Why is there so much stupidity and anti Dem sentiment on DU? Have some not read the constitution?

[saracat]

Do some not understand that the troops aren't deployed by Congress? From the moment we won control our Dems have been dissed by some on DU and most have made the most ignorant statements with no understanding of how government works.
I am sick of us not supporting our own.The GOP hung together when they were in the majority and were able to accomplish their goals.We can do the same but our people should be given some support.It seems the some think Nancy and Harry can just "order"the troops home NOW and they shouldn't even bother about funding those troops already there. I guess those people think the troops shouldn't be paid or protected till they can come home.Maybe they don't consider the troops families need money too.
All this bashing of our own doesn't serve us well with the media.We are quoted and used.No matter what you think of Pelosi and Reid, they are a damn site better that the former speaker and Majority Leader.Maybe some should try working with them instead of against them to accomplish troop withdrawal.They have already stated they will NOT support the surge. Give them a break and show them some support.They have a much more difficult job then some realise.

[pnwmom]

1. a timely reminder, saracat.

[Kagemusha]

2. Nitpick: "deploy". The President commands the troops, certainly...

But deciding whether or not they should be in a foreign country at all, conducting matters of war and peace in a very expensive manner, these are not pure executive issues, unless we want to completely ignore - as many do, of course - the part where Congress actually decides whether America goes to war or not.

[tbyg52]

36. And it hasn't actually been working that way for quite some time... nt

[uppityperson]

3. I'm not bashing but want tthe Democratic party to stand up as a whole

I'm for a slowdown of congress to protest, cut funding for anything for the occupation, slow everything down entirely. I won't bash any of them until they say they support the escalation and/or not ending the occupation.

[JuniperLea]

15. And you don't have to cut off pay to the troops to do that!

Argh! That's the bit that got me going. It's like the poison pill in the bill. You CAN support the troops and oppose the war. You CAN support your fellow Dems and still disagree with them!

Never shut up.

[uppityperson]

16. don't cut off pay for the troops, but for those making money off the war machine.

THAT is what needs to be cut. No more money for them. And don't cut vet benefits either, as they need more than they have now. Cut off money for the War Machine, not the troops.

[JuniperLea]

39. Yep! It can be done

And I believe this is what Congress has in mind... fingers crossed.

[nini]

4. sshhhh.... common sense and reality do not apply here

The lack of understanding of the process is mind-boggling.

[Bluebear]

31. nice.

[ProudDad]

34. It surely is

The Dems in Congress can only withdraw funding or put conditions on appropriations or threaten same.

Maybe they will withdraw the right kind of funding (like anything for Halliburton, Lockheed, etc.) and put conditions on the rest, like buy a plane ticket home for each of the "troops".

They'd better!

[JuniperLea]

5. If you think Dems will ever, ever, ever, walk lock-step like Repugs...

Well, I don't know what to think.

There is plenty of financial wranglings they can maneuver without taking money from the troops. That would never happen.

You can disagree with them and still support them.

Worrying about what other people will think when they read our posts is about as bad as making bad decisions for the sake of politics.

I think everyone should continue the discussion as usual and forget about what other people might think.

[saracat]

11. As one who posted an frustrated complaint about the Dems on DU that got published in the WSJ

and used against the Kerry Campaign,I think he statement"Worrying about what other people will think when they read our posts is about as bad as making bad decisions for the sake of politics." is a little naive. We do not have to march in lockstep, but thought should be given to posts before they are used as an attack against those we elected.
I am just suggesting we attempt to work together constructively with those of our party who represent us instead of always handing ammunition to the other side.

[JuniperLea]

13. That's funny, because

I thought your post was naive as well. I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye on this.

All I'm saying is that I don't think we should stop discussing the things that we don't agree with. Those discussions are too important.

How much damage to you think your lifted post caused anyway?

[janx]

30. Would you be so kind as to provide some context?

What does this have to do with the WSJ?

[AtomicKitten]

6. You are absolutely correct

and this is a timely reminder in light of the cacophony of disapproval. Congress holds the pursestrings, but Bush commands the troops. It will be a delicate dance to end the war, and I do believe Reid and Pelosi have been very clear that that is their goal.

[SharonRB]

7. Thanks, saracat

I totally agree with you.

[beaconess]

8. Bam! You're dead on!

:toast:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. How about they repeal the IWR?

Or at least provide some kind of indication that they give a shit.

And not just this "we need to change course" lip service.

It's because I support the dems that I want them to make a stand.

[JuniperLea]

14. I'm always suspicious

When someone tries to shut someone else up.

Talking about these things, the good and the bad, and yes, the ugly, is too important.

Never shut up!

[valerief]

10. Freeper trolls may be stirring the pot. nt

[Cameron27]

12. Thank you!

"Give them a break and show them some support."

:thumbsup:

[sendero]

17. I'm happy to criticize Dems...

.. who are not very Demmy. Or who don't do the things they should. Or who are dishonest.

The new Congress seems to be doing a great job. Yeah, Steny Hoyer should shut the eff up, but Pelosi is great and to me most of them are saying and doing the right things.

Just like those on the far right, there are plenty on the left whose grasp of reality is tenuous at best. I wouldn't let it bother me too much, it's a message board not the Congressional Record.

[ProudDad]

35. Those of us on the left

have a firm grasp of reality, we just don't like it. :)

So we work very hard to try to expose those of you who are somewhat satisfied with the corrosive, capitalist status-quo with a vision of a better world.

I guess we're just a bunch of cockeyed optimists.

[sendero]

38. Believe me..

... I'm in total sympathy with the "far left" on the war and on economic issues. It's just that I find their methods to be often counter productive.

For an analogy, look no further than PETA. This is an organization that I pretty much agree with on policy, but they have actually set back the cause of animal rights with their actions and extremism. Are animals any better off because PETA is there? I really doubt it.

[ProudDad]

44. I don't agree

I think their actions have probably convinced a lot of folks to avoid fur, to buy products safe from animal testing, and even to become vegetarian (like my girlfriend) by bringing the plight of defenseless animals to their consciousness.

Don't underestimate the power of the powerlessness when they've hit upon a clever way to get publicity...

[earth mom]

18. How is it stupid to expect and demand more from the dems?

Sounds like denial to me. The dems need play hardball just like the thugs played the past 6, no make that 12 years. They need to stop the corporate shilling and start working for THE PEOPLE who elected them! That they don't even have a "set" or are brave enough to Impeach speaks volumes. At this point, I hardly see any difference between the dems and the thugs except that the thugs are a lot meaner. But make no mistake: complicity with * & Co in any manner exposes the BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

[welshTerrier2]

19. "I am sick of us not supporting our own."

that's just too bad ...

Democrats are NOT above criticism ... to suggest that anyone is under any obligation to be blindly supportive and to not be harshly critical when we disagree is not the way democracy works ... in fact, i find the entire theme of your post to be tyrannical in tone ... each of us is entitled to our own beliefs ...

i also resent your broadbrush criticism of those who criticize the Dems position on Iraq ... anti-war critics are not a monolithic group ... many of us who support some form of cutting off funding for the war would never support a situation that condones cutting off direct support for the troops or their families ... you stated: "I guess those people think the troops shouldn't be paid or protected till they can come home." ... BAD GUESS! that's not at all what many of us think ...

btw, i applaud the recent positions taken by Reid and Pelosi about "the surge" ... but if people disagree with them, i don't toss around a cheap-assed term like "bashing" ... i see disagreements over what's best for the country as the essence of our political system ... preaching loyalty under any circumstances is bullshit ...

[Cameron27]

20. I agree,

but I thought the OP was just calling for some temporary patience since they've only been in office a week.

[welshTerrier2]

21. i'm all for patience ...

it's not clear the OP demonstrated any ...

[AtomicKitten]

22. if I may interject

I think he was commenting on the barbs lobbed out of impatience due to a lack of understanding of Congress' actual purview and functional capacity.

[welshTerrier2]

23. "actual purview and functional capacity"

perhaps so, AK ... i think, however, the OP went far beyond talking about the limits of Congressional authority ... the OP included a tone of obligatory support for Democrats ... whether I support them or not, i certainly respect the rights of others to disagree ...

also, and my efforts to articulate this point of view in the past have come up a bit short, i think our expectations can rightfully exceed the Congressional power granted to the Congress ... Biden, for example, and perhaps others, have stated that bush ultimately cannot be stopped by Congressional action ... but let's poke at that a bit because I do NOT accept that as a justification for inaction or for failing to confront him on the issue ... doing so would argue that the ends justify the means ... in other words, if we can't lawfully stop him, there's nothing we can do ... as i said, I do NOT accept that ...

THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT POWERLESS !!!!! first, as Obama pointed out today, research can be done about using Congressional budgetary authority to stop offensive operations in Iraq ... the McGovern bill in the House calls for exactly that ... but beyond the legislative process, Democrats can forcefully take their case to the American people ... sure, bush could ignore the political pressure but he might be shut down by his own party if he did ...

and Democrats can go beyond possible budget cut-offs and public pressure - they can threaten impeachment ... they can threaten war crimes trials ... they can threaten to impose windfall profit taxes on Big Oil ... in short, they should let bush know that, even if he can dictate terms regarding Iraq, it will cost him dearly if he pursues the war and occupation there ... that's what many of us "Dem critics" would like to see ... for me, it's not about patience or impatience ... i believe the Dems could bring tremendous force against bush to end the war if they chose to and i believe they are not going to do it ... i can't begin to tell you how much i hope i'm dead wrong ... this has nothing to do with party loyalty for me; it has to do with my views on the war ...

one thing's for sure - i have no intention of letting the Dems or anyone else off the hook if they don't do all they possibly can to end this goddamned thing ...

[AtomicKitten]

25. I certainly share your concerns.

Fully understanding the urgency of the matter and with my own anxiety at bay, I believe Reid and Pelosi understand their mandate. I can still muster an ounce of hope, as foolish as that may seem in light of the viral pessimism epidemic here, that the Democrats will do the right thing.

In any event, you are arguing with tone and I think you are venting, understandably of course, but nevertheless perhaps it should not be directed at the OP. We are all stewing in our own anxiety and chomping at the bit.

[welshTerrier2]

26. two points

first, the OP said this: "our Dems have been dissed by some on DU and most have made the most ignorant statements with no understanding of how government works.
I am sick of us not supporting our own."

disagreeing with Dems is not "dissing" them ... and "most have made the most ignorant statements" ... yeah, right ... and don't even get me started on "I am sick of us not supporting our own." ...

but i want to focus on something far more important than this kind of garbage ... i suppose this really deserves a thread of its own ... i can't tell you how many talking heads on TV have said something like: "but the Democrats have problems of their own ... it is not easy for them because they are also being pushed from the left within their own party" ...

assuming this is true, and i believe it is, i think that's great ... we, the great internet unwashed, are being heard ... rather than quietly "letting them do their thing because they just got there", I love the idea that we are a force and that they need to consider our values and ideas right alongside all the others ... finally, we are having an effect ... calling for silence and compliance and loyalty is nonsense ... this is the time for us to be even more forceful in pushing for the things we believe in ... some might call it disloyalty or impatience; i call it democracy ...

[janx]

27. That's a large assumption, WT2.

The talking heads have been rolling with the Democrats' "problems" for quite some time. People pick and choose from the media. Disagreement and debate don't necessarily mean problems, and frankly, I've never seen Democrats (at this point) so fully integrated.

We're in a time of great transition. Definitions like left, right, conservative, liberal, etc. are almost worthless because of it. It is true, however, that there is a sense of populism reemerging, and I agree with you in that sense. It's just that it's not necessarily "left"--as defined by the media.

[welshTerrier2]

28. fair enough, janx!

i don't think the labels are meaningful either ... good catch! i stand corrected ...

let me be more specific and get beyond the labels: i've heard frequent references to the Dems feeling pressure from those who want to end the war immediately or very, very soon ... the point i was trying to make was that i really believe we on the Internets are becoming a force to be reckoned with ... the good news is that i think leaders in the Democratic Party are growing increasingly aware of that and will give us a greater voice ... the last thing we should be doing is falling quietly in line ...

it is fair to call for tolerance and patience; it is wrong to demand loyalty ... we each come to the public square with our own voice and our own agenda and should be encouraged to say our piece ... to cite political gain as a justification for demanding silence and loyalty is something other than democracy ...

[janx]

29. I agree!

During this time of transition, it's particularly important that people have their own voices. :hi:

The major media really disgust and disappoint me. That's why I reacted to your post, probably unfairly.

[JuniperLea]

43. BEST.POST.EVER!

Well said.

[Zodiak]

45. Let's not forget the other tone set in this thread

If one wants results from Congress on the war, then one is ignorant of the process.

The typical "you disagree with me, so you are stupid and I'm smart" argument.

[Clarkie1]

24. You tell 'em Welsh!

:thumbsup:

[saracat]

33. I have no problem with 'disagreeing". It is part of what Democrats do!

It is the lack of support some have voiced.Some feel tyhat the Dems have already "failed' and want their heads on a plate because Congress isn't doing exactly what they want when they want it. I am only saying work with our representatives to get what you want done.I have never said anyone should "shut up". And I didn't say that all Dems want to cut off all funding for the troops.I am sorry it read that way.That was not my intent.

[CK_John]

32. You mean day 5 of the 110 Congress isn't enough time? n/t

[JNelson6563]

37. Keyboard commandoes and armchair warriors

Worse than dead-weight they are.

[closeupready]

40. I disagree. One of dems strengths

(and even Hillary recognizes this) is that, unlike pukes, we don't march in lockstep with each other. We field a variety of opinions. That's democracy.

[GeorgeGist]

41. To claim Congress doesn't have war powers

equal to the Presidents demonstrates willful ignorance of the Constitution. Which by the way, both Congress and the President take an oath to defend.

[LynneSin]

42. It's easier to bash democrats than it is to understand the constitution

:shrug: