own voters has been a constant for the Democrats for many years, now.

Here's an article that spells out the details of the Dems' latest sell-out. Note that just as they did last May, they're once again using the ploy of dividing the spending into two parts -- one domestic, & the other for war. As the article explains,

...With the Senate having carried through its part of the bargain with Bush by adding the $40 billion to continue the carnage in Iraq, the two separate pieces of legislation—domestic spending and war funding—will go back to the House. In this elaborately choreographed charade, the bulk of the Democrats will then be able to vote against the money for Iraq—thereby attempting to boost their sagging antiwar pretenses—while the measure would be assured passage by a solid Republican “yes” vote backed by an adequate Democratic minority.

Once completed, this cynical arrangement will mark the third time since assuming control of Congress nearly a year ago that the Democrats will have provided the votes to continue funding the war in Iraq after proclaiming their determination to bring it to a halt....

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:59:29 PM

  (0+)

Many, like me in the past, think of the Democrats as purely GUTLESS ---- but this is actually not the case.

The Democrat Party is 'out of whole cloth' an integral and willing part of the ruling-elite global corporatist Empire hiding behind this facade of democracy --- which by all that is holy can only be called 'Vichy America'.

The Democrats, and the MSM which hides their fully complicit role in this 'Three Card Monte' scam of the American people, have turned in an Oscar-winning performance of appearing simply gutless and incompetent ---- but this is entirely an ACT.

The Democrats well acted role in this 'Vichy American' tragicomedy Three Card Monte scam (where ALL the participants, other than the 'rube' citizens, are fully engaged in the scam) is the role of a second 'Lucy' character to alternate with the Republican first string 'Lucy' in continually 'pulling the football away' from American citizens (who are 'played' as 'Charlie Browns') in this continual Three Card Monte movie version of "Ground Hog Day" --- which simply never ends in the land of Corporatist Empire.

This whole sick movie is an Empire Production.

by Alan MacDonald (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 131 comments [43 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 4:25:50 PM

  (0+)

the solution is obvious......vote third party.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:47:33 AM

  (0+)

What the hell do you expect the Democrats to do when they're boxed in by their lack of a two-thirds majority to override Bush vetoes and the 60 votes required in the Senate to choke off Republican filibusters?

STOP BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS!!! THE BLUNT FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT ELECT ENOUGH DEMOCRATS TO CAPITOL HILL IN 2006 TO NEUTRALIZE BUSH!!!

Compare that to 1986,when the voters not only took control of the Senate away from the Republicans, but they gave Senate Democrats 63 votes to choke off GOP filibusters and House Democrats a nearly veto-proof majority.

Result: Ronald Reagan damn near got his clock cleaned on the Iran-Contra scandal.

We, the voters, have only ourselves to blame for the current stalemate in Washington.

by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 12:35:21 PM

  (0+)

Do so many Democrats vote with Republicans? Answer that.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 12:53:38 PM

  (0+)

Tim, wake up! In the first place, Congress today is controlled by the Baby Boomers -- who cut their political teeth on the three most polarizing events in modarn American hostory -- the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.

This generation (which I'm a part of) doesn't know the meaning of the word "compromise" -- unless circumstances FORCE them to do so.

Answer me this: When you're outflanked by a president who uses his veto pen, you don't have the two-thirds majority votes required in either house of Congress to override his vetoes and you lack the 60 votes required in the Senate to choke off the opposition party's filibusters, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO???

Face it, Tim, the Democrats are BOXED IN and you know it. Under these circumstances, they have no choice but to compromise, or else they can't get anything done.

It's the same thing as when the Republicans controlled Congress during the bulk of Clinton's presidency. The Republicans, too, lacked the two-thirds majorities in both house of Congress to ovveride Clinton's vetoes and the 60 votes required in the Senate to choke off Democratic filibusters. That forced the GOP to compromise.

So also were the Republicans in 1986-88, when the Democrats had more than enough votes in the Senate to choke off GOP filibusters and were just two votes shy of a veto-proof two-thirds majority in the House, along with a half-dozen maverick House Republicans who opposed President Reagan's agenda -- which forced Reagan to compromise.

Bottom line is: When you don't have the votes in Congress to get your agenda passed -- or to stop the opposing party's agenda -- you have no choice but to compromise, or else nothing gets done.

by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:05:18 AM

  (0+)

Did the "Blue-Dog" Democrats vote in lockstep, along with Hillary on the Kyle-Lieberman amend. and so many other freakin neo-con bills? Don't tell me to trust Dems, half of them are in lockstep with the neo-cons. Lookn at just about any foriegn policy move Congress has made!

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 11:09:59 AM

  (0+)