BDF Blame Democrats First

[bigtree]

BDF - It's the latest craze! And, you don't even have to identify yourself as a republican. All of the Democrats who are anybody at all are doing it. It's easy. Easier, in fact, than bashing republicans because you don't actually have to confront the real opposition and figure out how to move them off of their obstruction. Just stand on the outside, like so; lean back and let 'er rip! Feel good? I thought it would. Now go out and find some loyal Democrat and give 'em all you've got. That'll make you feel a hundred feet tall. When absolutely nothing gets done, at least you'll have the satisfaction in knowing you've made that nothing happen. All of the chaos, suffering, and killing in Iraq will still be going on. Bush will still be pushing our overburdened, under-supplied soldiers forward, having been directed to do nothing at all by Congress. Maybe the Greens or the Libertarians will finally step up and take over in 2008. Railing against the rank-and-file of the Democratic party will certainly attract scores of folks who voted for them to your side. That's the goal behind all of the tearing at our party and leadership, isn't it? There really isn't a chance in hell that the present balance of power in Congress will allow anyone to dictate their agenda without cooperation. Remember that when you do achieve power, you will need a larger majority than we have now, so get busy tearing all of these folks down to make room for the army of progressives who will certainly then appeal to the masses who will undoubtedly be so impressed with your destruction of the Democratic party that they'll elect them in droves. By January of 2009, the new Muckrakers (I like that name, so I'll just put it out there) will assume power and roll over the opposition who will have been so dumbstruck by the activism against our own party that they'll just collapse and bow down before us.

Muckrakers in 2009! Be there.

[KG]

1. NBD - Never Blame Democrats!

heck, why settle for half-measures?

[bigtree]

3. No. I think the tenor of the rhetoric I hear against the Democratic party won't bear half-measures

These are folks who think that we can afford to wait until January 2009 so that President Kucinich or his equal can order our troops out of Iraq and have them leaving Iraq hours after he's sworn in and back home for supper. They can't possibly gather enough votes in this Congress to effect their 'withdraw now' proposals and initiatives. They have even less support in Congress for their 'just say no' strategy. All they are left with is to advertise their proposals as if there is going to be some miracle shift in the balance of power to actually get their proposals to Bush's desk.

To them, the Democrats who voted for a different funding bill, or who voted for one at all, are the incarnation of the evil we used to ascribe to the ones who actually sent them there and are keeping them there with their obstruction. They must have a 'secret plan' to get their initiatives out of the House, because, the way they are tearing down the Democrats we elected threatens to divide our party into ineffective camps with similar goals, but with obstinately different proposals on how to achieve those goals. I can't see how one faction is going to accomplish anything without the other.

The Iraq Accountability Act was a gratifying compromise that was accomplished by a graceful unity of purpose. Those who had argued for an alternative proposal and, nonetheless, voted for the compromise bill certainly understood that the leadership and the bill's most ardent supporters shared their concern that the occupation must end as soon as possible. Even Rep. Barbara Lee, in her remarks after the bill's passing, and after voting against it, was gracious and supportive of the Act's intentions as she highlighted its end date for the occupation.

But, that's of no consequence to those who see political hay to be made out of continuing their campaign for moral superiority over those who care as much about ending the killing and suffering in Iraq, but have adopted a different strategy for achieving that end as they face off against the obstruction and obstinacy of Bush and his republican enablers in Congress. Certainly they can't hope to achieve any of their proposals with the cooperation of the present membership of our party. They will effect Nothing in the way of a withdrawal from Iraq with their attack on the Democrats who have crafted and supported the compromise withdrawal legislation. But, they will likely continue to drag our Democrats down for a bill they even admit has no chance of overcoming a Bush veto, even if it manages to move through the Senate to reconciliation and passage.

That kind of high-mindedness is a perfect fit for their Muckraker's catbird's seat.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[cali]

9. And never forget:

Today's Democratic hero, is tomorrow's villain.

[Jonathan50]

13. Dennis the K and the Overton Window. --a crucial task that needs more help..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

The Overton window is a concept in political theory, named after the former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Joe Overton, who developed the model. It describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. By moving the limited range . Delivering rhetoric to define the window provides a plan of action to make more acceptable to the public some ideas by priming them with other ideas allowed to remain unacceptable, but which make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison.

The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

* Unthinkable
* Radical
* Acceptable
* Sensible
* Popular
* Policy

The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it, and adding new ideas that can push the old ideas towards acceptance merely by making the limits more extreme.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[zalinda]

6. And, how pray tell me, would you do it?

Politics IS compromise. Why? Because if it wasn't, it would be a dictatorship. If ANYONE could go in and make a law, or spend some money without opposition, it wouldn't be a democracy anymore.

Name ONE action that EVERY American would agree on. Just name one. Do you think the dems can march into Congress and demand that a bill should be worded a certain way? Then the Senate would also okay it? Then of course, Bush would definitely sign it.

Pleazzzzeeee, the dems are walking against a very strong wind, and by the time it gets to the White House it's at gale force. If they get 2 steps forward, it's a victory.

Hell, ask any married person if they always get their way, or a person with children. Now multiply that by all the reps we have in DC, and it's amazing any one agrees on anything. To live in this world, compromise is what keeps the peace.

People forget that that rep in DC not only represents you, but the other people in the district also. If your rep hears from a thousand people to vote a certain way on a bill, and only you to vote it down, who do you think he will listen to.

zalinda

[cindylouwho]

7. If you believe that they represent not only their own voters, but you as well

I suggest you try to contact someone not of your district via their senatorial or representative website and identify yourself as not being a constituent or not having the right area code and see what their little automatic reply is. If I remember correctly, it runs along the lines of we appreciate your concerns, but we don't represent you.

[zalinda]

14. And why would they listen to you? They don't represent you.

They represent the voters in their district. If they are a dem and they hear mostly from conservatives in their district, they will vote that way. It's very simple. To flog a dem just because he doesn't vote your way is ridiculous. That is one reason you will not hear me put down Joe Lieberman. While I don't like the man, his district voted him back into office.

I live in New York, I would be crazy to think that a rep from Kentucky would represent me in DC, or that they would even want to hear from me.

zalinda

[GeorgeGist]

4. Feel better now ...

sinking in muck?

[bigtree]

5. it never makes you feel better

I'm probably not ready to feel better

[live love laugh]

10. Code Pink will definitely "help". nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Right. I get it. Let the "good guys" we elected pass meaningless bills.

They pass "symbolic" bills to give the appearance of actually doing something and we are supposed to break out the champagne and give them three cheers on the promise (again) that, "we're keeping our powder dry", or, "it's pragmatic politics", or, "we don't have the votes", or the new mantra from the right wing of the party, "just be patient".

And, here on DU, let's attack the Democrats on the left instead of the Blue Dogs and DLC'rs who pushed for the pathetic "compromise".

But, it's all about 2008, when we are assured that if they get enough more Dems elected then all will be well. We heard that same song in 2003, when our bold "leaders" voted for the war and we were told it was "practical politics" that to vote against it was a "useless gesture". Then again, when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito, it was necessary to "keep our powder dry" by voting for them and it would be useless to vote against them or filibuster, "because the votes aren't there".

Yes, indeed, the "good guys" must continue to pander to the rightwing of the party to ensure their support while ignoring the left who want something done.

[bigtree]

12. there is nothing more 'symbolic than railing from the outside

with proposals which have no significant support or chance for passing out of either body, much less make it to Bush's desk.

You can fantasize about a veto-proof, filibuster-proof majority that we wanted when we voted, or address the balance of power we ended with.

And, it's not beyond you to notice that this is a DEFENSE of my position supporting the legislation and against Mr. Kucinich's attacks on our party and party members who voted a different way than he did.

[Forkboy]

15. Keep your day job.

[CatWoman]

16. God I love you

:rofl:

:loveya:

[Forkboy]

18. I almost had to bust out Dr. Phil again.

I've got the link and I'm not afraid to use it. :)

:loveya:

[CatWoman]

20. LOLOLOLOLOL

:rofl:

[bigtree]

21. Thanks.

this is my day job.

I'll keep to whatever job I choose, Forkboy. You looking to become my next project?

[Forkboy]

24. Not after seeing what you did with this project.

[bigtree]

25. I will, of course, take that remark in my favor

[Forkboy]

27. That would coincide with my expectations.

[WillyT]

17. Gee, This Sounds Vaguely Familiar... Oh Yeah, Blame America First !!!

Isn't that what the right\rePuke\conservatives call our 'crowd'???

Look... I'm an American, I'm active, pay my taxes, and vote. So I get to criticize my country when I think it is doing something STUPID!!!

Same goes for me as a member of the Democratic Party.

If all you want here is Dem cheer leading, boy have you come to the wrong site.

:shrug:

[bigtree]

19. criticize all you want

I'll defend where I see fit. I have no problem with either. I think this entire assault on our leadership from 'progressives' has been, at times, sophmoric, misguided, and misinformed. It has become an all out rhetorical assault where every action is equated with what used to be regarded as the worst of republican behavior. I think that's wildly out of line when considering our leadership, both in personality and in their individual and collective actions so far in the majority.

I think the campaign against our party members from within has grown to the proportion where it out measures the opposition to the real obstructionists in the OTHER party. Remember them?

[WillyT]

22. I Don't Expect Squat From The Republicans...

I do however expect a helluva lot from my Democrats. I'm worried that we may cutesy our way right back out of power if the rest of the country sees us as ineffectual as an opposition party.

For instance... why, exactly, take out the provision forbidding this idiot-in-chief from moving militarily against Iran?

Can you explain the inherent genius of that particular move, cause it certainly escapes me.

:shrug:

[bigtree]

23. that 'idiot move'

allowed the bill to advance out of the committee and on to the floor by gaining the votes of those opposed to the provisions. There was no value in scuttling the prospect for a bill on Iraq for the Iran provision.

There is NO value in measures which don't have enough support to pass out of the chamber. I don't have any use for them. Anyone can craft a bill that will stall. I want a bill which will advance to Bush's desk. You seem to want an argument.

[cali]

26. Hang it up. You can't rationally discuss

the reality and complexities of Congressional legislation with ideological purists. They're not interested in facts, just in some vague and overarching "TRUTH".

[WillyT]

30. Here's Some Overarching Truth For You...

Must be a great relief to be so... rational... unemotional... calculating...

:wtf:

[cali]

31. You make my point better than I could.

And the heartbreaking pictures you post, ones I wish Americans were more familiar with, do capture the truth, but not, sadly the facts of legislating. Deny it all you want, and continue dwelling in the land of capital T truth, but it's reality. That doesn't make me calculation are cold to the ongoing tragedy of this war.

[WillyT]

29. Hmm... And I Thought It Got Pulled After Nancy Met With AIPAC...

From The Nation - John Nichols

<snip>

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

<snip>

Link: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804

To me... that's being too cute by half. In order to please those on one side, you piss off and start to hemmorage support on the other side. In this instance, the side that put you in power in the first place.

:banghead:

[bigtree]

32. you may not like it, but these members of our party support Israel

AIPAC is ONE organization which curries that favor for Israel and candidates line up to measure their position against AIPAC's dictum. These don't always mesh with everything AIPAC wants, but folks try anyway. Big Deal. That's democracy. Their constituents elected them knowing of their zeal to defend Israeli interests in Congress.

These members were not going to vote for the Iraq bill with the provisions included. That simple. Iran provisions in, no majority in committee to pass the bill to the floor. You can project whatever argument you have against AIPAC on that, but that's how Congress works. You need majority support in committee and/or on the floor to advance legislation. That doesn't take anything away from whatever merits your argument may have against AIPAC, but that was the political reality which caused Pelosi to remove the Iran provision.

Also, the bias of the reporting was typical. They also focused on the entire AIPAC debate without reminding of the sentence in all of their reports where Pelosi said she was having trouble getting the bill out of committee. Not cute. Nothing that snide and condescending. It was another casualty of getting this bill to the point where it could be stood up and passed. You saw the margin. You saw the compromises they had to make to get this bill to the floor. It may not have been important to you that it advanced but it was important to me and many others in Congress and around the country. A debate on future action in Iran should not have prevented action on the bill on the present disaster in Iraq to be delayed.

[WillyT]

34. So Explain To Me What Is Wrong With This Please...

"Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war."

That's too much for Democrats to ask... for supporters of Israel to ask???

These assholes in the White House may just launch that attack against Iran yet. And in my estimation, the existence of Israel is way more threatened by that one act, than any supposed future threat real or imagined.

:banghead:

[bigtree]

35. I think they were wrong to hold up the bill

but they are just one example of the different obstacles in the way of advancing legislation that the leadership and the managers of the legislation have to contend with.

[WillyT]

37. And I Thought Leaders Were Supposed To Convince Ignoramouses...

and simpletons.

But if this keeps up, I hope everyone of the 'pragmatics' gets a viable primary challenge next time around. That's another way in which democracy works.

You can tell I'm pissed, right?

:mad:

[mmonk]

28. My problem with the idea of compromise is that

I haven't seen much of any except democratic. A real compromise requires both sides.

[bigtree]

33. well, there is the course of shooting for republican support

but they are behaving dishonestly and there's been no real opportunity to work together with them as the process would allow.

Our party has been acting responsibly, they have not.

[mmonk]

36. A few are peeling off. The trick is if enough of them will vote for a dem bill

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Good Rant Bigtree. I Feel Your Frustration.

The level at which some attack our fellow Dems here is most definitely a bit mind boggling. When looked at with an objective eye and rational mind a lot of the vitriol just makes absolutely zero sense.