I blame the Democrats for the situation we find ourselves in

[CatWoman]

The election theft of 2000 was a non issue to the Senatorial Dems. The only people who tried to sound the alarm were the black Democrats in the House. I'm still trying to ascertain if the lack of concern was because of non-support of Al Gore, or a complete disinterest in fighting for the truth.

The GOP did it again in 2004, and only one brave Senatorial Democrat tried to stand up to them -- in spite of assurances from our candidate that "every vote would be counted". Again, I'm still trying to ascertain if the lack of concern was because of non-support of John Kerry, or a complete disinterest in fighting for and acknowledging the truth.

Now we find out that the GOP is setting the stage for yet another theft in 2008.

The Dems should have fought long and hard when it first happened.

By not doing so, it only emboldened the GOP.

And after all of this, we still don't hear anything about election fraud from our "leaders".

Bush had the fucking NERVE to cite voter fraud as a cause of concern in 2006.

Why the hell can't our side take the fight to the enemy? At least on this issue.

[KG]

1. the dem party doesn't really consider the repook party to be enemies

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. And yesterday they voted to continue funding the damn war

Disappointed doesn't even begin to describe how I feel.

[Xenotime]

65. What?!? I thought by this time we would be seeing troops come home..

We were promised that troops would be coming home. How the HELL does this happen?

[Big Pappa]

3. Its

amazing that this has been going on this long with barely a peep and deafening silence from the Senate.

[Cleita]

4. Nobody is doing anything about cleaning up our election system.

I don't even know of anything on the calendar that might be effective as a start. I get the feeling many of them like things as they are.

I did have a minor epiphany as to why no one is concerned about health care that much other than the token campaign speeches about it. Our Congress has such good health care coverage provided by the insurance companies, who don't bother with such nice coverage for Joe Sixpack and his family, that they don't want to lose it. Also, they all get nice campaign contributions from the health care, insurance and PHARMA industries that they prefer not to address the issue up front unless forced to. They have to pay back those contributors in the end.

I guess it all boils down to money, who has it and who doesn't.

[tbyg52]

29. You got it

The two most important things are clean, transparent elections, and the same for the media..

[misanthrope]

92. BINGO!!**nm

**

[JackRiddler]

5. Robert Parry on a key point in the history: 1993, arrival of Clinton admin...

In a great interview with Buzzflash on his latest book.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/10/int04054.html

(...)

Robert Parry:

(...)

And the Democrats -- the accommodation Democrats -- decided that they would simply agree (about Iran-Contra machinations) that Oliver North did it, Reagan was just inattentive, and Bush really wasn’t involved. They kind of bought the cover story. And that cover story basically held for quite a while, until Lawrence Walsh was able to break through and find out that there had been this major cover-up, which doesn’t occur really until 1991 or so.

Another scandal breaking out in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War was known as Iraqgate. And Iraqgate was in a sense the opposite side of the coin from Iran-Contra because, while one part of the Reagan Administration was helping the Iranians in the mid-'80s, another part was helping the Iraqis, who were at war with the Iranians. Essentially the United States was playing both sides in providing sophisticated equipment, including material that could be used for weapons of mass destruction, to Saddam Hussein. Now this was also an embarrassing set of facts that George H.W. Bush did not want to have out. He had been calling Saddam Hussein worse than Hitler at that point. And so the idea that he had been secretly involved in a program in the 1980s to assist Saddam Hussein was information that they wanted to keep under board.

(...)

You also had, in the 1992 campaign, another scandal, which was directly involving George H.W. Bush -- it became known as Passportgate. Going into the fall of 1992, with Bill Clinton ahead, George H.W. Bush was rather desperate. They were looking for what they called a silver bullet to take out Bill Clinton. The outgrowth of this pressure was to search Bill Clinton’s passport file to see if there had been some possible letter denouncing his citizenship. That was the rumor. There was no such letter, but they found a tear in the corner of the passport file. And from that, the Bush Administration formulated a criminal referral to the FBI and then leaked it. The Senior Bush began using that to raise suggestions that he was unpatriotic. And Clinton’s numbers started to fall. It was a very effective dirty trick.

(...)

But after Clinton won in 1992, he and other winning Democrats basically decided to not help or shelve those investigations. At that point, we forget that Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel who was a Republican, wanted to pursue George H.W. Bush because he had found out that George H.W. Bush had been withholding documents that had been long requested for the investigation. Bush also refused to submit to a second interview, which Walsh had postponed until after the '92 election, so Bush would not be distracted. But then after Bush got voted out, he issued pardons for six of the Iran-Contra defendants, which effectively crippled Walsh’s investigation.

Bush was allowed essentially to walk off into the sunset with his reputation intact-- when there was a potential from all four of these investigations to have implicated the Senior Bush in misconduct -- his alleged involvement in the October surprise, his involvement in Iran-Contra, his involvement in Iraqgate, and his involvement in the Passportgate affair. But Clinton and other Democrats felt that it was important to try not to stir things up, to see if they could work with the Republicans cooperatively and with the new Administration coming in. It turned out to be a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

(...)

In Part II, on the influence of Rev. Moon:

I think the only answer you can give to those questions is that he has bought himself protection. Especially when the Republicans have been in power, they find every reason possible not to investigate him. When Clinton was in power, there was, I think, a general fear that if they took on Moon, it would be seen as a retaliation against a political enemy, so there was hesitancy there, too. But the evidence from his people who are close associates to Moon, including his ex-daughter-in-law -- the evidence has been that he has continued smuggling cash into the United States and engaging in money-laundering activities.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/10/int04055.html

[BeFree]

17. History

That's pretty much the way I remember that time. Gawd, it has been nearly 15 years now....

Through all that time it became quite evident that most Dems were laying down/rolling over for the raygun machine. And we still got Dem leaders rolling over for the repubs.

It's why this website is named the Underground. The establishment Dems are not really our friends, and history proves it.

[blm]

58. Parry nails it - Accomodation Democrats - unfortunately they accomodate coverups

for the House of Bush and House of Saud.

It would be nice to see them accomodate JUSTICE and OPEN GOVERNMENT for a change.

[BeFree]

60. 'Twould be nice

To have about 300 Kucinich type of congress critters. Methinks the accommodaters would find the end of the road pretty damn quick if they all had the same mindset as Dennis.

Let's face it: if the elections weren't so damned crooked, and the lobbyists were under control, we, the Underground Democrats wouldn't be fighting our way up and out of this hole, we'd be fighting nothing but anarchists. And then we'd be happy, eh?

[Frances]

6. I think it's time DU set up a tutorial on how

the Senate and the House work.

I am getting tired of so many posts that attack Democrats for not doing things that they were not allowed to do when they were the minority.

Now that the Dems are in the majority, a lot of the Republican evils are being exposed.

I truly am mystified at why DUers keep blaming the victims and not the Republicans who are the ones who did these things.

Does anyone have an explanation for why DUers are not using every ounce of energy to punish the guilty Republicans?

Is this like the dysfunctional family where the children blame the mother for not protecting them against seeing the father come home and beat the mother up?

[CatWoman]

12. Frances

I don't need a fucking tutorial to understand and remember the rage, disgust and heartbreak I felt when Joe Lieberman capitulated to the GOP over unsigned and undated absentee ballots; when I remember that certain "Democrats" urged Al Gore to throw in the towel and just forget about it; when I remember how James Baker kept going on television - UNCHALLENGED - repeating the same bullshit lie about how the votes were counted and counted and counted again; when I look at Fahrenheit 9/11 and see Al Gore presiding over the senate to certify the votes and had to constantly knock down each and every black congressman who TRIED to voice an objection; and when said Democrats kept BEGGING for a FUCKING SENATOR to voice an objection.

And that's just a few random memories from 2000.

so please, spare me your tutorial.

[Frances]

14. I guess you are one of those DUers who choose

to focus your "rage, disgust and heartbreak" on Democrats.

No one was as disappointed as I was about 2000.

However, I focused my anger on Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, James Baker (the Rule of Law), the busloads of Repubs sent to harrass the vote counters, George Bush, and other Republicans.

To my thinking, these Republicans were more evil than the Democrats. But that's just me.

In 2002, I got up off the floor and once again volunteered to help a Democratic candidate for governor. She lost. Fortunately, the man who defeated her lost his bid for re-election in 2006 and now a very good Democrat holds that office.

I also volunteered to help an excellent Democratic candidate defeat the incumbent Republican candidate for the House of Representatives.

In 2004, I volunteered to help John Kerry. Of course, he lost. While Kerry did not run the best campaign, I focused my disappointment on Bush and the disgraceful tactics of the Swift Boat Liars rather than on Kerry. Again, that's just me.

In 2006, I supported Democrats once again. They have only been in power for 2 months and only have a small margin in the House and, of course, barely a majority in the Senate.

When I ask myself, who will do a better job for the country: the Dems or the Repubs, I answer Dems. That's just me.

[Laurab]

26. "just you" sounds just fine

I couldn't agree with you more. The Dems are far from perfect, but they didn't cause the mess we're in now.

With them in the majority (albeit not a huge one), we are beginning to see at least a little accountability for the first time in a LONG time, and IMO it's just the tip of the iceburg of what we're going to see. I have hope for my country again. I think they deserve a bit more than two months.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. The Dems didn't cause the problems, BUT

they didn't fight hard enough to prevent them, and way too many of them played along with the Republicans.

All the "oh the poor Dems" apologists are conveniently forgetting all the Congresscritters and Senators who sold out the interests of ordinary American people, who couldn't even make a fucking statement against the Republicans' policies of the past 25 years.

And I especially reserve the right to blame any Democrat who voted along with horrible Republican proposals.

[Frances]

56. Agree that they deserve more than 2 months

I think we have a choice: we can deal with the real world or we can live in a dream world.

I simply don't have much patience with people who enjoy whining. I prefer to be around people who move forward doing the best that they can with what they have.

[Malikshah]

33. She is not the only one--

We don't need a tutorial on the need to speak truth to power-- be it Republican or Democrat.

I don't look at people's affiliation. It's simplistic and myopic. I look at the individual's actions. Neither "party" is currently equipped to lead a conga line much less a government.

We do have individuals, though, who spoke truth to power and were ridiculed and beaten down.

We do have others who bared their necks for the slaughter and are now seeking our support.

We do have others who willingly opened the gates to hell and want us to follow them in.

[MaggieSwanson]

67. Amen to that. n/t

[Jax]

81. Are you really talking about Catwoman here?

When you say she is 'one of those DUers who choose to focus your "rage, disgust and heartbreak" on Dems'?????? Catwoman? She is about as fair to Dems as ANYONE on these forums or anyone who calls themselves a Democrat.

I am, have been, and will be hard and pissed and focused on what I see as pro war corporate sell out Dems pretty exclusively, but Catwoman is fair all the way around to all Dems and has been since I have been reading DU and I came here on day one.

Try reading more of her posts.

She is spot on with this, and she is fair to the Democrats out there serving as representatives.

[PassingFair]

90. You suffer from myopia.

Use your peripheral vision.

The republicans can't do it by themselves.
It takes the acquiescence of the weak dems.

We cannot influence the 'pukes.

We CAN and DO influence fellow democrats. The REVOLT
of the STATE CHAIRS in the past few years and the rise
Dean as chairman show that the "little people" get it
and can be influenced.

[Greyhound]

117. You summed up Catwoman's argument in your own reply.

"Republicans were more evil than the Democrats", and that's the point. The Republiks committed the crime and the Democrats refused to prosecute them.

I'll buy that Al Gore couldn't sign because he was the other candidate (Not sure if the President of the Senate qualifies anyway), but what is the excuse for Kerry, Kennedy, or any of the 50-something "Democratic" Senators?

But that's just me.

[JitterbugPerfume]

70. amen CatWoman

amen!

[Forkboy]

21. Sorry,but....

[CatWoman]

73. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Forkboy pulled the Dr. Phil card on me!!! :cry:

How will I ever survive this?? :cry:

[Malikshah]

88. It's OK... walk it off. That Dr. Phil can be such a harsh bastard.

Good lord, when I saw that last night, I about spewed --

What's next?

"You mess with the bull...you get the horns!" (Complete with hand gestures?)

;)

[Forkboy]

94. Don't be crazy...that wasn't for you!

That was for Frances.

I'd never pull the Dr. Phil card on you!

:hug: :loveya:

[CatWoman]

109. *whew*

:*

:rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. And I remember how the Dems in 1986 not only PASSED Reagan's

tax "reform,"--one of them co-authored it.

I remember how the early DLCers supported Reagan's military build-up and interventions in Central America.

I remember how Reagan was able to pass his bills even during the early years, when the Dems controlled Congress.

The DLC and other complicit Dems are not "victims."

They're more like the cowards who suck up to the schoolyard bully so that he won't hurt them.

[JackRiddler]

85. Were they not allowed to say the Iraq justifications were all lies?

A precious few of them sort of did.

Were then not allowed, when in the minority, to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act?

[bigtree]

7. Always blame Democrats first

It put such a fear in the real opposition, you can't imagine.

[Holly_Hobby]

8. Maybe

they're both on the same side? :shrug:

Sure makes you wonder, doesn't it? It's us against them.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

119. I think some of our corporate dems ARE the same side as the GOP.

We need a grass roots effort to elect people like Feingold and Webb.

We can't suppport anyone who supports the war by paying for it. We should fund the safe return of our troops and nothing else. Other wise our dems are just as bad as all those sheep rupukes who are yes-men for Bush.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. This is one I will agree about the Dems being responsible for

I do think though that they will be doing something about this issue this time.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. sigh

Dems weren't weak on the 2000 election - rightly or wrongy, the issue was decided. Al Gore did not support contesting it. If he did, his running mate, Lieberman, could've backed a contest in the Senate. Or Kennedy would have. Or any of a dozen other Senators.

But the issue was already decided. And what would've changed? The Republican House would've elected Bush anyway. The Florida legislature would've sent Republican electors if it had been contested in Florida earlier.

The only thing I resent Michael Moore for was his including that scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 that made it appear as if SOMETHING could've been done about the election, if only one brave Senator existed. He was wrong.

[CatWoman]

13. Monkey

about Michael Moore.

I thank him from the bottom of my heart for adding those scenes in that F9/11.

Perhaps something couldn't have been done then, but what about 2004? Why did we have to see the same shit replayed, with only Boxer having the courage to stand up for what's right?

and, back to 2000, even tho the stage was set, I'm not giving them a free ride for not standing up for what was right then.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. I think they were misleading

the implication was that the outcome could have been different, for want of a brave Senator. That is untrue.

[Downtown Hound]

98. Sometimes you need to take a stand even if you know the outcome won't go

your way.

If the Democrats has raised holy hell during that fiasco, it would have laid the seeds for doubt about Bush for a very large section of the American public that would later be taken in by him. Yes, Bush would have been installed like it or not. I'm with you on that. But that doesn't mean the Democrats had to sit down and quietly take it. By doing so, they gave Bush an air of legitimacy that he wouldn't have had. And then when the run up to the Iraq War happened, many of them might have had more ground to stand on when questioning his insane rush to war. They could have said, "Hey look. This man is not our true president, and we want to let the American people know he is leading us into a very dangerous situation that could have grave repercussions for our country for a long time." But they didn't. Many of them again went along with Bush.

And when the war started to go badly, had the Democrats opposed him at every turn out of a desire to do right and not just what is politically expedient, then they could have seriously got up in front of the American people and said, "My fellow Americans, we opposed the Supreme Court's decision to appoint this man commander in chief even though it was against your wishes. We opposed his decision to send our troops into an unjustified and illegal war in Iraq. Yet time and again we have been thwarted by the Republican Congress and judiciary. It's time for them to go." They would have had so much moral clout behind them, maybe even enough for a true impeachment case against Bush.

But since they caved to Bush time and again, their claims of moral superiority appear weak to many Americans, and as such, we still have an electoral system we can't trust and a president that they are afraid to really put a stop to. It didn't have to be this way. If the Democrats had opposed him from the start, I firmly believe we would all be better off today.

[Pastiche423]

40. The only thing I did not know, before seeing F9/11

was the senate scene. It knocked me out. I felt so ashamed of the Democratic Party.

What continues to knock me out is the amount of DENIAL in this thread. There's a great big, ugly world out there and some of that ugly is stuck on some (a lot of?) Dems.

The Dems are supposed to represent US. When they don't, they deserve to be spanked.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. I would argue

that people who think a Senator agreeing to the contest would've changed the outcome are the ones in denial.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

122. Don't you wish Boxer was running instead of Hillary?..n/t

[Bonobo]

30. Monkster...

Why was it wrong?

Shouldn't a brave senator have stood up when the Black Caucus tried to challenge the election?

Even if it wouldn't have made a difference, shouldn't they have done it because their job is to represent the people and it was the right thing to do?

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Because

a) Al Gore asked them not to and

b) It would've had absolutely no effect on the outcome.

[kath]

37. But sometimes you do something JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. Yes

sometimes you do.

But in politics, it's stupid to do so when you have no chance of victory, and doing so harms you.

[misanthrope]

93. Yeah, because it would have destroyed...

...Gore's ability to win the office he holds right now, huh?

[Bonobo]

39. 2 questions.

a. What makes you think Al asked them not to (and even if he did, there responsibility is to the electorate, not a "failed" presidential candidate, right?)

b. Even if it would have made do difference, you don't seriously believe that's the REASON for them not standing up, do you? If that were true, naturally the Black caucus also wouldn't have stood up because they also must have known it would make no difference.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Al Gore

had plenty of friends in the Senate, including his running-mate. Plus, there were reports at the time that he asked them not to contest it.

As to b), the Black Caucus wanted to make a point, and I commend them for it. But under what possible scenario would the outcome have been different?

Florida certified its electors. Even if a challenge HAD been successful, the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, would've elected the President. Note: in such a case, each state gets one vote. There are far more red states than blue states.

There is nothing that a contest could've accomplished, beyond being a visible protest, and I'm not discarding the importance of that, but the OP BLAMES the Dems for Bush being in office. There is NOTHING the Dems could've done that would've prevented Bush being inaugurated.

Edit: In fact, there is a downside to having contested the election - Bush would've then been elected through an entirely constitutional process. As it stands now, the Supreme Court's interference will always allow us to claim he was put into office via extra-constitutional measures.

[Bonobo]

51. That was a good answer, Funky Monkey!

You're pretty smart considering you went to such a crappy High School! He he... kust kidding!

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

53. Heheh

Everything I know, I learned from Mr. Peacock.

[Morgana LaFey]

76. It would have put the Bush Administration on notice that we weren't

going to roll over for them. That alone could have been valuable. It certainly would've been valuable for the Dems involved to buckle their spines up a bit.

And for the rest of us -- it would have been validation that THEY knew that WE knew something was wrong AND our hearts were breaking -- NOT that we "lost," but that it was stolen, that democracy itself was at risk, that there'd been a bloodless coup.

No change in the outcome? But lots of impact on the general mileu and terrain, and who knows how that might have changed things?

[Mr. Ected]

11. Shhhh...You're Emboldening Our Enemies

Our ideological enemies on Capitol Hill, that is.

[blues90]

15. I have to say I agree

They should have at least made an effort , can you imagine if this happened to the repugs ?

All they did was enable bush and even after bush put his foul ass in the whitehouse , ever while many people protested the dems sat back and still enabled bush to continue on with his relentless lies and wars and on and on . Not just once but twice , same thing when Feingold wanted to censor bush they all stood back and let him hang in the breeze and these are the dems we depend on now , well not me .

[AmandaRuth]

16. Catwomen, I know exactly the rage you feel

I worked hard to help our senator get reelected, had her sign in my yard, called people and doorbelled, only to have her vote for John Roberts (who would have been confirmed even without her vote). Talk about disillusionment. I will always vote dems, but it will be a long time before I do as much as I did before.

I should mention that the state dem party sent me a solicitation for money citing the need to fight the rightward drift of the supreme court the week after Ms Murry voted.

I cried.

[Frances]

19. I would have cried too

[Morgana LaFey]

78. You should've looked someone in the State Party up to give

her -- or him -- a piece of your mind. That's ludicrous, beyond insulting. You also should've reamed out someone at Murray's office about that vote, too, AND the fundraising letter her vote made possible.

[valerief]

18. I blame the parents who knew about the folly of Vietnam and still let

their kids go off to the Bush war.

No twenty-year-olds with guns, no war. No war, no Treasury theft. No Treasury theft, no Hell O'Burden.

[cali]

20. And I blame you n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. You Blame The Jews For The Holocaust Too?

Cause ya know, like, they should've fought back harder and all...

[omega minimo]

25. How do you have ANY credibility here At All?

:wow:

[bonito]

32. He's right

It's the repuks, the dlc and aipac's fault and I agree.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. By Simple Common Sense. Try It Sometime.

[omega minimo]

42. That post is Nonsensical, Inflammatory and Revealing

of your true motives.

Hence the question, posted above.

It's a good thread, we can kick it, as long as you want to continue pretending..........

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Actually, It Was A Pretty Decent Analogy.

As far as your provocation and nonsensical talk of true motives and revealing god knows what; well, damned if I know what that babbling's supposed to even mean.

And no, it isn't a good thread. The premise is actually a pretty pathetic one to tell ya the truth. Blaming the victim instead of the criminal is a pretty stupid thing to do, ya know?

But have at your nonsense attacks. Lord knows it's all ya got.

[omega minimo]

61. Actually it was Indecent

and provocative, as usual.

And you are resorting to personal attacks, accusing others of what you do, as usual. "Lord knows it's all ya got."

Maybe you believe that was a "pretty decent analogy" and really can't see how inappropriate, illogical and inflammatory it is.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. Really Don't Care What You Think, Omega. It Was Perfectly Fine.

And your hypocrisy with personal attacks is astounding, but not surprising.

It was a decent analogy. Putting the blame on the democrats for all that's transpired is ridiculously misguided and of the blame the victim mindset that would be similar to if people blamed the Jews for not fighting back hard enough during the holocaust. Nothing provocative nor attacking by saying so since it is a mere analogy.

You want to twist it and contort it for your personal sake of wanting to attack my character as always, but who really cares? Fact is, it is just a simple analogy demonstrating the ABSURDITY of mindset to blame the victim for the criminals actions, because the victim didn't fight hard enough.

If this simplistic analogy is too much for ya to grasp then too bad; Omega.

[omega minimo]

71. You're right, it is a "simplistic analogy" -- Absurd, Illogical and Inflammatory

My comments are about that-- not your "character." Since the histrionic comparison was so over-the-top, as usual, it is just so difficult to know if the "motive" is to antagonize or the "simplistic" view is the cause.

The reasons that it is illogical and inflammatory aren't even worth discussing, because once again, you manage to make every discussion and every reply about you personally, instead of the topic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah Blah,

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[omega minimo]

97. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haha Ha

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=496017&mesg_id=499299

:spray:

[mudesi]

89. I see your point

However, using the analogy that the Republicans are the Nazis and the Democrats are the Jews is highly absurd. The Nazis had guns and forced the Jews into bondage. The Democrats were in no such predicament.

They had the freedom to go on every cable news network and attack the GOP over the stolen election, but they didn't. They could have filibustered every bill in the Senate, and forced the GOP to use the "nuclear option", but they didn't. The Democrats had choices and made the wrong ones, in the OP's opinion. To compare them to the Jews is nonsensical.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. Not Really Meant As A Direct And Equal Comparison.

Making a case that they were equal would absolutely be abusrd. I agree with you there.

The analogy was meant to be absurd in its premise to equal the absurdity of the OP premise. It was to illustrate a point, not to truly compare Dems and repubs to Jews and Nazis. It was called simple illustrative sarcasm.

But I still find the OP premise to be quite silly in its blame the victim for the acts of the criminal sentiment. I issued an overdramatized sarcastic response to an overdramatized absurd premise, for sake of illustrating the point.

[omega minimo]

99. "Absolutely abusrd," So, okay, was it "simplistic analogy" or "simple illustrative sarcasm"?

You Choose. :rofl:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

105. My God You Just Never Stop Pretending Do Ya.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=496017&mesg_id=500546

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

27. Now I now why tigers eat their young.

[omega minimo]

64. OPERATIONRAYOFSUNSHINE

[Forkboy]

103. Let the flowers and joy spread throughout the land!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

108. Those Flowers Better Not Be GM Or That Bee's A Goner!

:rofl:

Just kidding. Thanks for the pic. Brought a smile to my face. How could it not? :)

[CatWoman]

74. no

but I blame you for making that stupid ass, silly comparison.

[Forkboy]

23. Don't worry,just another few thousand dead and this will alllll be over.

:mad:

[nicknameless]

24. Don't forget that Barbara Boxer stated that she had wanted to contest

the electoral vote count in 2000, but she said that Al Gore had asked her not to.

I heard her say that in an interview shortly after she contested the 2004 electoral vote count.


Edited to add: I agree with you that Dems have to step up and deal with this issue.
Rethugs pulled an array of dirty tricks and stonewalling.
It has been no easier to get ahold of election data than it was the information from Cheney's energy meetings.

To this day, Alaska Dems have been unable to get ahold of 2004 election information that should have been turned over years ago.

Solution? IMO, it's personal accountability. Just like the election workers in Ohio, who are finally paying a price (small albeit) for their part in the 2004 debacle.

Any election official who gets caught pulling any dirty tricks should be charged.

Rethugs have used the courts to help them "win" elections. From bush v. Gore to seemingly insignificant local races.

[senseandsensibility]

28. Sometimes you just gotta say it like it is

The Dems didn't stand up in 2000, 2004, or against Iraq. These are disgusting failures. Most of the time I fall into line. I love teamwork, being a team player, standing with my party, ALL OF THAT. I learned it from my union background. But sometimes, on a Saturday night, when it looks like it might all be happening again, you just gotta say it like it is.:toast: To the Dems who did stand up! (That would be the Black Caucus, and those who voted against the invasion).

[jus_the_facts]

35. I seriously wonder if there really is an "our side"....

....sure as hell can't tell there's much of a difference...I KNOW beyond any shadow of doubt these new computer votin' machines we have here in Louisiana make my vote totally useless...especially with the people who are in control of our entire system here locally are extreme fundies...I don't have any hope what.so.ever. that my vote matters one iota ... :argh:

:hi: Midori! :loveya: :pals:

[Wiley50]

38. CW, I've Come To Believe That The Two- Party System Is Just an Illusion

There's really only one party

The Big Business Party

The Dems are just "Kindler and Gentler" about it.

It sucks to have to be this cynical
But, I've been watching all the same things as you
and a lot more you didn't touch upon
But, I have no doubt you see it too

There's only one way out
100% Publicly Financed Elections

It's the only way to slay the beast

Peace, Love and Hope that our fellow DUers come to realize this
and use our community to make it happen

And kisses to the wounds you will suffer from our unenlightened partisans over this thread

Take The Insurance Companies out of Public Medicine
Take the Money Out Of Politics

[JackRiddler]

41. I'm sorry so many of you are in denial...

But I've been watching leading Democrats enable the crimes of the state for 30 years now. The Reagan program started under Carter (Brzezinski was taking credit for Reagan on Bill Maher just last night). Since 1980, the leading Democrats have enabled an awesome series of crimes, for which the primary responsibility lies with the Bush mob. I'm sorry for those of you who can't see that these crimes would never have gone on for so long or been as awful without the essential function of a second party that looks like the opposition but consistently avoids going for the kill. If the Democrats had cried murder and pillage under Reagan there might not have been a Bush I. If under Clinton they had completed the work of Lawrence Walsh and others who wanted to make those bastards pay for Iran-Contra, Iraqgate and Contra-drugs and the S&L plunder there would not have been a PNAC or a Bush II. If they showed backbone for the last six years the regime might have tumbled long ago. Imagine how powerful they would look today, had they been strong in opposing the Iraq invasion from the onset. The Republicans only get to play honest-but-incompetent folks who are strong on terror because the Democrats constantly cede that to them. Even now, where criminality and violations of the Constitution on a scale far greater than Nixon are obvious even to the majority of Americans, the Democrats refuse to challenge on Iraq and keep impeachment off the table. What does it take to see that the lack of opposition or opportunistic folding at key moments has strengthened and facilitated the Bush mob for 30 years?

THIS IS NOT "BLAMING" THE DEMOCRATS.

It's about understanding their essential role in facilitating the Bush agenda.

[senseandsensibility]

43. Good post.

Good summation. I can only say that others (including myself) don't WANT to face it. Why? It's probably because we want to hope. We want to believe that one day our side will gain that one little advantage that they didn't have before, and then we'll show them! But, as you've pointed out, even when we've held the White House, the congress, or both, it doesn't seem to happen. And once you accept that, it leaves you in a very scary place...

[JackRiddler]

46. Thanks, but my surface description...

of the series of events, a history, still leaves out the incredibly simple ultimate cause behind it all.

Money. Public campaign financing. No lobbyists, no contributions from anything but individuals for $100 a pop. Free media time for everyone on the ballot as a condition of FCC licensing. Guaranteed complete count, using paper ballots. Automatic fucking recount no matter what the score. Some form of proportional representation. A new fairness doctrine or media carta (time for all viewpoints). Transparency and an end to covert policy and covert actions. No more self-appointed state-within-the-state. No secret accounts, no black budgets, no slush funds. No fucking revolving door. These are what would change everything else. It's all in the process, as it now stands that is infinitely corruptible. You could replace everyone in government with randomly selected honest people and within a decade it would be just as bad if you didn't take the money power out of democracy.

[blm]

91. I agree - Look at the Dems against corruption, for open government, for public

financing of campaigns, etc...and you will see Dems demonized within their own party. And demonized by the same Dem powerstructure figures who have consistently protected BushInc every step of the way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Yeah, what Jack Riddler said!

And I leave you with a thought.

The best advice I ever got about human relationships was "Don't believe what people say. Believe what they do."

The mainstream Democrats SAY that they're for ordinary working people and peace and prosperity and equal rights for all, but what so many of them actually DO is vote for wars or to confirm convicted felons or right-wing nutcases for government posts or to screw over the ordinary American worker.

Me, I believe what politicians DO, not what they SAY.

The rest of you True Believers in the Democratic Party would be well advised to do the same.

[Frances]

57. I expect I have made more calls to Democrats

asking them to vote in a certain way than any one on this board. Often times they don't vote the way I want. However, every time I look at the list of people who voted the way I like, many more Democrats voted that way than Republicans.

We may not have the best governing system there is, but it is the one I live with.

[Morgana LaFey]

83. and it sure as hell could be improved

despite your pollyannish view of things -- and people.

[CatWoman]

75. JR, always sane

always on target :)

:hi:

[bbgrunt]

80. great post, Mr Riddler. We must open the election process up to 3rd parties.

[warren pease]

112. Yup. And...

In my opinion…

In the American political con game, the two allegedly opposing parties are -- as Saint Noam says -- simply factions of The Business Party, whose mutual goal is to create a nurturing environment for corporate America and which differ only marginally in the means they use to achieve that shared objective.

And that’s as you would expect, because the same campaign "contributors" give money to candidates from both parties in almost all races, since corporate America will only bet on a sure thing and doesn’t want to take the chance that voters might occasionally screw up their cozy arrangement. The only apparent difference is that it takes less money to buy a Democrat, as sites like opensecrets.org and Project Vote Smart (vote-smart.org) demonstrate. Looking at aggregate campaign "donations" to candidates of each party running for a given office, Democrats roll for thousands less, while the GOP, true to its roots, holds out for every last penny.

In a sane country, this would be called treason and both bribers and bribees would be subject to serious hard time, or perhaps a firing squad. In America, however, it’s called campaign finance law – sometimes, hilariously, even called "reform" -- and is actually practiced right in front of our noses. And most of us, ineffectual, narcotized candy asses that we’ve become, don’t even smell a thing.

Under this binary political joke and absent a functional third party, we're stuck with either the sociopathic GOP or its Democratic enablers. Hell of a choice. And pretty hopeless absent public financing of campaigns, which both parties hate because it kills their golden goose.


wp

[JackRiddler]

116. That's a big picture, all right.

Thanks for your precis.

Now what?

I'll give the Democrats this much: the party in its peripheries harbors - uneasily, mostly unwillingly - the best the elected American political class has to offer. Can they be brought around to push in a way that actually works?

What would happen if 30 representatives floated a serious system of public campaign finance?

[warren pease]

120. Dunno, but...

>What would happen if 30 representatives floated a serious system of public campaign finance?

They would immediately be arrested and executed by the rest of the membership.

Well, probably not, but they wouldn't get a very favorable hearing. As I wrote before, politicians thrive on this system. They all bitch about how all-consuming fund raising has become, but they keep doing it because it's become an arms race and they have to be able to buy the biggest weapons.

Also, I think the onus is on the electorate, and this is another issue where the American public typically responds like imbeciles -- kind of like term limits, which is often hilarious because, on the one hand, a statewide term limits initiative usually passes and, on the other, they reelect their own congressperson overwhelmingly on the same damn ballot.

Anyway, people refuse to pay, say, $10 a year to fund campaigns. They equate it with a tax increase and don't want to talk about it. If you tell them private financing is costing taxpayers billions each year in corporate welfare alone, and that they're being saddled with taxes that used to be paid by the campaign donor class, they either don't believe it or don't want to hear it. It's too big a concept to fit on a t-shirt, so it won't fit between their ears either.

But that's where it has to come from, because the very people who profit from the current system sure as hell aren't going to voluntarily turn off their cash flow.

And absent a truly effective educational/PR campaign detailing exactly how taxpayers and voters are getting screwed and how much it's costing them to maintain the status quo, I don't see any possibility of moving to public financing. And I don't see any altruists putting up the big pile of cash that such an educational process would cost. And even if the money was raised and informational programs on public financing actually showed up on TV, there's always American Idol reruns on another channel.

wp

[leftofthedial]

52. 99.99% of the politics in DC

is just a show, like professional wrestling

it keeps us from noticing the even worse crimes that go on unnoted.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. To answer your first question, Al Gore asked the senate democrats not to contest 2000

Russ Feingold said it in an interview.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

59. I blame, We The People, who are lulled to sleep and let others handle our government

and they haven't had a clue about how our government has been stolen from us.

Both parties are opposames. They express different points of view, but at the end of the day it is status quo, with the loser being We The People. The Democratic party is kinder and gentler and we do get some concessions yet in the end, we are being served by others that they themselves are serving higher powers.

Someone posted a month ago or so, a list of contributors to the DLC, many were the same that financed the GOP.

We need 100% public financing of elections. We have to end the Federal Reserve which is bleeding us dry. We need strong laws to protect whistleblowers, we need the strongest laws to prosecute public corruption. In the end, getting rid of the corruption will save our Treasure and help to insure that We The People get our government back.

On edit..we have to end media consolidation and get our press back. Without a free press, we will never really be free.

[omega minimo]

63. Aye, seconded. Not popular to suggest "We" have anything to answer for....

:hi: :patriot:

[JitterbugPerfume]

62. in my opinion

some of the bravest people in the congress are the Black members

John Conyers, Maxine Waters, etc

[omega minimo]

66. The Congressional Black Caucus has stood up for American Democracy many times when no one else did.

:kick:

[Morgana LaFey]

84. Absolutely. They're certainly the only ones who represent ME

on a regular and routine basis. They're the ones with courage, they're the ones who know the scoop. I cherish each and every one of them, and the real stars -- the ones you name -- are heroes to me. Conyers, Waxman, Waters, Lee, many others.

[deutsey]

68. I also knew Democratic voters who just hid their heads in the sand

back in 2000. A very dear friend of mine and I had a falling out over my anti-Bush activism after he stole the election. She said I was being just like the Republican fanatics that went after Clinton. She also didn't take Bush seriously and felt he would be a one-termer like his dad.

I told her that if they (Bush, Rove, et al.) were willing to do what they did in Florida (disenfranchisement and other nefarious tactics to grab power), they were certainly going to do everything they could to hold on to that power.

After six disastrous years of the Bush regime, she now agrees with me. It pisses me off, though, that she was like a lot of Dems at the time who, while disappointed in the election outcome, still believed Bush would be out of there with little damage and poo-poo'ed the alarm many of us were trying to sound at the time.

Here's something I wrote on Bartcop back in April 2001. It was one of the things my friend saw as me taking what happened in 2000 way too seriously:

http://www.bartcop.com/coupsp.htm

My conclusion seems prescient to me now:

Reviewing the increasing amount of evidence demonstrating just how dirty the 2000 election was, however, is it so unreasonable to think that those interests whose hands remain sullied from Florida would have sunk one notch lower into the murky depths of covert operations? What are the limits when the objective is to grab power at any cost?

And what will those who seized that power do next time in order to hold on to it?

PS: That's not my email address at the link.

[Morgana LaFey]

87. Yes. As some DUer pointed out years ago, which I remembered

who, people don't steal elections to do GOOD.

[H2O Man]

72. I blame others

when I lose my keys. I credit myself for finding them.

[CatWoman]

77. you are such a smart ass

between you and Forkboy, I'm pulling my hair out here :)

:hi:

[Morgana LaFey]

86. Maybe you're just being funny, but if you're not I have a question

Just what, exactly, do you suggest that those of us who worked really hard during the 2000 election and its immediate aftermath but who got ignored were supposed to do? Seriously. I have NEVER worked so hard on contacting my elected representatives as I did during that time, right on up to and including Ashcroft's nomination, and I wasn't alone in the least. I worked pretty damn hard to try to stop the Iraq war too.

What, exactly, do you think those of us who are blaming Dems for not listening to us should do or have done INSTEAD?

Your response is glib, and cute, but let's see some substance out of it.


And a corollary: what responsibility do our elected Dems have to listen to us when we contact them (again and again and again) on a particular matter? How much responsibility can they shrug off before it IS "okay" to blame them?

[deutsey]

100. Thank you

Like most prophets, we were voices crying out in the wilderness, weren't we?

We were ignored in 2000 and we certainly don't need to be glibly patted on the head now.

[Morgana LaFey]

111. Or far worse: told that the blame accrues to us alone!

That's what rankled me. So if that's his idea of things, I want an elaboration!

[bbgrunt]

79. this is the problem. Dems are COMPLICIT in this. They

don't really want transparency or accountability either. In the words of a famous visionary "there's no difference between
the reps and dems" Only if we break the two party hold on power will we be able to see a government that responds to the wishes of the electorate.

We need to push for instant run-off voting.

[MzNov]

82. I agree with you and share a lot of outrage against the Democrats,

but it's just not black and white. We've never had a "president" like this before, even Nixon. Add that to "like hearding cats" and you have a process that is as slow as maple syrup in Vermont. Plus you also have most of the Democrats getting big contributions from big corporations. So there are many factors along with the timidity of the congress.

I was livid when Russ Feingold was the only elected official who actually READ the Patriot Act, and when the publicans were adding sneaky little amendments at 4 a.m. I think the Democrats never knew what hit them. The pukes are evil cons who have been 5 steps ahead of the american people all along.

Hang in there. There ARE senators and house members who plan to address the voting machine issues, I've heard them speak of it. But they've got a few more issues to take care of first. I totally gave up hope for a while, but have since seen a few beams of light. Every day publicans are being exposed for the dirty theves they are, it's just taking so dammm long.

:bounce:


"outradge" what the hell is outradge :-)

[Terri S]

102. well I think the blame falls squarely with the non-voting, non-informed public

What are we at now 40% that actually bother to vote? How many people do you know who are as informed about their government as they are about the latest contestant on American Idol? There's plenty of blame to go around, but until the American people start giving a damn about what goes on, the blame for failed policy falls squarely on those that abdigate their responsibility as citizens.

[candymarl]

104. 2000 "Election"

I heard an on air tape of Senator Boxer on Air America. Her story changed. When asked why she didn't help contest 2000 she said that AL GORE DID NOT ASK THEM TO (ie. Democratic Senators). Poor President Gore. Even his own party lied on him. No wonder he doesn't want to run again.

[LWolf]

106. I have to agree.

For me, 2000 - 2007 has been a long, painful march to disillusionment.

[cassiepriam]

110. Why or why do the Dems keep rolling over? nt

[babsbunny]

113. I have so much anger

:nuke:

[shance]

114. I can't believe how much I've already forgotten. We've been so overwhelmed.

You just hit the nail on the head. We have been ready to fight. All the Democrats, or most Democrats have done has told us to calm down and "get over it".

One could now ask is that what most of them are paid to do by corporations?

Just to sit there and be used as "damage control" by the Corporations and banks?

Our best fighter Cynthia McKinney was targeted and taken down because she had the nerve to fight.

[earth mom]

115. The truth is that the Dems are serving their corporate masters exactly as the Rethugs do.

Cindy Sheehan is speaking the cold hard truth about the Dems and she is getting a helluva lot a flack for it on another thread here on DU which, IMNSHO, is just asinine!

Because, the reality is...

Is that the good hard working people of this country are NOT being represented, PERIOD.

How people on a political website such as this one would be in such denial about that fact is simply astounding.

Until everyone accepts the cold hard reality we all face, expect more squabbling in thread after thread about why Obama is better than Hillary when in fact they are EXACTLY the same and both serve their corporate masters to perfection.

[ulysses]

118. here's the lesson I'd like for party "strategery-ists" to take away from all this:

When presented with the opportunity to either do the right thing or do the politically expedient thing, do the right thing, if only because strategists aren't half as clever as they think they are.
:hi:

[ProSense]

121. Voters have been threatening to hold Dems accountable

and blaming them through three election cycles: 2000, 2002 and 2004. Maybe the blame rests with American voters (and non voters, come to think of it).

[JackRiddler]

123. kick

[JackRiddler]

124. kick