Are we looking in the wrong places to explain the Democrats' fear to act?

[Atman]

So many things have been posted here regarding what could possibly be behind the democrats frozen, deer-in-the-headlights approach to Bush's crimes. Anthrax, dirt dug up by the NSA, even simply wanting to appear more "centrist" in order to gain votes. But another post just made a little lightbulb go off. We often joke and say "don't get on any small planes" when we hear a public figure speak out against BushCo, but really, is this so far-fetched?

Perhaps it didn't take anything as fancy as NSA spying or as risky as Anthrax. Perhaps the ultimate message was sent to democrats a few years back when Paul Wellstone's plane went down. Anthrax and wire taps aren't really all that fear-inducing, because they're almost abstract. I know, tell that to Daschle and Leahy, but I think you get the point -- they're kind of "James Bond" stuff, and therefore easier to dismiss.

But all of these senators and congressmen fly. Many fly small planes as the puddle-jump from appearance to appearance. And if there is any fear that still seems to persist in many, even experienced flyers, it's that fear of goin' down. Because when it happens, you can't take a Cipro, you can't file a grievence or sue somebody. That's it, you're out of the game.

Just ask Paul Wellstone. If you could.

[porphyrian]

1. If they're afraid to do their job, they have no place holding it.

All public figures face the danger of being killed by someone that doesn't like them, not just politicians. If they're too stupid to know this or too cowardly to represent us as we elected them to do, they need to step the fuck down so someone qualified can do the job.

[Minnesota Libra]

9. How many people in America do you truly think would........

...be willing or are willing to put their own lives, and probably the lives of loved ones too, on the line for a public that would no doubt criticize everything they did anyway? Try to walk in the other person's shoes for a moment and remember what Wellstone and his family got for speaking out. Do you truly think there are many people among us who want to face that? We may not want to admit it but people are truly afraid and thanks to the neocons they've got plenty of reason for fear too.

One last point here, the general public is just now really waking up to what is going on.

Personally, I'd like to see a permanent commission made up of doctors, lawyers, average citizens, etc to investigate and prosecute when necessary every public official's death. That would make these behind the scenes players think twice before killing off those who speak out. I know it won't happen but I'd like to see it none the less.

[porphyrian]

13. It's part of the job description, and was before Wellstone.

This isn't anything new. Presidents have been assassinated. Of course most of us couldn't or wouldn't do the job, but that doesn't mean we should accept cowardly bullshit artists instead. Why should we have such low standards for our elected officials? They are there to represent us, not pander to the scary opposition because they might be attacked. Would you hire an employee who was too scared to do their job, then keep them employed anyway? Bullshit. Stand up to the fucking bullies or get the fuck out of office and out of our way.

[Minnesota Libra]

24. Ok, good point, so when will........

....people like yourself sho them ho it's done by running for office?:shrug:

[porphyrian]

25. As soon as looks and being a pothead isn't a liability to getting elected.

One glance at my proverbial closet and I'd lose the primary.

[Minnesota Libra]

27. Ok, good point.........

.....:rofl: :toast: :rofl: :toast: :rofl: :toast:

edited to add..

That goes for more people than we might think :rofl:

[converted_democrat]

15. My thoughts exactly.. If they are afraid, than they should stand aside..

They aren't serving us by standing in the corner sucking their thumbs.. Don't get me wrong, we have several that are doing great things.. Boxer is fantastic, Conyers is great, and Russ is a hero in my view.. I love McKinney and Tubbs-Jones too.. I'm not sure if the rest are afraid of Bush Co., or they are in bed with the corps. too.. Either way, I'm losing my patience for the situation..

[napi21]

2. If that's their excuse, then they should just damn say it!

That's just as dumb as all the people who are running scared worrying about a terrorist at the Mall, in the subway, or at the damn Super Bowl!

Can I get gunned down when I go out somewhere just like the people in Va. and Md. did by those two nut cases who were doing their random shooting did a few years ago? Of course! But damn it, I'm not going to cower in my house out of fear! Hell, I take a bigger risk driving down I85 in Ga. every day!

If our Dems are too afraid to fly, then don't fly. If they're too afraid to do what's necessary to do their job...THEN GOT THE HELL OUT AND GO HOME!

[havocmom]

8. Agree!

And talking hair-do types on TV 'News' should think long and hard about their go along to get along career strategy! If only one set of talking points gets on the air, how long before Corporate Media figures out they can cut costs by just having ONE PERSON saying it all the time?

The way you deal with bullies is to STAND UP TO BULLIES. Sure, sometimes the bullies hit, but it is better to go down swinging anyway. Eventually, when the bullies get called on their shit often enough, their masks are removed and the clubs they beat us with are taken away.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport. No one should know that better than those in the Legislative Branch. Who gelded those people anyway?

[Sammy Pepys]

3. I think that's a stretch....

The problem isn't speaking out, it's organization, and I think everyone has been rightly concerned with that. We can say all we want about Bush, but if we don't have coherent plans and unified strategies meant to address the technical side of things, all we're going to have is words.

[Ian David]

4. I'd give only 20% odds that Wellstone was assassinated

I'd give better odds that:

1) The GOP used the Anthrax attacks as an opportunity to get access to Democratic senators offices while they decontaminated them. Files, computers... all of it. 80%

2) What did the GOP discover about Democrats while the NSA wiretapped them? 85%

3) GOP staffers admitted to exploiting a security flaw to read files on Democrat's computers. Are they using any of that information for blackmail? 95%

4) Did any Democrats sleep with Jeff Gannon? What evidence of it do the Republicans have? 80%

5) Which Democrats were involved in the Franklin Coverup? What evidence of it do the Republicans have? 75%

Who knows what information they have, or who they're blackmailing?

Yes, I know. I'm wearing a tinfoil hat. I fully admit that some of this might be foolhardy.

[KoKo]

5. Could be...but also could be

the Bush Spying operation. They've probably dug up dirt on Dems and we all know that if someone wants to look with a vendeta they can twist information. Look at what they did to Gore and Kerry and they didn't have any marital infidelities that proved useful. How many Dems just might..

Plus, how many times has Congress been cleared out for possible bomb threats or "white powder?" Teams go in and clear the buildings but who knows what they are doing? Installing "listening devices," doing something to computers?

Remember when the Senate Computer "shared with the Repugs" (and why would Dems share with Repugs in first place :eyes:)was hacked by a Repug Operative? The guy was never prosecuted and he worked for Orin Hatch. There was not a big to do about this from our Democrats and I always wondered why.

Fear is no excuse...they could have joined together and done something...but maybe the Repugs own the Capitol Police these days with bribes, etc., and maybe Dems who don't have skeletons in their closet don't want to defend those who do.

:shrug:

[blm]

6. To some degree they know they'll be targeted many ways - but, I reject the

idea that they don't act or they act fearfully.

I think broadcast media has purposefully made sure that the public doesn't SEE Democrats or HEAR them and when they put forth counter-proposals it is certain those proposals will be dismissed with no discussion of the merits in the public arena - unless, BushInc is certain it can use the proposal to twist into their own storyline.

Example:
Kerry submits a detailed Iraq withdrawal plan to begin Dec2005with most troops out by Dec 2006, one that he worked on with commanders on the ground and Iraqi parliament members who wanted troops withdrawn on a timetable. The press pays NO ATTENTION.

Then Murtha comes out with his idea to redeploy troops hopefully within 6months and the media gives it tons of airtime, calling it immediate withdrawal - WHY? Because BushInc could easily spin it into "surrender" and "cut and run" Democrats. Which they did.

How many times did you hear about the DSM letter of inquiries from Conyers and Kerry last summer?

[mmonk]

7. I don't think the top democrats are afraid to act.

I believe some are for enough of the things the republicans desire and stand for that they don't want to act. Therefore, the democrats that disagree don't have enough backing to act.

[monktonman]

10. dems fear to act is not new.

Its been going on for decades.

[Atman]

11. Good answers, all!

So far. I have to admit, I'm not a strong believer in this hypothesis I presented, either. I'm just another American scratching his head at why we have so many pussies in Washington who are afraid to stand up to a man who has a lower standing among their constituents than an ex-trial-lawyer-turned-used-car-salesman.

[KittyWampus]

19. Did you read BLM's post? Many Democrats Aren't Afraid & DO ACT

so why even start this thread?

Because the Mediawhores don't pay attention, You and many other DU'ers buy the storyline Democrats don't do anything.

What is wrong with this picture?

[Atman]

20. I'm talking about VOTES, dammit!

Don't you take that tone with me, young man!

How many Democrats backed Feingold?

How many Democrats stood up against the Patriot Act?

The bankruptcy bill?

Funding this cluster-fuck of a war?

I can count on my fingers how many are standing up and speaking out loudly and publicly about Bush's policies, and still have a finger or two left to pick my nose.

[KittyWampus]

30. Atman, I'm a woman (smooch!) & I abhor many vote counts while also

acknowledging many, many attempts by Democrats to introduce amendments and proposals.

My growing discontent is the elected Democrats utter failure to deal effectively with the Media and Mediawhores.

IMO, "it's the Media, Stupid".

But after you accept that... then what? Bitch and moan daily and throw up your hands in defeat? Pretend it isn't reality?

Elected Democrats need to catapult their own damned propaganda AND start learning how to talk back effectively to the Mediawhores when they eventually do get face time on TV.

[blm]

32. How many Sen. stood with Kerry on Tora Bora? Abu Ghraib - firing Rumsfeld?

Pressuring Bush throughout 2003-4 to weaken him publically? Downing Street Memos? Iraq withdrawal plan? Firing of Rove?

How many Intel Dems signed the DSM letter of inquiry?

How many of the judiciary Dems chose to lead a filibuster of Alito?

ALOT of Democrats back Feingold - the media is spinning it as if they don't and, at times, Feingold is milking the spin to make himself seem unique - when, in more forthcoming interviews he said last week he is pleased that censure was moved into committee so an investigation can access more NSA documents which were requested by Kennedy, Leahy and Jeffords.

It's BULLSHIT to spin this as Feingold alone, because the only thing he was alone on was his personal decision to offer censure without mentioning it to the Dem senators, including those who were already working to get NSA documents.

Where were all of you when it was Feingold failing to stand at important times when his support could have made a significant difference?

Amazing how you pick and choose and refuse the larger, overall picture which proves that ANY senator is a mixed bag, and it's absurd to state that Feingold is the "only one" who takes a stand.

[Atman]

40. What is absurd is atributing quotes to people, which they never said.

I never even mentioned Feingold in my original post. And in my reply to cryingshame, I only mentioned Feingold along with four other issues, as examples, holding none up any higher than the other. I don't know to whom you might have been responding, by I sure as hell never said Feingold was the "only one" doing anything. Those are your words, your interpretations. If you feel that way, fine, but don't try to pin that on me. It just isn't what I said.

[blm]

43. My reply to your OP is above.

The other reply was to your post claiming that no one was standing up with Feingold, and also to the general attitude that many posts, not just yours, who imply that Feingold is out on his own and all other Dems are cowering or afraid.


You posted:
How many Democrats backed Feingold?

How many Democrats stood up against the Patriot Act?

The bankruptcy bill?

Funding this cluster-fuck of a war?

I can count on my fingers how many are standing up and speaking out loudly and publicly about Bush's policies, and still have a finger or two left to pick my nose.
>>>>>

There have been MANY issues since Bush took office - Some Dems stood up regularly to little fanfare or media notice and that seems to be what drives perception for many here at DU. There are ALOT more Dems working against the Bush tide that media chooses to ignore. We shouldn't make media's job easier by perpetuating their spin.

[porphyrian]

21. I don't want to have to name the exceptions every time.

By and large, our elected Democratic representatives are failing us, and it's unacceptable. The ones who have balls and are standing up know who they are, and enjoy at least one thread here each time they do anything, no matter how small. However, I refuse to lower my standards and not demand that all of them do their fucking job, media coverage or not.

[KittyWampus]

They ARE Doing Their Jobs, By & Large. However, Since They Haven't

devised an effective strategy to overcome the Media manipulation, even I will conceed they are ultimately failing.

But in that instance, to be intellectually consitent, we must also condemn Feingold for not managing the Media reaction to his proposal.

[porphyrian]

33. I disagree that they are doing their jobs.

The only job most Washington Democrats seem to be doing is preserving their status as career politicians. You apparently have lower standards and expectations of your representatives than I do. I believe that this position is part of the problem we're facing. Would it be acceptable to you if police stayed in their cars at crime scenes and negotiated with the criminals over the PA until a compromise was reached? Fuck that. This treasonous administration doesn't even bother to hide its criminal activity anymore, and the best our "representatives" have to offer is balking and even condemning talk of considering censure? I think we've been without qualified representatives long enough that people like you not only accept the milquetoast we're offered, but they think their occasional non-failure is somehow a success. I demand excellence from my elected representatives, especially in a time of fascist takeover, and most Democrats right now are failing. That isn't just a bash at our party, it's a command for them to get to work now.

[blm]

34. You apparently believe whatever mediaspin the corporate media decides to

take.

The fact is that censure is in committee to GET an NSA investigation the GOPs didn't want. Feingold WANTED censure in committee. Most Dems are supporting that, but no media is talking about it, are they? They need the storyline to be divisive for Dems and too many left bloggers misread the whole story and are busily bashing Democrats out of SHEER IGNORANCE.

[porphyrian]

35. You're wrong about me, but believe whatever you need to.

You're the one being divisive. I'm merely being critical, and rightly so. I'm sorry you're satisfied with so little.

[blm]

36. Criticism is fine, but it's also important to keep the facts straight.

.

[porphyrian]

37. And I have.

You were the one guessing wrongly about my motives.

[blm]

38. I took issue with your claim that they are balking and condemning censure

when that was just media spinning the story against the Dems, and avoiding the fact that many leading Dems were supporting further investigation of NSA spying and were glad that censure renewed the need for investigation by the judiciary committee.

Media focused on one or two questioning the censure while ignoring MOST of the Dems supporting it, leaving the impression that Dems were leaving Feingold in the cold, when by early last week key Dems were using censure to further investigation and access to NSA documents - supporting Feingold's moving censure into committee to make it happen.

Media didn't WANT to report those developments, did they?

[porphyrian]

39. Now you want me to speculate about the media's motives?

I'd say they do what their bosses tell them to do. However, media support and my bad example aside, it is still dishonest to say that most Democrats are doing as good of a job as they should be, and holding their hands and saying otherwise isn't going to make them work any harder at it.

[blm]

42. Point was that media really doesn't report what many Dems are doing to

counter BushInc. Yet, many are working on proposals every day doing exactly that without any media reporting their work.

[Atman]

41. Uh...yeah.

Perhaps you're the "only one" doing so?

;-)

[Greyhound]

12. As much as I love a good plot, I think the answer is much simpler.

Self promotion and greed seem the most likely reasons to me, they know who is buttering their bread. The sheeple are notoriously fickle and cannot be counted on to back up their representative when he/she needs them, but OTOH, the corporations will continue to write the checks as long as they keep voting the 'right' way. Thus we get The Corporate Party.

[Options Remain]

14. They think bush will win and want to play nice

so they dont lose their own peice of the pie.

[Kashka-Kat]

16. yes, certainly, fear for ones life-- anyone who knows the history of the

labor movement, civil rights movement... as well as 1960s antiwar movement... knows that death is a very real possibility once you begin to *effectively* challenge the thugs and bullies.


That said, the other comments above about greed, corruption and cowardice of the Democratic party are no less valid.

Also BTW I think our side being more democratic (with a small d) is just not as talented in smear tactics and bullying and, for some, this may read as "weakness".

[libertypirate]

17. Look at anthrax if you want to know what the fear is....

Do you remember how Anthrax was on television, in magazines, in newspapers; seemingly downloaded into your brain at almost every moment of your waking day-- for months? According to a LexisNexis search conducted by TomDispatch.com, "between Oct. 4 and Dec. 4, 2001, 389 stories appeared in the New York Times with "anthrax" in the headline." During the same period, 238 "anthrax" stories appeared in the Washington Post. Think about that for a second. Now consider the noise made by all the other media outlets. Now add all that noise together. That's a lot of noise.

These days though, the silence is deafening.

....

But here is the real gist of it all:

All the anthrax used in the various anthrax attacks in 2001 came from a United States military base. They all came from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. But there were two separate mailings of anthrax letters. One batch of letters was mailed on or about September 18, 2001. This batch went to various media outlets and contained cutaneous anthrax (Ames Strain).

Then on or about October, 9, 2001, the second batch of letters was mailed out. This batch contained a much more lethal "weaponized version" of the Ames strain. These letters were sent to two Democratic Senators.

Hydrocarbon analysis showed that all of the anthrax found in the letters was incubated within two years of the time it was mailed.

And from CNN on June 26, 2002:

"This discovery lends credence to the theory that whoever mailed the finely milled anthrax spores -- known to be of the Ames strain -- has a current connection to a sophisticated laboratory.

Investigators have long believed the suspect possessed a sophisticated knowledge of anthrax and a high level of training."

Now, here is something everybody seems to miss. If Osama bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attacks (yeah right), isn't it somewhat odd that some other group of people with certain ties to the United States government just so happened to pull off the anthrax attacks within a week of 9/11 and again on October 9? Are we supposed to believe that the anthrax attacker(s) were just waiting around with extremely fatal weaponized anthrax in their refrigerators for the right moment? And what about the letters? C'mon, these guys were obviously trying to frame Arabs for the attacks. Isn't this the slightest bit suspicious to anybody in the media?

So let's recap.

The Anthrax came from an American military base.
The Anthrax required sophisticated knowledge and a high level of training.
The Anthrax letters contained feeble minded language to make us all believe they were written by some "stupid Arab".
The letters were mailed within one week of 9/11. (Were they just waiting around for a 9/11-like event to take place or was it all just a big coincidence?)

If the Anthrax attackers are related to the US government, what does that tell us about 9/11? Perhaps this is why the media went to sleep on the anthrax story after it was revealed that the anthrax came from Fort Detrick. Hmmmmm, what do you think? After all, if you connect the dots on anthrax, 9/11 is pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?

http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/01/anthrax-hello-anybody-home-hello.html

[mattclearing]

28. Some feeble minded arab...but if you noticed the date on it...

it was written with an American-styled date: 09-11-01.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/102301.htm

[jrw14125]

18. you can also ask the former presidents of equador and panama

Jamie Roldos and Omar Torrijos. John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman) says their crashes were not accidents...

[sablefish]

22. The anthrax was to scare them into signing the patriot act.

[liberalmike27]

23. Sadly

We have to all realize that in a very real way, Democrats are owned by the same corporate interests as Republicans. Yes, they are owned to a slightly less degree, but nevertheless, they have to keep their marching orders too.

Until we manage, if ever, to correct the buy your law for money system we have, then we'll always have this problem. Things have to crash and burn like 1929 before democrats ever do anything seriously worthwhile. When you look at foreign wars throughout history they look even more similar.

I hate to be this way, but part of the media's jobs is making us all think we have some huge choice between the two parties, but the truth is, judging by their votes in Congress, the difference is much smaller than many of us would like. God I wish we had a presidential runoff so people could actually vote for who they want, rather than the evil of two lessers.

[mattclearing]

26. There have been so many things like this, though.

You'd think at some point, someone in a position to make a media stink would have gotten the evidence and gone public.

From Election Fraud, to the Wellstone crash, 9/11, Anthrax, etc...

Why hasn't anyone found the evidence and gone crazy with it?

The refusal to do so implies some level of complicity or coercion.

[Armstead]

29. Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar....

And an accident is an accident.

IMO the problem is both simpler and more complex than any conspiracy theory.

A load of crappy policies and crappy values and a crappy set of political "strategies" have infected the Democrats as much as the Republicans.

Unfortunately, the two parties are just a symptom of a bigger load of BS that was successfully sold to the American People, beginning around 1975.

Conspiracy theories are not necessary to understand why a democracy subverts itself whan it allows its own darker greedier impulses to become dominant.

"The fault, Dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but within ourselves..."

[leftofthedial]

31. if they feel physically threatened to the point of not doing their jobs

they should speak out about it.

That's such clear-cut crime that surely one or more of them would come forward.

[ladjf]

44. I believe that Feingold was the first Senator with the courage

and foresight to call the President out for his criminal acts. After doing so, the other hopefuls in the Senate were left with the problem that if they backed the proposal,it would put Feingold ahead in the candidacy race. So, they decided to do nothing in hopes that the hoopla about the proposal would die down. He gambled and will win. They gambled and will lose. Feingold has outmaneuvered the other candidates. They were too smart for their own good. They should have listened to Americans.