 |
|
Add to My Group
|
June 18, 2007 at 13:28:11
Democrats in Congress: The Wheels Are Coming Off by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
The wheels are coming off the Democratic machine, with angry voters starting to lose patience with the Party’s chronic inability to act decisively on any of the key issues of public concern.
In a Reuters dispatch on June 18, Democratic leaders in Congress concede that voters are angry with them for not doing enough to end the Iraq War. They might have added that voters are also angry at them for not impeaching the president or even for moving on Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res. 333).
“I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high,” bleats Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
No Harry. You didn’t raise the bar too high. You ducked under the bar, when it came time to act to defund the war.
Last month, instead of cutting off funding for Bush’s war in Iraq, Congress passed a measure providing him with over $100 billion to fund it, attaching no strings to the measure—not even any deadlines for starting to withdraw troops. This after running a 2006 campaign on ending the war.
No wonder Democrats and the independents and, yes, even Republicans who voted Democrats into control of Congress last November are furious.
“We can only do so much,” whines House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
No, Nancy. The problem is that you have done so little. Next to nothing really. Of the vaunted list of progressive measures you came into office as Speaker promising to push, only one—the minimum wage bill—passed, and you managed that only by making it “blood money”—that is, by tying it to the Iraq War funding bill so that the president wouldn’t veto it. That was a sick deal—making the same poor Americans who disproportionately carry the burden of fighting an insane, criminal and brutal war in Iraq also earn their raise by funding that war with their hard-earned tax dollars. And besides, it’s a pathetic measure anyway, offering workers only a minor raise for the first year, and ultimately, after a year and a half, bringing them to a wage--$7.25 per hour—that most workers in the country already receive, or will be receiving by July, thanks to state laws.
Thanks a lot!
Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi, who cannot stand up to a criminal president, has continued to stand in the way of any effort by her own party colleagues to call the administration to account for the crimes it has committed against the nation and the Constitution. Sure, Congress is holding hearings, but the president and vice president are, quite predictably, stonewalling those hearings, refusing to allow key aides to testify, refusing to provide documents, and threatening to refuse subpoenas.
What Americans want is impeachment hearings on both men.
Let’s at least start with Kucinich’s Cheney impeachment bill. It has seven co-sponsors. That should be plenty to indicate that it’s a serious measure. So let’s push it forward and start hearings on it.
Meanwhile, if Pelosi wants Americans to start thinking better of her party, she should lift the shackles from her minions and let Democratic House members freely file bills of impeachment against President Bush. She should let John Conyers (D-MI), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, start holding hearings on impeachment.
Too divisive?
Listen, Nancy and Harry, we Americans want a little divisiveness. Americans thrive on political conflict.
Besides, we’re sick of this war, and of the men who tricked us into it. We’re sick of seeing our cherished rights trashed. We’re sick of being told that we in this country are a bunch of whimpering wusses ready to surrender our rights in the fear that some third world bomb-thrower might attack the local Wendy’s.
1 | 2
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 12 comments |
|
Reasons why the Dem Party should be the target of serious
widespread resistance to the US political system: Most decent people are aware that the Republican Party is the driving force behind US crimes on the world stage. What is less commonly appreciated, however, is that the Republicans could never have gotten away with these crimes, without the Democrats' complicity at every step. The political mechanism of the entire rightwards shift requires both a prime mover (the R's) and an (at least) tacit understanding that the "opposition party" will never do anything serious about exposing the crimes of the prime movers. There are several significant differences between R's & D's, in terms of their relationships with their respective bases. First, the gap between the party officialdom versus rank-and-file is much greater with the D's than with the R's. Second, the gap between what the party purports to represent, and what it in actual deed represents, is greater with the D's than with their counterparts. This means that Dem Party leaders & elected officials are obliged to posture more & to lie more; to deceive their own voters more, than Republicans are. Most Republican voters are either wealthy (& thus simply backing the party that directly fights for their financial interests); or they are racists, xenophobes, homophobes, yahoos, religious zealots, or bullying militarists who get their rocks off when the US bombs defenseless countries. Many Democrats in the rank-and-file, by contrast, are relatively peaceful, trusting non-aggressive types, who are instinctively repelled by unjust US military aggression, and want very badly to believe that their party represents them in this. Since nearly all Congressional Dems are actually reliable stooges of the military-industrial establishment, however, they are obliged to play a double game with their constituents that their Republican counterparts don't need to bother with. Because this great gap exists, it is more likely that Democratic voters can be split off from their party, than is the case with Republicans -- many of whom still approve of the Bush administration. The problem with Dem voters is that they so badly want to believe in their party leaders, & their cognitive dissonance would be so painful if they fully recognized how consistently their leaders betray them, that many find it less painful to simply ignore the evidence & continue believing. Since the 2-party system itself (and the collusion between the parties) is at the heart of the US's non-democracy, the question is how best to strike at this system. Somewhat paradoxically, it might be wiser to strike at the party that so many still think is the "lesser evil" -- because that's the party that deceives its own voters more, is the bigger liar, & is more vulnerable to having its voters wake up one day to "see the light." by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 18, 2007 at 3:16:41 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you, thank you
How satisfying to see that there are others still able to correctly see objective reality; yes - the Democrats are more a part of the problem than the solution. As a third party advocate and believer in the necessity of an Article V convention, I have always bought into Nader's proper characterization of the evil two-party duopoly. The worst victims of self-delusion are the neo-progressives that still want to believe that if they can get the "right" Dems elected, then our political system will be restored. Nonsense!!! by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 7:57:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Before it's too late
What's needed now is a major effort to recruit and support alternative candidates rather than continue to rail against the Democrats. That's going to take time and real commitment. In the absence of such an effort the Democrats know they have nothing to worry about because they see voters as having no viable alternatives. It's too late for threats. It's too late for Democrats to redeem themselves. They never will unless pressed up against the wall and if they will only do the right thing when they have no other choice, who needs them? by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Monday, Jun 18, 2007 at 6:14:55 PM (0+)
|
|
As long as
As long as only millionaires can afford to run for high office, only millionaires will be represented. As long as machines count the votes, the votes won't get counted. As long as fear rules, we will be lead only by fear. I absolutely believe that the cave-in to the funding of the illegal occupation and the consent to expand the wars was designed to split the vote and hand the WH back to the Repubs. What better way to split the people? As you have so apply written, the refunding was for many the straw that broke their back. Not even if Gore should pick-up the handle, now wouldn't THAT be another big punch in the gut, would a Dem get to the WH. Which after all that's happened that would be pretty extraordinary. But then again, BECAUSE of all that's happened and what this criminal government has been able to get away with it wouldn't surprise me. I certain a Repub will be back in the WH because of this. The vote will split. Hell, Gore might even go independent. No matter. The war will continue. It will even expand. This is just the beginning. I don't think there is a "fix". I sincerely believe we're so corrupted that we'll collapse under the very weight of it. We've squandered our fortunes, our honor, the environment, our own children by handing them over to criminal madmen. Believe me, I would love to be wrong here. But, as long as I see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rove, and at least a hundred more of these criminally insane, war-mongering, murderous people walking free and not in dockets at the Hague, I'm not getting excited. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 18, 2007 at 8:33:11 PM (0+)
|
|
The disconnect between Democrats and their constituency
The disconnect between Democrats and their constituency is broader and more ominous than any of you seem to think. About the war funding, for example: My guess is that there was a quid pro quo between the Dems leadership and the Bush administration: Dems promised untrammeled funding for the war; Bush promised GOP support for the Dems' immigration reform package. That's bad enough for the country as a whole, but it's worse still for those who traditionally support the Democrats. The version of immigration reform pushed by this Congress represents an effort by Democratic leaders to divorce themselves from Big Labor. If the Dems can amnesty 12 million illegals and get them to vote Democratic, they no longer need Big Labor. Thus it's not merely that the amnestied illegals will break the unions -- it is that Big Labor will no longer have a voice in Congress. There'll be no one to protect Labor from rapacious management newly armed with the power of uncaring (if not overtly hostile) government. Can anyone guess what happens to Labor in that situation? by Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 61 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 7:08:07 AM (0+)
|
|
The Democrats Did Not "Cave In"...
Let's not forget that most of these Democrats voted for the Authorization to Use Force; and let's not play stupid and pretend that they did not know what Bush was going to do - once he got that authorization. As any fool could plainly see, bush and co. had went to great lengths plotting and scheming, lying, and banging the war drums...I knew what he wanted and what he was going to do - and so did the Democrats - and you know this too. The Democrats did not "Cave". They wanted a war - they voted for a war - and now they want to continue the occupation. Well, most of them do... I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that we must stop supporting all these fake and traitorous democrats... by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:09:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Does anyone out there count votes?
Yadda yadda yadda What was the House vote on the timetable? 218 to 216. The timetable passed the House by 2 votes. When the compromise Iraq funding bill was passed, weren't there over 230 votes in favor and 170 some opposed? How many opposed had Rs behind their names. The fact remains that the President and the GOP leadership in the House and in the Senate still have enough juice to keep the war going. Until and unless 60 Republicans in the House and 12 Republicans in the Senate break with the President and their congressional leadership, we can't stop the war. This is a battle of political will. Who has the stronger political will, the GOP waverers currently strong-armed into backing the President on Iraq, or the anti-war activists forced to work the opposition- the Democratic Party? The stench of tireless leftish indignation and defeatism rising from this article and its responses must be savory fragrance to the GOP vote counters. Keep the pressure up for a change in Iraq policy, but keep the pressure on the people supporting it, not the ones opposing it. by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 2:09:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This is dishonest & misleading spin, typical of Dem Party
apologists. You claim that in the recent war funding, there were "over 230 votes in favor and 170 some opposed." Then you ask how many opposed to the funding were Republican. Here is the actual vote: There were 280 in favor, 142 against. Of those against, 2 were Republicans, & 140 were Democrats. On the surface (and this was Pelosi's intention), this makes it appear that the D's were more "against" funding the war than the R's. However, that was a deliberate deception by the Dem leadership, because Pelosi split the appropriation into 2 parts, allowing a separate vote on each. She knew perfectly well that almost all R's would vote 'Yes' on "Amendment No. 2," the military part, which had no strings attached to the money. She also knew that about 86 of her own Democrats would vote 'Yes,' thus guaranteeing the bill's passage. (How could she NOT know how her own Democrats were going to vote? Don't you think a House leader polls her own troops?) Therefore, by letting this amendment come to a vote, Pelosi understood in advance that she was giving Bush the war money. At the same time, she saw that this gave her room to let many Democrats vote 'No', so they could deceptively posture as opponents of the war spending. (All but 7 Democrats voted in favor of structuring the final vote this way -- so they ALL knew exactly how it would go down, & were virtually all responsible for the final outcome.) Your comment is designed to fool people into falling for Pelosi's deception. If the Dem leadership didn't want to give Bush the war money, they didn't have to allow this amendment come to a vote. They could simply have forced a vote on a bill that either cut off the war money, or put stiff restrictions on it. Instead, they engineered a way to give Bush the money, insisting only that they be allowed to falsely posture as war opponents. You also write "The fact remains that the President and the GOP leadership ...still have enough juice to keep the war going." No, that's flat-out wrong, too. No bill gets sent to the president for signature unless a majority in each house approves it. The Dems have majorities in both houses. If all Dems oppose any bills permitting further war spending, Bush gets no money. (In fact, since the Dems have about 232 House seats, 14 of them could betray their constituents, and they would still be able to block all further war spending.) The real stench is coming not from the "tireless leftish indignation," as you write, but from the traitors of the Democratic Party & their dishonest apologists. As for "savory fragrance to the GOP vote counters -- " that comes from the Democrats too, because they are the best allies the GOP ever had. They defend Bush at every turn, refuse to talk impeachment, and help him fund his criminal war while refusing to expose it for the atrocity that it is. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 4:36:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Do I hear Karl Rove's trolls here?
If not, please think twice before you come through as sounding like one. Yes, Karl Rove may have realized that the GOP is in such deep trouble with the voters that the only thing he could do was start a whispering campaign and line up trolls to say the Democrats are just as bad. Get the base out –convince them they might as well keep voting Repug “like I always did; they say the Dems are just as bad”. Get Democrats and Independents to stay home or vote third party, nicely splitting that vote. Then we will need only about 40 % of the vote and we win. Oh, and get the Republican candidates to pretend to distance themselves from Bush/Cheney. That will be a little extra insurance. Well worth it to stay in power. No telling how many nasty investigations the Dems might start if they get in power. by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 4:53:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Dems in Congress are the real "Karl Rove trolls,"
if what you mean by that is a group acting to sabotage the goals that the group purports to stand for. There are no better friends of the GOP than the Democrats, who protect Bush, refuse to discuss impeachment, ensure that the war is fully funded, confirm all Bush's reactionary Court appointees, & protect all of his other co-thugs. They're even letting that slimeball Gonzales get away. They haven't lifted a finger to reverse the torture policy, the loss of habeas corpus, the PATRIOT Act, or any of the other atrocities. Dems launching "nasty investigations?" You must be kidding. They had enough evidence on Bush & Cheney to send them both to the Hague the day the new Congress was seated in January. Since then, they have basically done precisely nothing --- allowing the worst criminals this country has ever seen in public life to get away with crimes that we hanged Nazis for in Nuremberg. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 7:29:57 PM (0+)
|
|
So tired of stone-throwing
Why is politics treated like a game in America, when it literally means life or death for billions of people everywhere? This political narcissim is so frustrating to me as a first-generation born-raised here. The disillusion is total, and the frustration of Dem rank and file understandable to the hilt, But - by Inaru (0 articles, 8 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 7:18:23 PM (0+)
|
|
RE: Karl Rove's trolls here
It's too bad that if I cursed you out like I want to, and like you deserve, then my comment would be deleted and I might get banned. So I will just say, how dare you? How dare you compare those of us who demand accountability from the democrats that we elected to the abominable monster that is karl rove? You go to far. Now I demand accountability from my representatives and you can wrongly apologize for them all you want - but I will not support people who do not represent my most important ideals. I will not support people who vote to continue the death and destruction in Iraq. I am against these politicians and I don't give a damn what label they wear (i.e. Republican or Democrat). If you supported the war and this ongoing occupation, then not only will I NOT support you, but I will do my best to ensure that you do not get elected or reelected. And i invite others to help me with this humanitarian life and death goal. Got that? Got a problem with that? Tough nuggies. by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:38:12 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
