This may surprise you, but....

[crimsonblue]

The Democratic Party has controlled both chambers of Congress since 2006. I know you don't believe me, but it's true.

Tell me which party this reminds you of:

1. Failed to end the War in Iraq

2. Provided unconditional funds for the War in Iraq

3. Labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, thus giving the President the authority to conduct military operations against Iran as part of the 'War on Terror'

4. Ignored rampant politicization coursing through many departments of the Government (DOJ, EPA, CDC, NASA, USDA, FDA, FEC, FCC)

5. Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States

6. Confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General of the United States

7. Condemnation of Moveon.org for exercising its freedom of expression via House and Senate resolutions, a practice rarely ever used to condemn a non-profit organization

8. Ignored the rampant abuse and grotesque torture at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo

9. Provided retroactive civil immunity to Telecommunications Companies 'believed to have assisted the Government in (illegal) domestic surveillance post 9/11'

10. Updated the already adequate FISA bill to allow for further warrantless wiretapping, as long as it has Executive permission.

11. Removed the Constitutional check and balance of impeachment as a viable option to deter, prevent, investigate, and prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Executive Branch.

12. Failed to assist homeowners struggling with the widespread mortgage meltdown.

If you guessed the Republicans, you'd be wrong. Yes, they did agree with every item on the above list, but none of these matters could have occurred without direct and complicit involvement by the majority party, The Democratic Party.

Paradise lost, indeed.

(reposted from my dKos diary)

[villager]

1. "You know, when we use that dry powder, we're really, really gonna stick up for America!"

n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. It's all Big Dog's fault.

At least according to Kos

[Mojambo]

3. My support of the Democratic party and their nominee is as it has always been

Unenthusiastic to a ridiculous degree.

But still, they have it. They don't deserve it, but they have it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. "Control both chambers," yeah if you count Joe Lieberman.

Do YOU count Joe Lieberman?

[redqueen]

6. I don't see why anyone would. (nt)

[TheMadMonk]

5. Point 9: *PRIOR* to 9/11 n/t

[crimsonblue]

9. I thought about adding that

but left it to post, simply because that has been concretely proven (whereas, prior cooperation is still a little speculative, but no less alarming)

[Dawgs]

7. Controlling both chambers doesn't mean you can get anything done.

How long have you been paying attention to politics?

[crimsonblue]

8. but it does mean that things you don't want

getting done won't. The Dems control every committee, so any committee report or bill they don't like shouldn't make it to a floor vote.

[Dawgs]

11. So you agree with me then?

And list has a lot of things that Democrats can't get done with a majority.

I guess I forgot that today was bash Democrats day.

[crimsonblue]

13. they could have prevented FISA from ever coming up for a vote

and they could have prevented a lot of things they allowed. It's quite easy to block something in the senate.

[crimsonblue]

10. I got my ass ripped apart on dKos

for this diary. I guess nobody there understands that a (D) next to your name does not make you inherently good. Look at Pelosi for example; she's the weakest and most ineffectual Speaker in modern (maybe all-time) U.S. history.

[Indenturedebtor]

12. Yep. They'll still get my vote but I won't be such a vocal advocate in my private life

Unless they start doing what they promise anyways. Or at least try.

[struggle4progress]

14. A lot of folk in DC don't want to waste time on meaningless gestures:

elected officials generally don't want to organize votes that they'll lose, their aides sure as hell don't want to spend time pushing for a vote that won't accomplish anything, and most of the people who work for cheap in public-interest organizations sure don't want to waste their time that way

The Senate can be stopped whenever one lacks 60 votes. A 2/3 majority is needed in both Houses to override a veto. A bare majority in the Senate, combined with a "center" represented by rightwingers like Joe Lieberman, means there's been no real hope for progressive action

[OnionPatch]

15. The truth is, they don't really control it.

There may be a majority of Democrats, but there is NOT a majority of progressives. You won't find me blaming the whole party because a handful of them are more conservative. There are two options for us....Replace the Blue Dogs with real Democrats, or get more progressives elected so we can have a real majority.

[crimsonblue]

16. one method they could imploy

is call the Repugs on their constant filibuster threats. Say "NO" the the demands of a 60 vote majority rule. This is America, Goddamn it, where 50% + 1 equals the majority. Let the whiny bastards filibuster (or attempt thereof) everything. The Democrats won't be the ones coming out looking stupid if that happens.

[OnionPatch]

19. I agree with that. Filibuster the bastards.

If the majority of congress is on the Dems side, they should filibuster. But in a lot of cases, the Democrats don't have the majority vote because of a handful of Blue Dogs. In these cases, I'm not sure what they're supposed to do. :shrug:

[crimsonblue]

20. let the blue dogs be seen for what they are...

spineless pricks.

[paparush]

17. Don't forget the current Resolution ENCOURAGING Bush to blockade Iran.

[skooooo]

18. Since they can't override veto, their "majority" doesn't mean crap.

[LVjinx]

21. Um, they don't even have to present bills for a vote if they don't want. Veto is irrelevant.

[TZ]

22. Umm small majorities in the House and Senate

isn't what I would call true "control". Do they have numbers that can override a veto..no. Do they have filibuster proof majorities. No. Have the republicans died and left Congress, umm no.
Its been proven time and time again, that the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS hate to have a do-nothing Congress and want the parties to work together.
People need to consider political realities and stop being cry babies about waaah they haven't done what the liberal MINORITY (yes, we ARE the minority in this country) wants. God damn it, even the Repukes understand that they can't just pander to the extremists in their party only, anymore.

Instead of complaining about this that and the other that Democrats haven't done (and if you don't think they have TRIED then you are blind) work on electing MORE democrats so they CAN do things like override vetos or even filibusters.