Would it be a stretch to liken DLCers to the Sadducees?

In his masterpiece of an autobiography, Malcolm X used the fox and the wolf analogy to describe the dilemma black voters faced in deciding between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. Sadly, Malcolm did not live to see his supposition validated: indeed, the Great Society liberal would whisk thousands of impoverished boys to the jungles of Vietnam. To murder. And die.

When I look upon the leaders, and the upper crust, of the Democratic Party, I think of the Sadducees. True, the Pharisees have a far more ignoble reputation, but this isn't entirely warranted. The Pharisees were dogmatists, to be sure, but at least they were hostile to the Roman Empire. But not the Sadducees. They were the Hebrew elite, who respected Rome's sovereignty, out of their own desire to salvage their clerical, ecclesiastical state. They were unprincipled charlatans, who exploited, and betrayed, their own people; in some instances, collaborating with butchers like Pilate in dooming zealots and undesirables to torment and death (complicit, perhaps, in the most famous crucifixion of all).

I am not surprised when a Roman conducts himself as a Roman; the deeds of the Sadducee, on the other hand, are beyond reprehensible.

If not, start throwing dem stones.

I don't have to be "without sin" to call our Vichy leaders out.

She's trying to hold Bush's feet to the fire in order to get some actual help down to New Orleans.

Plus, she's broken from the DLC on some key issues, so I give her props for that.

And it's true that I've trashed the DLC a bit over the past few months, but at some point we've got to strive for some unity within the party. Just as long as it isn't unity on the DLC's terms.

I'm tired of Dems acting like other Dems are the enemy. Differences of opinion within our party aren't the end of the world. This infighting only makes the GOP stronger.

Do we want Dems, or do we want Dems that act and vote like Republicans? Like Zell Miller, for instance? (Not DLC, but he's batshit crazy.)

& what reason is there for the democrats to remain so silent here?

i wondered why no democrats have really come on strong against the president

it IS politics- bush is at his lowest approval ratings ever
there are more holes in his policies, appointments and statements than ever before.
this is a defining moment in American politics!

The democrats could make significant gains here in terms of support.

why arent they?

What did they stand for? and how did Christ and the early church deal with both? Christ condemned the Pharisees but ignored the Sudducees (but was executed by the Sudducees). When I read Josephus "The Jewish War" I came to see that the problem in Judea was it was caught between two external forces and the Sudducee and the Pharisees where parties to that conflict.

As a whole the Pharisees were supported of the Parthian Empire (Which control Persia, now Iran) while the Sudducees were more Pro-Roman. The Parthians made several efforts to support the Pharisees in Judea including sending in troops (Through the troops were NOT they to conquer Judea but to support the Pharisees). The Sudducees came out of the Anti-Greek movement of the Maccabees and their alliance with Rome against the Seleucid Empire (The Greek/Macedonia Empire that seceded Alexander The Great). By the time of Herod the Great the actual Maccabees were out of power but the country and ruling elite that the Maccabees had set up were still in control of Judea (i.e. the Sudducees). Herod the Great himself had been made King by Rome, first as an "Allied King" (i.e. the right to name his successor) and after he lose the throne to a Parthian Supported Rival put back into Power by Mark Anthony AND Augustus Caesar as a "Client King" (A Client King did NOT have the right to name his successor under Roman Rule, through Herod had received a promise his heirs would succeed him).

Thus that was the political situation in Judea at the time of Christ. Two parties back by two different super-powers of the time period. Furthermore Rome really did NOT want Judea. To Rome Judea was NOT a provence worth fighting for in and by itself, but Judea could be a good jumping off point to attack Egypt and Rome was dependent on Egyptian Wheat at that time and any threat to Egypt would be meet with the full force of the Roman Army.

Thus Rome did NOT want its troops in Judea, but also DID NOT WANT ANYONE ELSE'S TROOPS IN JUDEA EITHER. Thus the Roman policy to Judea and the Sudducees, as long as the Sudducees kept the peace in Judea they would be permitted to rule Judea. Once that peace was lost the Sadducee's would be replaced by an elite that could.

Now Herod the Great was succeeded by his Grandson (All of Herod's sons had Prue-deceased Herod). After ten years of rule the Grandson was replaced and Judea divided into four areas, three rules by Herod's Grandchildren (Including Herod Agrippa of the Gospels) with the fourth area coming under a Roman Procurator (When a Province had no Legate or Governor the Procurator was the Governor, when a Provence had a Legate the Procurator was the tax collector). Roman Procurators were from the Equestrian Class of Rome and as such could NOT command Roman troops (Through could and did command the "Auxiliary troops" i.e. foreign mercenaries who served in the Roman Army). Judea had at least three Procurators (one of which was Pontus Pilate) before Judea was given a New Client King just before the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD.

Thus the political setup in Judea at the time of Christ was a Roman Governor who had NO Roman troops (But did have Jewish and/or Greek Troops under his Command). It is suspected Pilate had Greek Troops in Ceasarea (The Roman Capital of Judea on the Coast) but only Jewish troops in Jerusalem (Josephus note that when Pilate came to Judea he wanted to move the Troops in Jerusalem to Ceasarea and the Ceasarea to Jerusalem but this provoked a Riot for the Troops in Ceasarea had standards that "were gods" while the Troops in Jerusalem had no such standards. This implies Greek Troops in Ceasarea and Jewish Troops in Jerusalem. Thus while Pilate had Troops, the Suducees given their control of the Jewish Religion at that time could neutralized those troops by causing a riot.

The Pharisees were the opposition being pious but conspiring with the Parthians to overthrow Roman Rule. Christ Attacks the Pharisees and than is executed for attacking the money making machine of the Suducees (i.e. the Temple). Pilate goes along with this for he wants no riot and have no reliable troops in Jerusalem.

When the Jewish Revolt takes place the Suducees are in charge, seeing an opportunity to extend their power base. The Pharisees support them but Parthia stays out of the fight and Rome Crushed the Jews (and Josephus writes his book to increase his pension for selling out his fellow Jews). In 132 AD the Jews revolt again but the temple had long been destroyed (Through some of it did still stand in 132 AD) but that revolt was also crushed (Through the Pharisee Suducees difference seems to have disappeared either during the Jewish War of 70 AD or rights afterward).