Executive Branch leaders are subpoenaed to testify or to provide potentially incriminating documents -- but these officials simply do not comply. The Democrats threaten them with, and then cite them for, "contempt of Congress," but then choose not to enforce those contempt citations. Time and time again, the Dems back away or roll over for the Republicans, who by holding together in Congress create real obstructionist problems for the Democrats.
Even so, the Dems allow their favorite bills to go down to defeat (especially on the war) on the mere threat of a GOP filibuster, without ever making the Republicans actually mount a filibuster, where they would have to put themselves on the record attempting to defend the indefensible. Similarly, the Democrats have within their power -- 41 Senate votes would do it -- to withhold war-funding for anything other than bringing U.S. troops home, but the Dems don't even attempt such a move. In short, the Democrats are mostly bark with no effective bite, and they've taken their major weapon, impeachment, "off the table"; as a result of all this timidity and embarrassing lack of progress, the approval ratings for Congress are even lower than they are for Bush and Cheney, especially so with rank-and-file Democrats.
2. THE PERMANENT IRAQ WAR
It seems plain that CheneyBush have no desire, and no intention, to withdraw from Iraq. They aren't building that humongous new embassy and those hardened military bases for nothing. Iraq is to be the staging point for U.S. policy in the greater Middle East for a very long time. Bush likens the mission and time-frame to U.S. troops remaining in South Korea for more than half a century -- ignoring that South Korea in the '50s had no insurgent rebels trying to force out the occupiers, no religious and sectarian civil war raging, no American leaders talking about a "crusade," etc.
Apparently, Bush figures that even though the U.S. can not "win" in Iraq, it can't "lose" either. The U.S. eventually will pull back to its massive bases inside the country -- where they will be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar attacks -- and remain effectively in charge of actual Iraq policy while it carries out its covert and overt actions all over the greater Middle East.
It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that the U.S. -- perhaps in coordination with its one dependable ally in the area, Israel -- will attack Iran's military infrastructure and weapons labs sometime between now and October of next year. All the signs point to that impending attack, and the campaign has begun in earnest to "catapult the propaganda" (in a manner eerily similar to U.S. actions prior to attacking Iraq) and to provoke the Iranians into taking some action or position that will outrage Americans into acquiescing to an attack on Iran, devoid of any imminent threat to the United States. The Democrats in Congress, incidentally, have done little or nothing to stem -- or even seriously talk about -- this likely attack; several of their leading candidates are on record as favoring an attack, should it come to that. Indeed, more opposition seems to be coming from inside the Pentagon than from Democratic leaders and candidates.
3. WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR DEMOCRATS?
So now we come to the future of our party, so filled with hope after November of last year, so frustrating and irritating to so many in the interim.
The Democratic leadership seems to be utilizing, to use a football term, a "prevent defense" strategy. They see the Republicans imploding in one scandal after another (sex, financial misconduct, political disasters), see the war in Iraq going nowhere except into a political and civil-war maelstrom, see the awful candidates the GOP is putting up (in one recent GOP poll, "none of the above" won). They look at all this self-destructive Republican behavior and seem to be saying: Why should we stick our necks out with any major "offense" initiatives? Let's just watch the Republicans' self-immolate and in November waltz into the White House and grow our majorities in the House and Senate?
But with these "loyal Bushies," who are always on the offense, if you only play "prevent" you run the very real risk of a catastrophic defeat as events change on the ground prior to the election.
I think it's true that if present trends continue, the Democrats will do very well in Senate and House races next November, and will extend their control of the Congress, maybe even obtaining a veto-proof majority. Theoretically, the Dems should take the White House as well. But, even without considering major changes beyond their control that could affect the presidential race -- such as an attack on Iran or major developments in Iraq, or a real or invented "terrorist" incident at home, or a successful manipulation of the Electoral College vote into congressional-district voting in key states instead of winner-take-all, etc. -- even without all that, the Democrats, as is their pattern in recent years, could well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
How could this happen? Let's look at just two things.
1. The activist base is so angry at Democratic leadership for its weak or non-existent initiatives with regard to Iraq, Iran, Impeachment, Domestic Spying, Torture, Habeas Corpus, etc., that it could well decide to sit on its collective hands in November of 2008. Or bolt to the Greens. Or help create a viable new third party, perhaps in collaboration with the angered, frustrated Republican base -- those centrists, moderates, libertarians and old-fashioned conservatives appalled by the extremists who have hijacked their party and taken it into dangerous foreign adventurism, who have stomped all over the Constitution, who have created such outrageous deficits and debt. A bi-partisan, populist "Unity" ticket, in other words.
2. I've been writing about this anger building in the Democratic base for quite some time. Believe me, I'm not making it up. Just before we left the Bay Area to fly to Munich, the following, highly typical letter-to-the-editor appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. I've seen similar letters and commentary in a wide variety of newspapers and websites; they speak for a huge chunk of disenchanted Democrats and others who normally would be voting Democratic in '08:
>> Third-party voter
>> Editor: ... As of today, I will vote for Sen. Barack Obama or Bill Richardson [in the primary], because in my opinion, Sen. Hillary Clinton is the best chance the Democrats have to lose the 2008 presidential general election.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
i found your article very interesting. indeed, the majority of expats are Democrats or Democratic-leaning. According to Mark Crispin Miller in his "Fooled Again", absentee voters living abroad actually receiving their ballots in time and having them counted was no sure thing. in Florida 2000, for instance, military ballots were counted even if they missed the deadline. If they were missing information, obliging party operatives and officials, state-wide. Harris and Co. looked for any excuse to throw out absentee ballots; they were counted last or discarded altogether. (p. 241).
A legitimate question to ask is how Democrats living abroad can assure that their ballots will arrive and that their votes will be counted. We're talking about literally millions (MCM says up to seven million) of votes, often concentrated in key swing states. The importance of this can not be minimized.
Any ideas?
joan brunwasser, voting integrity ed., OpEdNews
by
Joan Brunwasser (139 articles, 3422 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 597 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 3:30:18 PM
Dear Joan: I've raised this question several times with Democrats Abroad officials in Munich. A year or two ago, they complained about the same problems you raise, and indicated that they have never received totally satisfactory answers about late ballots, receipt of ballots in their home districts, accurate tabulation of ballots, etc. In short, the absentee system of voting abroad seems to be just as screwed-up as the voting system in the States. More justification for a thorough examination of the entire electoral structure, so that U.S. citizens, at home or abroad, can feel certain that their votes are received and honestly and accurately recorded. -- All best, Bernie
by
Bernard Weiner (147 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 4:58:42 PM
One can only pray that the Dems do indeed commit suicide.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.
The author writes in his closing paragraph, "Clearly, there are significant differences between the two parties. The question is: Will there be enough of a difference between our candidates and those put forward by the Republicans to justify yet again holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils?..."
- There's way too much focus on whether the 2 parties are "different." That's not the real issue. (Of COURSE they are different, because only the Dems are wolves in sheep's clothing, while the R's are more or less out-front about being vicious wolves.)
The real issue is whether or not the Dems can reasonably be counted on to vigorously oppose what Republicans do (& to undo what Republicans have done). And the answer is obvious -- they can't at all be counted on to do that. When the likes of Cheney rattle sabers loudly, the Dems' response is to be quietly supportive, while rattling the same sabers somewhat less loudly. That's not good enough. The Democrats are not even on the correct side of the big issues, let alone being passionately committed to fighting the necessary battles.
The author casts the main issue as whether there will be "enough of a difference" between the parties to justify once again "holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils." This is the same tired old thinking that has gotten us to where we are today.
Supporting Democrats brings only the victory of Republican policies. Even if the D's win the White House next year, they're committed to "The War on Terror" -- a Republican concept, & a Republican policy. Everyone sees by now that precisely nothing was gained by the Dems' victory in Nov '06 -- the Dems won the seats, yet Bush's policies have prevailed on every front. Not a single BushCo criminal has been held accountable for anything -- despite the Dems' newly-won "subpoena powers" that Dem voters wrongly expected to be put to serious use.
Look at the Bill Clinton admin, too -- the whole 2 terms were really a period of intense corporatization of US society, as well as a great deal of warmaking (though admittedly, Clinton was a lot smoother than Bush Jr as a warmaker). Bill Clinton did to welfare what Republican presidents would have loved to do, but were unable to. And he enacted an entirely Republican agenda with the Telecom giveaway of 1996, the shipping away of jobs under NAFTA, a few nice little wars, and a defense budget no smaller than the Cold War budgets -- despite the fact that the USSR had ceased to exist. Essentially, though a Democrat sat in the White House, we still had a president politically to the right of Richard Nixon.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6:04:55 PM
in that I must spend more time with you and Earnest Partridge at crisispapers.com.
So many good points, where to begin:
Hillary Clinton...assuredly the nominee. Far too much money, far too many favors to call in, far too much political savvy and far too weak an opposition to be defeated. I wouldnt vote for her myself but I do believe that, despite the torrent of mud the right will rain down upon her ( perhaps the single most vicious campaign in American history is impending) she will surprise any number of folks. Make no mistake, Mrs. Clinton is every bit as smart as President Clinton and has a great deal of political know how. I think she will handle herself rather well in the campaign.
The Democratic Party...Inept, incompetent, poorly led, avaricious and unable to outhink GOP strategists ever. Just look at this latest bungle in the jungle from Pelosi over the proposed Armenian declaration of genocide. She couldnt see the really poor timing? She couldnt see the backlash from Turkey coming, and by the by, Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire for crying out loud. She couldnt keep her own party from defecting from the vote! What a maroon!
The decision to keep the war alive and funded in order to have it as a campaign issue, and make no mistake about it that is why we have seen no defunding in Congress, serves only to further alienate decent moderates and liberals from the Party. Condemning many of our young men and women to death, and countless Iraqis as well, in order to make political capital is cruel, heartless and the truth of it.
I believe we are at the cusp of a great change in American politics, one that, as this article touched upon, will see a realignment of the two parties and the emergence of one or more third party forces upon the current Duopoly. I say its about time!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 8:01:50 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
