 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 23, 2007 at 13:55:56
by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
The Democratic Party in Congress, and indeed the leading candidates for the party's presidential nomination, are all dead men and women walking. They look alive. They may even think they're alive. But their political futures are close to moribund. Faced with grave moral issues--a criminal and unpopular war that is costing the country the lives of thousands of its young people, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year, a president who treats the Constitution like so much toiletpaper, and an economy that is being hollowed out like a Halloween pumpkin, these Democrats are doing nothing. Repeatedly offered chances to stand up and act, they have ducked each time instead. Twice already, President Bush, himself backed by only one in four Americans today (a lower level of public support than even Nixon had after his resignation in disgrace following the impeachment vote against him by the House Judiciary Committee) has come to Congress requesting another more than $100 billion in funding for his war in Iraq, and Congress has rolled over and given it to him.
Bush has responded to the resignation in disgrace of his lying, cheating attorney general, former White House lawyer Alberto Gonzales, by nominating a man, former Federal District Judge Michael Mukasey, who refuses to condemn torture and who insists that the president is not bound by the Constitution or the law. Congressional Democrats could, and should, refuse such an outrageous sycophant to power for the nation's top law enforcement office, but instead, they look like they plan to okay him for the job.
Over the summer, the President asked for legislation retroactively sanctioning his illegal National Security Agency wiretapping program, which has enlisted the help of the nation's telecom firms to help them spy on you and me and hundreds of thousands- perhaps millions--of Americans. Congress could have said no and won the respect and gratitude of Americans across the political spectrum, who are alarmed at the dramatic erosion of American liberty that has occurred in seven years of Bush/Cheney administration Constitution trampling. Instead, they gave Bush what he wanted--a "temporary" bill that endorsed the secret, warrantless spying, and even gave retroactive sanction. Now the Democratic Congress is on the verge of making that sanction permanent, while extending immunity from civil litigation to the phone companies that have been going along with the spying.
In all this, the Democratic Party leadership and its minions in House and Senate have not been cowards. Rather, they have apparently decided that they can gain power in November 2008 not by playing the part of feisty and principled opposition, but by playing dead for two years. The idea appears to be to pass no controversial legislation, indeed to do nothing of consequence, and to leave the massively unpopular Bush in power, while allowing his massively unpopular Iraq War continue along its bloody way.
They will complain about the constitutional violations, and complain about the war, but when presented with golden opportunities to act, and to bring an end to those crimes, they have done nothing, and will continue to do nothing.
The American public is seeing through this Machiavellian strategy, however, which is why the Congress is now supported by only 11 percent--a figure that is less than half Bush's anemic favorable rating, and only within the margin of error of Cheney's 9 percent support base.
The joke is that in the end, this strategy, if it can be called that, may end up backfiring.
Americans traditionally have a pretty low opinion of politicians. They may not be very good at spotting hucksters, but when they do feel that they are being played, they are quick to punish.
I think the public has caught on to what the Democrats are doing, and may well decide next November that they'd rather go with Republicans who, while crazy and bad with checkbooks, are at least willing to act on their wacky beliefs, than with Democrats, who just cynically sit back and watch, hoping to win by default.
________________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olashansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now out in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
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 |
|
| 21 comments |
|
(APPLAUSE)
I used to only know one person that could speak succinctly and properly about how there ain't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans (although with this article you make a good case that they are different and this difference makes them worth voting for because at least Republicans stand up for what they believe in). That one person was Alexander Cockburn. But now, you join him and have become a go-to author when I am looking to persuade people to become viciously aggressive against Democrats or better, leave the party. Thanks. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 4:40:11 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Right on Kevin
I will be re-registering as an Independent and voting for ANY ONE other than a Democratic or Republican candidate. by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 7:39:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Fraiddycrats.
I think Reid and Pelosi should start a new party and instead of Democrats they can call it the Fraiddycrats. It is truly disgusting to watch as they continually capitulate to the Neo-Convicts running the country. It is almost like Bush has got the CIA and the FBI to dig up all the dirt on these people and threaten to expose them if they develop a backbone. by Michael Chavers (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 198 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 4:51:34 PM (0+)
|
|
But who will Democrats vote for?
You are right of course except you have not spoken about the responsibility that ordinary citizens have to put our house in order given that those in office won't. You say the Democrats might be surprised, but what major effort is being advanced to find and support good people that could replace the current deadbeats? Who are we, and people who think like we do, going to vote for when the time comes? Who is laying the groundwork for real change? We seem to acting like voyuers watching the political circus unfold but not really doing anything that will change things for the better. by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 5:00:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here in Oregon we have some great Independents running
If nothing else - vote Green Party - or even Socialist. What have we Americans got to lose? The Democratic Party has come under corporate ownership and domination.; the Green and/or the Socialist Party have picked up the planks which used to comprise the Democratic Party's platform. by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 7:45:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Rep.Pete Stark, crying & groveling, apologized today to Bush
& to the troops, for his recent deviant behavior. (He had somehow lost his head the other day, and spoke some blunt truth from the House floor. ) But not to worry -- he's all better, now. He's completely recovered, & has once again become a "good Democrat." That is, he capitulated to the rightwing, groveled before them, and tearfully begged their forgiveness (for having rashly told the truth). http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/tearful-democra.html by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 5:35:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What do they say to these pols who speak out?
Not only do they apologize for speaking like an honest citizen, but they do so tearfully and in a very pleading way. Are they or a family member threatened? I just don't get it. Stark had A LOT of support. One poll showed 85 percent of the people did not want him to apologize. Can't make the "leaders" look bad by pulling the curtain away even for an instant. by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 9:57:51 PM (0+)
|
|
WHY WORRY ABOUT WHO WE'LL VOTE FOR?
IF CONGRESS DOES MORE OF THE SAME, THE 2008 ELECTION MAY NEVER ACTUALLY BE HELD. As the joke said when Iraq was in need of a constitution: "Let's give them ours -- we're not using it." And if most of it becomes moot, why should we expect that elections are somehow special? by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 77 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 9:48:43 PM (0+)
|
|
An interesting Zogby poll
was commissioned not too long ago by Paul Lehto. When he learned that they usually hang up on nonvoters, he told them not to, but instead to ask them why they didn't vote. The results were very interesting. Instead of being apathetic, as most people assume, large numbers of nonvoters said that they didn't vote because they didn't like the candidates or didn't trust the elections processes. I intend to be one of those people from now on. I'm tired of choosing among candidates I don't like and parties that won't represent me. If they want to steal my vote in the next election, they'll have to come to my house and force me to vote at gunpoint, because I'm not giving my vote to them freely any more. If they ever have honest elections and decent candidates, I might think about voting again, but right now I've got better things to do than vote in rigged elections for candidates who won't represent me. I've got books to read, articles to write, and dishes in the sink that need washing, all of which will give me more satisfaction than voting. I can't begin to describe to you the feelings of joy and freedom that this decision has given me. No longer do I have to agonize over which candidate is less evil or whether a proposition on the ballot will do anything even close to what it promises to do. When my voter's guide and sample ballot arrive in the mail, I can just toss them in the trash the way I do the rest of my junk mail. I won't have to worry about whether my vote is counted or even if they have an election at all. Free at last....free at last..... Yes, my ancestors fought and bled and died for my right to vote, but they really thought that I'd be able to vote in honest elections for candidates who would represent me. They never intended for me to vote in rigged elections and have elected officials tell me that even if 90% of their constituency wants them to do something, they're not going to do it. If they could see what goes on in elections these days and what choice we get in candidates, I don't think they'd vote either. It's been fun, guys, but the party's over. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 1:39:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Please reconsider,Mark
I know you from past efforts here and I hold your intellect in high esteem. I believe that your frustration has led you to make a poor decision and hope that , given a bit of time, you will change your mind about refusing to participate in the process. Every vote not cast is a victory for the status quo, every time a citizen refuses his or her duty to this nation the neocons and corporatists win. I understand your frustration with the Duopoloy that rules in Washington, and , in fact, in every city across the land sorry to say. But refusing to participate is certainly not the answer. I would ask you to make a better decision, whether that involves working to rescue the Democratic Party or supporting one of the emerging third parties, as I have chosen to do. Democracy is, after all, a participatory sport. If we fail to take an active role in it then we are as responsible for its decline as are those who currently infest its halls of power. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 8:42:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Democracy?
What democracy are you talking about? Because I haven't seen anything that resembles a representative government in this country in a long time, if ever. This is a plutocracy. Our elections are a sham. Something to give people the illusion that they have a say in what policies get enacted. Case in point is the decision by NBC to bar former Sen. Gravel from the next debate. NBC owned by GE one of the largest war-profiteering companies gets to throw one of the leading truth tellers about this illegal war out of the debates. The difference between listening to the rhetoric spewed by the so-called front runners and candidates like Gravel, Kucinich and Paul is like elevator music is to Beethoven, yet who gets shoved down out throats? If this were a true democracy as you think it is, bush would never be president, we'd have no wars, our troops wouldn't be stationed in over 700 bases in 140 countries, we'd have National Health Care, schools that actually educate, more jobs less crime, streets that are safe to walk and drive down and a host of other commonsense things that seem light-years away. George Carlin said it last night on the Olberman newscast, "... this country is finished." And I couldn't agree more. After the 2000 election farce one would think that a major effort would be enacted to make our election system uniform and verifiable. But what happened? Even after the mountain of evidence proving that our elections are a farce the no-receipt E-voting machines, that have been proven over and over again to be easily hacked are still in place. Even commonsense actions like voting on Saturday and getting rid of the antiquated Electoral College haven't been addressed. When only millionaires are placed in office by billionaires it isn't the people they're going to protect. Pelosi won't hold bush accountable for his outrageous crimes but forces Rep. Stark to apologize to bush for saying something a majority of the people know to be true (80% by one poll) and you think voting is going to change this? If voting could change things the powers that be would make it illegal. You want to change things use your money to do it because it's the only thing the powers that be care about. If enough people boycotted all GE products we'd start seeing troops pulling out of Iraq in a week. And don't even mention Third Parties. The obstacles put in place just to get on a ballot are enough to drive one to exhaustion. Let alone getting the corporate owned media to give them the time of day to become powerful enough to challenge the two party system that the plutocracy has under their control. We don't need another phony election - we need a revolution. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 1:36:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well Said
I could not agree more !! by Angry Peasant (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 5:41:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Simply untrue, eloquent but untrue
In the '06 election cycle The Green Party fielded 365 candidates in 38 states running for 66 types of office and gained 65 victories. So I guess, for committed and caring folks it isnt quite as difficult as you have posited. It is not enough to piss and moan, one must get involved in any way one feels can be effective. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Oct 25, 2007 at 6:33:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Dave, from what I have seen....
Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 8:39:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, that's too simple an answer
Pete Stark would be re-elected in his district if he ran after he had died. He would win if he robbed a bank. He would win if he quit the party and ran a write-in campaign. There has to be another reason he buckled. I'm guessing it has to do with Pelosi just saying none of his pet legislation will go anywhere, and that his chairmanship will be axed in the next Congress. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:06:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's what Pelosi did to Conyers, to force him to shut up
about impeachment. She threatened him with the loss of his chairmanship, if he failed to toe the Dem Party line. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:32:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fair Enough
you are probably more correct than I am on that... I just picked the comparison with Weldon because it was local and I watched it happen.. Anyway, the main point is that his own party played a hand in shutting his mouth is still valid.. I am thinking that their reasons go way beyond being spineless... We just watched the birth of a beltway believer... A politician who was/is willing to sell his soul for the party and to keep his job... It sort of makes me want to get a shower... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:51:24 AM (0+)
|
|
The cost pay
I recieved this email this morning: Last night my brother Steven called me. He asked me if I was sitting down, and I said yes I am just spit it out. He said Ronnie killed himself today. I didn't know what to think. Ronnie was always happy and nice to everyone. I seen him last about a year and a half ago and he was all smiles. Then, he had to go to Iraq in three months. Ronnie got back from Iraq about 6 months ago, he was 29 or 30 and he was an E-6 (staff Sergent) he was a recruiter in Oregon. My brother said Ronnie's wife said that he hasn't acted the same since he came back from Iraq an d yesterday he killed himself. Iraq screwed him up and is screwing up all of our military! Thats why we need Ron Paul to be our president. We need to get out of this unconstitutional WAR. We need to get out of Iraq. We are screwing up the minds and hearts of young Americans. The time is now!!!!!! The true cost of this madness !!!! by Angry Peasant (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:25:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: make this a thread by itself...
I want to unload on this topic! So make it a thread, and We will bring lots of this out in the open.. ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:53:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Bill Richardson IS Listening To Our Nation On Ending the War
Bill Richardson is showing leadership among the Democrats on Iraq. He argued persuasively in an Op Ed published in the Washington Post in September that the U.S. must exit Iraq now. Richardson wrote: Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long. Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country. The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq. Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. Read more at www.getourtroopsout.com by Stephen Cassidy (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Oct 28, 2007 at 11:03:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Hillary, however, is not...
She may say something like that, but after reading what I read below, she will say ANYTHING.... Clinton: In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable. That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law. by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 at 6:19:51 PM (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 |
