and your website as well. But I wonder at your continued loyalties to a party that has made it extremely clear that they care not for the wishes of the grassroots democrats but are subservient to the check writing corporate leaders who run this nation and both parties. Look at the way Pelosi promised to end the bloated oil subsidies, if a democratic majority was first elected. Then, when elected the subsidies were left intact. Look at the way the black caucus and the progressive caucus have both disappeared from view within that party. Look at the way Howard Deans role in the election was instantly ridiculed and diminished by Emmanuel and Schumer immediately after the election. Speaking of this last election, do you really think it was a vote for democrats or more of a vote against republicans? Do you believe the way democrats are dithering and showing no leadership or determination, aside from a damn small minority of them, will wear well on the voters this next cycle?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 7:56:35 PM

  (0+)

Interesting that you think I'm a loyal Democrat. I actually ran for the U.S. Senate nominated by the Green, Libertarian and Populist Parties in Maryland. (See ZeeseForSenate.org.) I see our power as challenging both parties to put people before campaign donors -- no easy task. And, the leadership of the Democratic Party needs a dramatic shift if it wants the support of peace activists in 2008. The last election was a vote for peace -- against the Republicans hopeful the Dems would listen. So far, they are deaf. KZ

by Kevin Zeese (102 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 9:41:54 PM

  (0+)

They should be working toward that end and are largely doing so. We do not have the votes now. We might have them after 2008. Democrats can help organize public opposition but Bush does not seem to care that the American public wants this stupid war over sooner rather than later. Maybe massive public support for ending the war will scare some Republicans into a stronger anti-Iraq War position. That is the only way we can be effective in Congress before 2008. The Senate filibuster is enough to thwart our slim majority. Lieberman will vote with the Republicans on Iraq. If every other Democrat votes against Iraq along with Sanders, we only have 50 votes. We need 60. Kevin Zeese is not a Democrat. I respect him greatly. He is a very devoted and sincere voice opposing the political agenda of the Bush Republicans.

by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 5:00:04 AM

  (0+)

the political function of this party is so poorly understood by so many of the people who keep voting for them, sending them money, & most importantly: believing that they'll eventually "do the right thing." This belief has no foundation in postwar US history. It's childish to believe that the Democrats will "work for us," or that they can be pressured to do so by "holding their feet to the fire." That's not what they are. They are part of the machinery by which the dominant social class maintains its control of society. The concept behind the Dems is to be the false friend & methodical, systematic betrayer of ordinary citizens. You get to choose between R's (= snarls on TV, military-industrial complex, and gay-bashing) versus D's ( = smiles on TV, military-industrial complex, and not so much gay-bashing). That's the "choice." It's astonishing how people keep believing that just because the D's smile more on TV, that they're any more the friend of working people than the R's. Yet this one clever ploy of appearing "friendlier" is enough to keep this absolutely baseless "hope" alive.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 8:11:29 PM

  (0+)

Maybe, just maybe, if the Democrats here it often enough and strongly enough, that they'd better start working for their constituents, something might happen. I'm not holding my breath, but they do need to keep hearing that message over and over, loudly and clearly. The Democrats think they won on a tidal wave. The Republicans think they lost because they weren't conservative enough. Just what do they put in the water in that town? In their face is the only way to respond to any crap they spew. Do the job or get the hell out is what they need to hear.

by Mark Petersen (9 articles, 73 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 50 comments) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 9:41:19 PM

  (0+)

Where are you going to get the votes in either branch of Congress to end the Iraq War without the Democrats? You are not engaging in anything constructive in ranting against the only opponents of the Iraq War who actually have the potential to elect enough legislators and maybe an Anti-Iraq War President in 2008. Electoral politics is how we change government policy in America. It is how we will end the Iraq War.

by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 5:16:46 AM

  (0+)

I'd like to think the way we can get things done is through grassroots movements, en masse consensus against the war, and that no matter what party they are in, that they realize they are not leaders, just representatives. If it takes until after the 111th Congress is seated to get out of Iraq, then this Congress, which I believe was in large part elected due to the dissatisfaction over the Iraq occupation, has failed. Failure shouldn't be rewarded. I firmly believe the people need to stop asking Congress what they think, and start telling them to listen to what we think, no matter which party they are a member of. Every time I hear one of them say "I think," I want to say "that's your problem, stop thinking and start listening."

by Mark Petersen (9 articles, 73 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 50 comments) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 6:56:14 AM

  (0+)

Stephen Crockett of Democratic Talk Radio says the Dems don't have enough votes to end the war. They have 51 votes in the Senate. It only takes 41 to stop the supplemental. Thus, even if 10 Dems side with funding an illegal occupation that violates international law (does that make them war criminals?) -- they can still stop the war. How big a majority to they need? And, their majority in the House is even larger. Stephen are you saying the Dems need even bigger majorities in order to have the courage to do the right thing? Why should we trust an even bigger majority when they are not using the majority they have? When most Dems voted for the war to begin with? When alsmost all have given a reckless commander in chief $420 Billion in war funding? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. If people really care about the mass killing of the Iraq occupation shouldn't they oppose those who vote to continue it? Or should we play the sell out politics that supports continuing the war? Isn't that what you are recommending -- put aside the war and vote for the Democrat no matter what s/he stands for? You're right, I'm not a Democrat. I used to be and would love the party to represent my views so I could reconsider it as a viable political vehicle. But until it does I'll work for candidates I agree with -- some might be Democrats or even Republicans, but most probably won't. Kevin

by Kevin Zeese (102 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 9:05:21 AM

  (0+)

The Democratic Congressmen MIGHT start to listen if enough people email them a link to the article, or an excerpt from it or similar wording such as that in some of the comments. Email them every day with similar material.

by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 8:37:04 AM

  (0+)

As RichM noted and as I tried to note, apparently less successfully above, the Democrats are doing the bidding of those they follow. Unfortunately it is not we the people. I erred in posing that initial comment as if Mr. Zeese were loyal to that party, yet he still looks to them for solutions and wonders how we can persuade them to follow us, we simply cannot. Loyalists like Mr. Crockett turn deaf ears to the many instances of Democratic complicities and betrayals of the wishes of the people, almost the same as does the GOP, and becomes blind to the pattern of support they give, not to the will of the voter but to the money of the corporation that finances the far too expensive political campaign mechanisms. Despite the '06 vote, which very clearly showed that the will of the majority supports withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and acquiring a different strategy regarding the Middle East, we get to see them trundle out those like Mr. Crockett, talking heads who apologetically whine about numbers of legislators and opine that, just maybe, if we bury our heads in the sand and vote more democrats into office in the next election, maybe then, possibly, we will be able to stop the war effort.... When someone points out that being in the minority has not stopped the GOP from acting, when one notes that the Democrats eagerly and obediently left the bloated oil subsidies alone, betraying yet another pre election promise to the voters, well, one is told he is off topic, or an agent of the GOP sent to undermine the efforts of the Democrats....what freaking efforts. Until and unless this nation faces the real problem, that of a false two party system, a duopoly that answers to the monied and not to the needs of the masses, we will get this sort of government, one that continues to aid in the assault upon the middle class, one that basks in a luxurious life style, in perks and in benefits unknown to the rest of us, and worst of all, one that ignores us and does the bidding of the wealthiest one percent.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 9:31:50 AM

  (0+)

The cynical, devious, and incompetent minds of the losers who ran the 2000 & 2004 elections, and who appear to be running this one, are no more altruistic than the Republicans. They may not be as evil, but they too desire the mountaintop bunker away from all the pollution they helped create. The perks from the demons of corporate America, and Organized Religion, keep flowing in and guys who make $135,000 a year retire multi-millionaires, while those of us making more, do not. How is that possible? It must be some sort of MysticalMath beyond the understanding of a mere mortal men/women and something gifted to those elected to public office. Perhaps they are transformed the moment they meet their first lobbyist. Well Frank Capra could make films like MISTER SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, and Eddie Murphy can make films like THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN, but a whore is a whore, is a whore, and I am not speaking of the much more honorable profession of the Ladies of The Evening.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 9:49:11 AM

  (0+)

Allies like you guys weaken the populist anti-Iraq War Democrats and prolong the War. Idealism that weakens and divides the opposition to the War gets more soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed and maimed. Third party candidates like Nader helped Bush seize power and start the War. You are all anti-Democratic but do not have a clue of how the Party is actually organized and operates. No use even responding to your nonsense statements. I have tried but no information gets past you anti-Democratic bias. You are all obstacles to ending the War and devoted to being obstacles. Best just to ignore you and work with realistic political activists.

by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 12:00:33 PM

  (0+)

This most recent comment by Mr. Crockett sounds strangely like "if you're not for us, you're against us"; a statement made by both George Bush and Vladimir Lenin. It is the root of totalitarian thinking. Suggesting a third-party candidate like Nader helped Bush seize power and start the war bespeaks the same kind of propaganda statements coming from the Bush White House. Neither Ralph Nader nor any of the other third-party candidates had anything to do with Al Gore's loss in 2000. The Democratic Party seems to think that it "owns" votes and therefore that those votes can be "taken" away by others. The painful fact in Florida was that 250,000 registered Democrats voted for George Bush. CNN's polling shows that most of the folks who voted for Ralph Nader would not have bothered to vote at all. The Democrats have been searching for a scapegoat and have tried to besmirch the reputation of one of the few people in America who may still be considered a hero. What kind of people would stoop so low? I suspect they're the same kind of people who crucified Jesus, shot Gandhi and assassinated King. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that those of us who are against the war but not members of the Democratic Party (which brought us World War I, World War II - along with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, - Korea and Vietnam) are doing anything at all to weaken the so-called "populist anti-Iraq war Democrats". On the contrary, it seems clear that by remaining members of the Democratic Party, the antiwar Democrats are themselves hurting the populist antiwar movement. John A. Murphy

by John Murphy (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 10:08:58 PM

  (0+)

There are some democrats, like Kucinich, who already support blocking the funding. How many are there altogether-- in the senate, in the house? How many have to be persuaded? This is creative thinking. The Democrats have to have the guts to do the right thing. They will find their courage when We The People make it clear that this is what we want them to do. They will find their power when they figure out that they already have the power, as Kevin has made clear. Blaming the Republicans, when the Democrats DO have a way to stop the war now, that's a lame excuse. The Democrats in the house need to see, particularly the ones in the right wing states, who are most resistant to cutting funding, that they are failing the troops by funding the war. It's like giving more heroin to a drug addict.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 9:49:43 PM

  (0+)

blaming republicans or those like Crockett who blame those working hardest to restore our democracy and bring back our troops? I believe that folks like Crockett are more comfortable among conservatives who profit from the war than among those leftists who find war reprehensible and those who wage it or even indirectly support its continuation by ignoring the culpability of his own party in its duration as tools. Witting or not, tools yet. This is a sad time we find ourselves enmired within.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Mar 5, 2007 at 6:16:22 PM

  (0+)

they try to silence any opposition to their own unique political views. This guy wears out the flag it button as he simply cannot cope with those who logically and passionately see through his condemnations of any who understand the futility of supporting the current Democratic leadership. Isnt this the same tactic employed by the Bush administration? If you cannot debate the points smear the messenger.....hmmmm

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 6, 2007 at 3:02:51 PM

  (0+)