way]

29. Been saying that for years. We should have excised the cancer

when we had a chance. Sam with the BCCI scandal. We delayed the day of reckoning....the results of the criminal enterprise known as the Republican Syndicate manifest itself in what they've done these past 5 years.

I suspect that Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, and a few other influential Democrats may be compromised as well. We'll need a truth commission to expose the massive corruption that we know exists. That's why I really support the Fighting Dems. I think we'll need warrior blood to do battle with these crooks in the next Congress.

[shanti]

18. that's what i think too

either they are being blackmailed, or they know something terrible that we the people don't.

[grrl62]

36. "they know

something terrible that we the people don't."

:scared:

and i know you're right.

[Kare]

23. We should let them know they need some backbone

[petgoat]

28. There's another explanation besides blackmail.

Kind of unthinkable, but it explains a lot.

Here goes:

1. The world is running out of oil. The process will take fifty years, and will involve
major social and economic dislocations.

2. The Republicans know this, the Democrats know it, and corporate leaders know it. They
don't trust the electorate with this information, because they think we'll panic and stop using
our credit cards.

3. All those in the know agree that seizing the second largest oil reserve in the world is a
necessary evil, and curtailment of civil liberties is necessary because major disorder is coming.

4. 9/11 was necessary to create the environment that would support these actions.

5. Neither the Dems nor the Repubs had the stomach for the job, so they've left it to a radical
cabal of neocon Republicans who can be disavowed as lunatics if necessary.

6. The rich are buying gold and withdrawing to defensible gated communities.

[Old and In the Way]

30. No doubt that is the back story.

It amazes me how little the real basis for this war is discussed. We've been on this path since 1980. If we had made the hard choices and if our elected officials had had an honest dialogue, maybe we could have avoided this looming catastrophe....but greed and political advantage kept us addicted to oil. We got "Morning in America" from Bush-Reagan...we're getting "Evening in America" from Bush-Cheney.

[Atman]

47. This is a theory I've advanced here many times

Right down to the "retreating behind their compound walls."

PNAC knows that major social upheaval is coming. It is literally part of the plan. Any major social upheaval comes with great pain to some segment of society. I don't find it beyond reason at all that BushCO has sat down with most of these people and laid it out as you have.

"You can be on the bus, or you can be on the curb, but this is happening with you or without you."

Obviously, they're getting on the bus.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

32. Not unthinkable at all n/t

[leftchick]

42. it is thinkable all right

with the gated communities guarded by Dyncorp and Blackwater.

[stepnw1f]

58. Note the New Laws to Conceal Firearms

Every wealthy person sees this as a necessary form of defense against an angry, poor public.

[kayice]

82. Wonder how many poor innocent kids are gonna get shot?

The way some of those cons are so rabid about control issues; it will likely be one of their own family members taking the fall.

[stepnw1f]

115. Yup...

I hate these people... there is nothing good about them at all.

[rockymountaindem]

72. Defensible gated communities?

Oh, that's hilarious! As if those little gates, the one underpaid security guard, and the aesthetically pleasing adobe walls would keep out a real mob bent on destruction.

Kind of makes the rest of your theory seem plausible by comparison.

[petgoat]

118. The adobe fence and the little gates are just symbols of the

security apparatus that protects those communities. Don't mistake the map for the
territory.

[grrl62]

35. i think you are on to something

they are afraid of something coming forward.

but... at what point will their sense of justice outweigh the fear?

you can't sit still forever.

[Atman]

49. "...at what point will their sense of justice outweigh the fear?"

For most people, self-preservation and protecting family trumps all.

[OzarkDem]

39. Maybe better to not force Dems to stand up to the GOP

If they end up winning by default, those who refused to stand up for the Constitution and good public policy will be on record for doing so.

I'd rather know where a Dem stands and work to replace them than have to deal with them pretending.

[glitch]

62. That's step 2. Step 1. Get rid of the fascist republicans.

2. Get rid of their enablers.

If I were a politician I would be very concerned about getting my name on the list of people who fought the fascists.
Of course if my political career was simply a stepping stone up the corporate ladder, I'd keep my head down.

[kayice]

78. I think so too. "Newsweek" says Repukes are actually afraid to

trot out the abortion issue.

The Dems politician are probably the first ones that were wiretapped and had their backgrounds combed through with a fine tooth comb. They must not let fear cripple them, because that is what the narcissistic GOP counts on, like every bully does---never expecting to be challenged. Most Americans are not that stupid anymore and have caught on to their nasty tricks to the point it is almost predictable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. Or threatened

:scared:

Why else would a senator from a blue state who isn't running for reelection (e.g. Dayton) act so timid?

[electropop]

11. I saw a poll that said 53% Dem, 37% Puke.

This is serious folks. Now, if we can get some Dems to talk and vote like Dems, we're going to start the cleanup.

[Erika]

14. Where there is no leadership, there is chaos

That defines our government today. The democrats must start appearing strong. The GOP are a withered mess of worms.

[EFerrari]

19. Sometimes, that is what change looks like. Chaos.

Let's keep pushing. :)

[neoblues]

25. Seems like if we Democrats are to take power...

it will have to be the result of the American people on the whole literally forcing the change to occur--almost against the will of the elected Democratic leadership and without their help. If a real groundswell of support came up from the people in favor of Democrats, I wouldn't be surprised to see those Democratic leaders almost reluctant to participate, and that's really nothing short of insane.

It reminds me of a topic in psychology called "Learned Helplessness". In animals, it's a very strong conditioning in which the subject has tried everything to avoid a negative stimulus (such as being zapped with electricity) and concluded ("learned") that there's nothing they can do about it--so they stop trying to find a way to avoid it--they just give up; they then just sit quietly waiting for and during the stimulus (and usually experience euphoria or pleasure when it's 'over', after which they wait patiently until next time). This becomes the pattern, and such a strong pattern that even when circumstances change and a mechanism by which they can avoid the stimulus is now available--they don't see it, they don't take advantage of it--they just wait to suffer. Having learned they're helpless, they can't do anything anymore--even if it would seem to be easy/obvious that they can, so they just take the abuse as though forever helpless. While human studies don't confirm this type of behavior in people--apparently we're a bit too complex; it sure sounds alot like this. Democratic politicians thinking they're helpless... can't take advantage of a change in situation and so go on acting as though helpless/beaten.

Perhaps a big win would help restore their confidence... but we really need them to stand up and fight whether they have the courage or not.

[hughee99]

26. I never get overly excited about these polls...

the problem is that a lot of people think it's not "their guy" that's the problem. Many will continue to vote for their repuke and hope that the other repukes lose. I don't like Tom Delay, but I don't get to vote for him either. It doesn't matter if everyone outside his district hates him, as long as enough people in his district think it's the "other guys" who are the problem, the split in congress will not get dramatically better that quickly.

[tlsmith1963]

37. The Current Democrats in Congress...

...are just what Feingold says they are. This is a great opportunity for them, & they aren't taking it. I won't forget this. When it was time to take a stand, they wimped out. It will be a long time before I ever forgive them. Spineless wimps.

Tammy

[BlueEyedSon]

40. Until Rove trots out Roe v Wade and Gay rights again

[onehandle]

71. He's way ahead of you.

There are anti-gay bills "suddenly" coming up in many states. Marriage, adoption, benefits...the works.

Rove has a war room in the White House dedicated to these "winning issues". It's in the NRA Wing.

[BlueEyedSon]

73. I sorta knew that

[mattclearing]

43. I think they are afraid of taking the spotlight and changing it.

Never interfere with your enemy while he is in the process of destroying himself, and all.

It would still be nice if they spoke out for the Constitution, though.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Think about what you just said.

And the DC Democrats are STILL afraid to stand up to BushCo? What the bloody hell is it going to take?????

They may have done this by avoiding the approach you think they should make. As a matter of fact, as you say, no party has done this before; it's thus the most effective strategy thusfar. A more agressive approach may have backfired.

[gordianot]

54. I have been one of the shrill voices on Democratic wimps.

The last couple days this has started to enter my conciousness. Maybe now is not the time to be shrill. I do really like Russ Finegold and the seeds he has planted.

[free_belmont]

45. money buys everything in politics

as long as money keeps rolling, Democrats will act 'afraid'.

Also, Democrats can't take control in 2006 because there's something now called Diebold voting machines.

[Terran1212]

50. DC Dems are afraid of being too left?

[The Stranger]

53. If we take over, we take no prisoners.

I want investigations, frog marches, impeachment, blood. (Yes, I want blood (politically, anyway).)

[EVDebs]

76. They are incompetent and they knew what they were doing even on 9-11

The truth just hasn't had a chance to get out yet

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=197222&mesg_id=197358

When it does, and all becomes self-evident, the Republican Party is finished, kaput, finito, de facto.

[leveymg]

57. My guess is that the polls are just beginning to catch up with reality

How could any reasonable person -- except those in the top tax bracket, defense contractors and Fundamentalists -- still support the GOP, the party of failure and defeat?

[wordpix2]

69. I saw this poll on his show and heard it, too

[EVDebs]

74. If this (impeachment) be treason, let's make the most of it !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2517089&mesg_id=2517151

[katty]

87. Dems have this Election HAND DELIVERED! Grow some balls!

[wakemewhenitsover]

94. Maybe DC Dems know Americans don't really vote anymore.

When will people wake up? When the Republicans are polling at 1%, and they still win? STOP ELECTION FRAUD BEFORE 2006 OR POLLS ARE POINTLESS!

[brooklynite]

110. Let's not be overconfident...

Pat Buchanan was saying yesterday that all Democrats need to do is "run out the clock" and let Bush's continuing unpopularity win it for them. Bull. It's 8 months till Election Day. Unanticipated things could happen in the meantime that could temporarily "rally" voters to the Republicans side, and this is a preference for a "generic" Democratic Congress, not the specific Democrat running against each voter's specific Republican. We've got to complete our effort to find candidates, get them to state a clear message about what a Democratic Congress will mean, and work like hell to get them elected.

[femrap]

120. I really think that the Anthrax scare after 9/11 was a

message to the Dem Leadership....and it scared them. Wasn't it sent to Daschle? Leahy?

I really think they get messages from rove that reinforces those Anthrax letters....It's the only thing that makes any sense to me....They can't be that stupid. And maybe Feingold told Rove that he has a letter in a safe-deposit box somewhere that spells it out. I don't know.

All I know is that the Dems are scared for no apparent reason...right?

[Imagevision]

125. Antrax killed the guy who reported the twins drunk spree @ Globe

publications - I know it was a coincidence.

[femrap]

131. Remember the news coverage at the time?

They kept showing that building with the huge sign on it reading the company's name, 'AMERICAN MEDIA?' (This is the parent company of Nat'l Enquirer).

I took that to mean a big message to the entire American Media....you obey us, or we can eliminate you, too. It was months later that I learned that the photographer of the twins had been killed.

Gee, killing two birds with one stone.

Sure wish we had a whistle blower on these anthrax murders.

[mb7588a]

127. It was sent to Daschle for sure, and found also

in Feingold's office, whose office was next to Daschle....... both staffs were treated.

[Swamp Rat]

129. I don't care if they are scared of anthrax or any other threat!

I want them to do their job! ... which can't be nearly as scary as driving a military fuel truck between Basra and Baghdad, for example.

STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT!!!

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

:patriot:

[femrap]

130. Hey, I agree with you....

100%. I was simply offering a reason for their cowardness.

I love what Feingold is doing....long overdue. And I am calling other Senators to join.

[Swamp Rat]

133. LOL!

I wasn't railing at you. ;) :hi:

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

:patriot:

[CrazyForKucinich]

128. vote will be hacked again

The question is what do we do then?

[libertypirate]

132. Exposure of the broad stroke that compells their silence

Anthrax...

By way of forensic science there is no way that the Anthrax two weeks after 9-11 came from anywhere other then a military facility in Maryland. And once known the story went thud dead never to be reported or discussed again by the mainstream, other than militants did it...

Who got the Anthrax, the two groups that could expose that only three buildings in the history of steal frame structures collapsed to the ground without being demolished with explosives. And they all did so on the same day.

Two politicians and two reporters. It's of some note who got the Anthrax, a photo editor in a tabloid who published an unflattering picture of the Bush daughters drunk off their ass in a local DC dive and a very well known news reporter.

The bush whitehouse had already been taking cipro in the week before the letters were sent.

[genieroze]

137. Maybe people are throwing away the Kool Aide.