Democrats have a duty to country: bring the Bushies to justice

- I'm very concerned about the future of the Democratic party. We continue to lose ground to the RWing: White House, senate, congress and governorships. But the party leadership and blind faithful continue to insist that we can win by playing defense. And it's not just Republicans taking over government piece by piece at all levels...it's far-right, extremist neocons with an anti-Democratic agenda.

- There is a cultural war going on in this country and the other side is winning. Ideals and issues we've fought for decades to attain are being weakened or outright eliminated. The environment. Women's rights. Civil rights. Human rights. International diplomacy and peace. Nuclear weapons and testing. Public education. Unions and collective bargaining. The list is literally too long to cite here.

- The party is floundering and without leadership. Those who try to lead - like Byrd and Kennedy - are simply ignored or given empty platitudes by the party bosses. But Byrd was right when he said congress had relinquished their Constitutional authority and duty to Bush*. Kennedy was right when he said that the war against Iraq was sham. But few in the party followed their lead. The party appeared cowed into silence by a media owned and operated by right wing ideologues.

- There comes a time when we need to recognize that what we're doing isn't working and find a new strategy. Part of that strategy must include an understanding of the opposition's agenda. We MUST understand one thing above all others: 9-11 remains the foundation of Bush's* considerable power.

- Republicans insist that George* is 'fighting the war on terrorism' in Iraq. Yet there remains absolutely NO evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 or any terrorist act on American soil. There IS proof that the Bushies had plans to attack Iraq before they took office and that they fabricated evidence and exaggerated the threat in order to push this nation into war. This isn't just a bad idea...it's high treason.

- In order to win we must campaign on Democratic values and principles...not a 'lite' version of what the other side is offering. One of these principles MUST be that we won't tolerate corruption and cronyism in government...no matter which party is in control. Americans have to be wondering why Democrats refuse to hold Bush* accountable for his many outlandish lies and bad acts.

- The awful truth is that Bush* can't be beaten as long as he remains above the law of the land and is 'perceived' as a great and humble leader. It's obvious we can't leave it up to the not-so-free press to tell the truth about what practically the whole world sees as the most corrupt executive branch in history. It's up to the loyal opposition - the Democratic party - to bring the Bushies to justice. They can begin by exposing the lies and deceit about 9-11 and the Iraq invasion and occupation. Most Americans...except for the most rabid RWingers...will see the party in a new light and respect them for their honesty and bravery. But we must be willing to stay the course and not back down. The People hunger for leadership and truth. Is the Democratic party up to the challenge?

You win. Republicans initiate. Democrats respond. Republicans win. To reverse it Democrats have to get out the vote. The voting machine issue is a win win for Republicans. Why vote? It won't count anyway. Reduce voter turnout. Bring out issues that energize your base, homosexual marriage. School prayer. Tax cuts/increases. Republicans base energized. Republicans win.

...is but a small part of the solution. We must give them a REASON to vote.

- The Democratic party is perceived as weak and ineffective against the Bush* regime...unable or unwilling to challenge Bush's* corrupt government.

- I believe we're going to see the opposite of what we expect in such an important election: even LESS Americans will vote.

- But we can change that...by offering strong leadership and 'truth-tellers' refusing to back down in the face of forces that care nothing about Democracy and representative govenrment.

- Democrats can turn this whole thing around by simply telling the truth.

lied, lied, and lied to become the Democratic nominee. Once the "truth-teller" is exposed as a liar, people will either 1) tune out of the whole process in disgust or 2) not believe the "truth" being told by the "truth-teller."

That's the funny thing about trying to open the people's eyes to the Bush lies. You have to have someone with moral authority to do it. A lying bully won't cut it.

...because they will become a target. The Democratic party must speak boldly...and in unison.

- This is how the Republican party is able to constantly frame the debate. They approach each and every issue as a PARTY.

- We have a duty to our country and our own families. Don't we want to be the party that protects the rights of the people?

What has been absent is not the eloquence of individuals but the commitment of the party as a whole to a unified goal.The voices of Byrd and Kennedy, Waxman or even Dean and Kucinich are lost because they are not echoed and magnified by a united democratic party, not amplified by a party mechanism.

Today,imo, we find that there is a dualism present within the democratic party, we see candidates for office running either in fear of taking too much of an opposition stance against the WH or , if taking such a stance, being labeled as leftists or belligerent. On the other hand we have the party leadership pandering to corporate interests as if raising money was the real function of the party rather than standing for principles.

Unless and until we see leadership that realises its duty is to the people of the US and not to the CEO's, unless and until we find courageous and principled people willing to ignore the muddled message "lets not say anything to different from Bush because we mightbe labeled as left wing purists, and besides we might lose those big contributions from General Dynamics", until we speak out the electorate will have no real choice in whom to vote for, the democrats will seem to be simply diluted copies of Bush!

but do you trust him with protecting you from the bad guys. That is how they will define the national debate with Dean not on whether he's honest or not. They can pour water on that fire easy. But will Dean make your life and the lives of your family safer?

as 'moral' issues the Republicans will continue to win. Morality is not subjective, it is very objective. What a man does in the quiet by himself is not what he proclaims from the housetops in the bright of day. The Republicans are masters at defining everything from the housetops and they have defined themselves as the ones speaking for God. Take some of the issues that are life and death important on this forum but continue to be losing issues when it comes to getting Democrats elected because they continue to allow the Republicans to define the parameters.

Homosexual marriage: moral

War: moral

Taxes: moral

Democrats have been cast as the immoral party.

Republicans win if they are allowed to cast all the issues based on morality.

It will be the issue that decides who our next President will be.

If our base stays home, we lose.

I continually push people to the polls. It's a difficult fight, but I have seen people respond. My efforts were rewarded here in Suffolk County NY last week and we elected a Democratic County Executive(Steve Levy} for the first time in many years.

The larger the voter turnout, the better the chances are for the Democratic Party.
:kick:

on edit: Added NY

- The question becomes: why should anyone vote for a Democrat who continues to pretend the Bush* government isn't corrupt? Why vote for a Democrat that hides behind the illusion that the Iraq invasion and occupation has anything to do with the war on terrorism?

- What would motivate the 'base' to vote for enablers of liars? We either become the party of the 'truth'...or risk becoming part of the lie.

- What is your opinion of Byrd's speeches about congress giving up their Constitutional authority to Bush*? What about Kennedy's speech about Iraq? Do you think they're telling the truth? Should the Democratic party follow their lead?

- Is the truth important?

Of course they're telling the truth! But Congress did not give Bushie the power and Bushie did not go to war based on truth! The Bushies took America to war based on National Security. You can shout from the housetops whether or not what Bushie did was based on truth or not but in the quiet of their houses the American people are saying they feel safer. That is the real question that needs to be shouted from the housetops by Democrats. Is the Bushie foreign policy making America safer? What is the proof of whether we are safer or not? A terrorist attack. But from the beginning the Bushies have said an attack is bound to happen. Can they have it both ways? So far the Democrats have allowed them to have it both ways. Why? Because the Republicans are defining the parameters of the debate. The Democrats are simply responding.

...were given before a mostly empty senate chamber? That's the state of our Democracy.

- Byrd and Kennedy and Gore have all given great speeches exposing the truth about the corruption of the Bush* government. But the majority of the party remains silent...hiding in the shadows so they won't become a target of the RWing media calling them 'unPatriotic' or 'unAmerican'. What they don't seemt to realize is that the RWing will attack them no matter what they do or say. They might as well tell the truth.

- The details about 9-11 and the Iraq invasion have been covered up. Most Democrats KNOW exactly WHY the truth has been hidden from the people. That makes them party to the obstruction of justice.

I'd say it would be worth it for the Democratic Party to boycott the cable media just to point out the horrible bias of it. The Republicans would. Why any Democrat would go on Faux or MSNBC or that pathetic cnn is beyond me. I'd let the media tell the country why the Democrats won't show up to get treated badly too.

They should go on Faux, CNN, etc. and tell everything they know!

they'd better nominate someone who is above reproach.

From one I've seen in the primary process, some Democrats are just as bad as Bush when it comes to truth and honesty. I now realize why so many people have turned away and tuned out the political process in utter disgust.

...or the nominee. It's something we must do as a PARTY because it's the right thing to do. What happened to ethics and integrity?

- We have PROOF that the Bush* administration has committed crimes. There's a trail of evidence going back to the 2000 election (and before). We shouldn't need much more than a conscience in order to do what's right in the name of the people.

That is not whats going to send him back to that pit he calls home in Crawford. If he was able to be 'gotten' based on the lies he has told he would be on trial before the Senate now. That is a partisan issue that will not energize the Democratic base but WILL energize the Republican base. Do you feel safer because of the direction Bushie and the Republicans have taken us or not? That is the issue that must be driven home to America. The world will back us up if that is the issue we take to America. Not whether or not the idiot Bushie is a liar or not.

- Telling the truth in the face of adversity is a very brave deed. I believe it would energize even the millions of non-voters to have Democrats show such integrity.

- The truth may lead to impeachment...but that doesn't have to be our goal. The goal is to inform Americans about their government and have them vote with 'informed consent'.

What is truth?
The truth you want addressed is subjective. 50% of the voting public don't care what fires you up! The issues that energize the Democratic base are not the issues that energize the Republican base. The real question is who is going to define what the national issues are going to be? As long as the issues are homosexuality or abortion or simply pro or con tax cut the Democrats will lose. Why do you think the Republicans jumped so hard on the leaked memo? They are redifining the issues away from whether Bushie and the Republicans have made us safer to one of the Democrats are simply out to get Bushie. They win on one and lose on the other. We're the Democrats diverted? Yes.

One mans truth is another man's misinformation campaign. In other words people won't know which truth to listen to. It's so much easier to live not believing that your president is a traitorous dog.
I have friends who vote solidly Democrat who just cannot accept the fact that chimpy is a fraud. They voted for Clinton and then Gore but still see chimpy as a leader. America cannot handle the truth.

The question becomes: why should anyone vote for a Democrat who continues to pretend the Bush* government isn't corrupt?

Who are you referring to?

There are nine candidates to choose from, and as far as I can tell, they all are on the offense.

Politics is a funny game, the slightest remark can change the entire landscape for a candidate. Look at how Dean was criticized for his confederate flag comment.

It is up to US to spread the word. Only WE can influence our friends and co-workers. Most of them are grossly misinformed and if they really knew what was going on, they would oust the bast@rd in the WH in a NY second.

So stay calm, debate in a polite manner, debunk every lie they have been told by the rw news and eventually you will see understanding creep into their minds.

Have faith Q, we will prevail in 04. Of that I am sure.

Clark/Edwards
:kick:

...that's very condescending and it allows you to avoid the difficult questions.

- I'm referring to the fact that the Democratic party is 'pretending' the Bush* government isn't corrupt. What part of this sentence don't you understand?

- I'm not talking about the Democratic candidates...but about the Democratic party.

- Politics isn't a 'game'. It's a very serious matter...and how the Democrats respond to Bush* will literally determine the future of this country.

- It's not up to 'us' to bring the Bush* regime to justice. We don't have the power...that's why we 'elect' others to represent us...to make sure the law is upheld. That's their friggin JOB and DUTY.

- I don't have 'faith'. Politics isn't religion. The plain truth is that the Bush* administration has committed serious crimes...high treason...and it's up to the other half of the two party system to bring them to justice.

I have watched almost every debate and the criticism of this administration is the main topic.

Personally, I want to hear specifics about how they plan to fix the problems this administration created.

The crimes they have comitted WILL be addressed by the next Democratic administration.

That said, you seem to take my advice to stay calm as being condescending, it was not meant that way.

Show me where I have EVER avoided the difficult question.

Just because I only have 800+ posts doesn't mean I'm a newbie. I've been here almost since inception, so feel free to find a post where I avoided difficult questions.

Your prejudgement is bullsh*t.

Keep your friends close, but keep your enemys closer.

- I wasn't aware of your number of posts. Please excuse my rudeness. But to ask someone to 'stay calm' is to discount their argument. It's like saying 'move on' or 'get over it'.

- But problems can't be 'fixed' until the full truth is known. We can't 'fix' government until we understand that our legislators and their legislation is for sale to the highest bidder. We can't 'fix' the war in Iraq until we understand that the premise for invasion and occupation was based on a lie.

- Bush's* wars in the middle east were actually planned before he took office. We need to be aware of the 'Bush* Doctrine' of preemptive war and KNOW that it's illegal.

- That's why the truth is so important. Allowing Bush* to get away with these lies is not only unethical...it allows him to run in 2004 without being held responsible for his past bad acts and criminality.

"So stay calm, debate in a polite manner, debunk every lie they have been told by the rw news and eventually you
will see understanding creep into their minds."

This is what has been going on for damn near 35 years. It is NOT acceptable.

I will vote ONLY for the Democrat who walks into the WH with shackles and a warrant for *'s arrest.

Anything short of that does not cut it!
Anything short of that means four more years and possibly longer for the criminals now in charge.

If the "leaders" of the Democratic Party fail to be forthright and loud AND forceful in putting these charlatans in chains,
the responsibility falls to us, the constituents, and believe me it will not be pretty.

Until we have a Democratic administration.

I will vote ONLY for the Democrat who walks into the WH with shackles and a warrant for *'s arrest.

Guess you're not voting then?

No balls. No vote.

or

No principles. No participation.

What point is their in voting for criminals or their enablers?

- That's not a very appealing message to send to the voters. Is that the way we want our justice system to work in America? Political expediency becomes more important than responsibility?

- Your position is no more ethical than those who piss on our Constituion or break our laws with impunity. It seems to me that things would change for the better if MORE people refused to vote for the enablers of criminals in government.

What exactly do you expect the Democratic party to do?

Your position is no more ethical than those who piss on our Constituion or break our laws with impunity. It seems to me that things would change for the better if MORE people refused to vote for the enablers of criminals in government.


So you think 4 more years of * is a good thing?


Please be specific and tell me exactly what should happen and who should take action. And don't forget to tell me how this will happen when the re:puke:'s hold both houses.

I'm a realist, and the reality is that nothing can be done to these criminals as long as they control government.

What part of that don't you understand?

BTW, this is the Democratic Underground, you know, the place where we are supposed to be like minded. I think you want to fight the repugs, not us. We all want * out and locked up, so stop with your nasty tone.

What happened to the folks who ran Romania?
They had control of everything too.

I think that Q is suggesting a less severe and more "realistic" approach to solving the same type of problem here in this country.

People in glass houses....

:kick:

is kick Bushie out of the W.H. If getting him arrested is your base you might as well make up your mind now your not voting. The Republicans have based their whole standing in the country and the world on an idiot! Think about it?! Do you feel safer? Does it matter that America hasn't been attacked by the al queda types? In spite of that do you feel safer? What you propose is much worse than "and believe me it will not be pretty!"

In my view Nixon, Reagan, *I and their ENTIRE crew should be in jail still.
If * is not placed in irons and is merely allowed to go back to Crawford Justice is not served.
Put simply: Republicans and their ilk need to be outlawed as a political party.
War and profit are there sole motivations, their only goals.
Both are crimes against humanity in my book.

"What you propose is much worse than..."

What could possibly be better than * convicted, doing life in a cell somewhere, utterly disgraced.

As to the issue of safety: I am no more or less safe than at other time in my life.

I for one don't beleive the Al Qai'da myth that * has cooked up.

WITH A PASSION!! But that is not going to fire up the Base of the Democratic Party. Hate for Bushie will just keep the majority of the voters home. Do you feel safer under Bushie or not will get the Base out and bring a majority of the Independents and I think some of the Republicans to the Dem side saying hell no! He has made our stand in the world less tenable.

Amazing!! You have echoed, almost verbatim, my very talking points that I have held since this country invaded Iraq. I don't post here that often, but I am quite excited to see this kind of alignment of ideas. I DID post somewhere, some time, ago that nothing short of serious hard time for Bush and his cabinet would satisfy me. At this point, I am absolutely ASTONISHED that there is no strong move in that direction among the Democratic Party (Senator Byrd and Cynthia McKinney notwithstanding). I like this thread and pray that somehow these thugs get exactly that -- hard time.

...as our country becomes a corporate state boardering on a totalitarian dictatorship? We should be pissed...not comatose.

- Here's the rub: a good portion of the American people think George* is doing a fine job at leading this country and fighting terrorism. How could that be? Certainly if things were going SO wrong the Democrats would have more to say about it...right?

- We've been 'calm' for too damn long. The Neocons in control of our country laugh at our attempts at 'cooperation'...jokingly calling it 'bipartisan date rape'.

- Our weapon should be the truth.

especially when the truth is that the democrats are just as culpable as are the republicans in the continuation of a corrupt system. You are asking too much of those wedded to big money ,who think that legislation is tied to the wishes of those who contribute the most cash.

Bush and company, and Reagan before him are just the obvious extension of the corruption, the more blatant example of that wrong headed influence that steers our ship of state.Clintons adoption of NAFTA ,his welfare reform that failed to consider any funds for job training or child care for those thrown off the dole are more of the same.

Unless and until we come to grips with the power of big money in our government it will matter very little who occupies the WH......

So, why diss the North? Does anyone get elected without it?

The Democrats are losing because they have forgotten the people who used to keep them in power – the working class. If they want our vote they better do what the Democrats used to do, they better start taking a stand on the issues that working people care about.

Democrats have QUIT representing working people and these are the very people who kept them in power from the 1930’s on. The Democrats mostly whine about minorities, gay rights, abortion rights, and the environment. Is it wrong to support these causes? Hell no, it is our duty, but so is standing up for economic justice.

The Democrats have forgotten about issues that are important to working people – jobs that pay enough to support a family, health care that’s affordable for EVERYONE, and fairness in taxation.

NAFTA and free trade with China have closed down thousands of factories in the U.S. and well over a hundred here in Tennessee. These are factories where many poorly educated people worked a lifetime at a livable wage and had insurance. What are these jobs being replaced with? Low wage, no benefit jobs at restaurants and retail stores. And even worse than the above is the trend toward TEMPORARY workers. Look in your yellow pages under Employment Contractors and see the names of companies who hire people and sell their labor at a profit to other companies. These Temps have little or no benefits and no health insurance.

These are issues that are just as important as civil rights. These are the issues that will get the pick-up driving Southerners to vote Democrat again.

But when Dean makes the point that we need these rebel flag in the truck people - the rest of the candidates make a big deal out of it. If the old "let's fight the battles of the 60's again" crowd wins the nomination next year - then we will go down in flames and deserve it.

...even though you suggest negative things about the '60s crowd'. You either misunderstand what the 60s were all about...or you're simply trying to smear a whole generation of 'activists' attempting to make government accountable to the people. We don't need to reinforce the stereotypes of the right.

- You're confusing the issues. In the long run...Democrats must return to support their traditional base. That will become even more obvious if Bush* stays in office after 2004.

- This thread is about another issue: confronting the Bush* government and making them accountable. Not for the sake of politics or 'winning'...but because we become party to the corruption if we don't do our best to uphold the Constitution and do what's right for the common good.

I meant to say, we can't keep promoting the issues of the 60's. There are new problems today.

Yesterday morning on NPR there was a story about North Carolina textile manufacturing owners who are shutting down their plants production and calling all their employee's to a meeting about the coming election and about trade.

In these meetings voter registration cards are handed out and a talk is given about what Bush's trade policies are doing to the factory workers in the South.

In the 60's liberals road on Freedom Buses to the South to support civil rights for African-Americans, now why aren't the liberals shouting for economic justice for working class Southerners?

"This thread is about another issue: confronting the Bush* government and making them accountable"

If you want to make them accoutable - you must WIN. It is impossible to confront them if they win. They will fill the court with their drones, fill the airwaves with their propaganda, redistrict their states and so on.

We have to appeal to the people that Dean said are voting agaist their own self interest. We can not do this by being politically correct, we have to do this by shouting the economic truth loud enough to be heard. We have to talk about the things that get working people hot, not the things that get the party's pet issue crowd excited.

We are the laughting stock of the USA with nine or ten or whatever they are. Give me a candidate (1) is this to hard to muster??

...so I don't know what you mean when you refer to the 60s crowd. I was part of that 'crowd' and we were trying to hold government accountable to the people. Everything else about the 60s is just an invention of the RWingers.

- What makes you think the Bushies will be held accountable if the Democrats win? Are you joking? And seriously...why must justice wait for Democrats? A crime is a crime and justice should never have to wait for politics.

4 losing issues for Democrats if they are defined nationally. Two of them are not even issues worthy of such national attention! They are not national issues. The other 2 are state issues. The Republicans have made them national issues to energize their bases in the states. The others, the environment is an issue important to one state but not as important to another. The same with minorities. Homosexual rights and abortion rights are losing issues for Democrats and they should run from those like fire from water.

The two issues the Democrats need to define as only needing national attention, staying away from the others like fire away from water? The direction Bushie is taking America; national security. AND the economy or the "fairness" of our tax structure.

environmentalists continue to vote democratic? you just dimissed a good chunk of the people who are voting for democrats...this is a part of the problem of allowing the rw to set the parameters of the debate and to define the issues of importance. if the democrats continue to abandon their most loyal voters because of FEAR, why should i (a black lesbian) continue to give them my vote? the issue is: national security, and the economy are even bigger DISASTERS because of bush, inc. the environment is a GLOBAL issue...not one that is of concern to just a few states. civil rights, including the civil rights of women, gays and lesbians, and people of color, are NATIONAL issues...the rw is making sure of that.
it's long past time the STAND UP to the rw's baiting and diviseness, aka the 'cultural wars.'

Not because an American majority will suddenly turn happy and just on gays.

But because the Republicans will expose themselves when they make that the main issue in a time of war and disaster. It will be their step too far - over the cliff.

sounds like a goat.
anyway -- what many liberals, leftists, greens,dems etc. have to get through their heads is that millions and millions of their fellow citizens hate them. and it's a tough neighborhood. those folks{whether born agains or confederate flag wavers, or anti-gov libertarians, etc} will never vote dem. lost cause.
those same people make common cause with corporate facists -- to the point where some willingly vote against their own self interest.
secondly, corporate facists are in control of the republican party -- and are deeply, deeply embedded in the dem party{i vote dem, btw}
what's needed is a tent revival of good old fashioned leftist, socialist, populist, democrat -- what ever you want to call it -- ethics and issues. ideas to trumpet and blare all over the place -- things that will juice up this multi-media brain washed citizentry and get them to the polls. basically a madison ave approach to taking the debate over for good.
obviously there's more -- but these are dangerous times for this country -- and we are in a dog fight. we just need to act like it.

...and one might say they hate us for our 'freedoms'. Bush* wasn't joking when he framed his crusade in terms of 'us versus them'. He wasn't just talking about terrorists...but the 'evildoers' that oppose him and his harmful policies.

- When all else fails...tell the truth. That's where we find ourselves as the opposition has nearly complete control of the media and national dialogue.

- The only people we're going to piss off by telling the truth are those who wouldn't vote Democratic anyway. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

extreme right wing republicans hate Dems/liberals.

The citizens don't vote but once every 4 years.

The same is true on the flip side.

the left does not hate the right. afraid yes -- hate no. aware that the country is deeply divided yes -- killing abortion rights foes to get there -- no.
aware that corporate facists are running every ones lives -- the left wants no part -- the right is happy with it.
but perhaps the corporate facist status quo is cool with you.

...to intentionally bomb civilian targets? That's exactly what the Bushies have done in Iraq in several attempts to 'get Saddam'.

- Bush* broke established law when he refused to allow the presidential papers of Reagan and his father to become public domain. Cheney broke 'federal sunshine laws' by hiding the national energy policy documents. Worst of all...they committed high crimes when they fabricated evidence and exaggerated the threat Iraq posed to the United States.

- The Bushies continue to hide the truth about 9-11 and their relationshp with the terrorists. Literally dozens of questions remain unanswered.

- The Bushies make Nixon (watergate) and Reagan/Bush (Iran/Contra) look like boy scouts. These guys are criminals...yet they're treated like any other administration.

- Yet...millions of Americans will turn out to vote for Bush* in 2004...not knowing the whole truth about ANY of these issues. It's up to the Democratic party to inform them.

Do you not agree that is is also OUR responsibility to spread the word?
Do you not agree that we should do everything we can to energize the base.
Are we not the Democratic party that you seem to love to criticize?

Who EXACTLY are you talking about when you refer to the Democratic party?

On Edit: fixed typo

...but our representatives have an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the law of the land. It's what we 'hire' them to do. They not only 'make' the laws...it's their duty to make sure they're enforced.

- I don't 'love' to criticize anyone. But why should I condone the actions of those who continue to protect the Bushies by not holding them accountable? Democrats are actually making Bush* more 'electable' by not exposing the vast corruption in the executive branch of OUR govrenment.

- Is this a government by, of and for the people? Or have we become so shallow that winning is all that matters?

Is this a government by, of and for the people?

Yes it is, however with the theft of the 2000 election, it has been temporarily derailed.

You still haven't told me exactly what you expect to happen and when.

Some here are saying they won't vote for anyone who doesn't take * and his minions out of the WH in shackles.

That can't happen unless we have control.
No criminal charges can be filed
No real investigations can happen

So...the best thing I can do is choose the candidate who appeals to me and vote for him in the primary. If my candidate is the nominee, great. If he is NOT the nominee, I will vote for whomever it may be.

I hope and pray that all of us here feel the same way.

THAT is the only way we can make these criminals pay.

We are in agreement that this regime needs to be behind bars, but we seem to disagree on the way to make that happen.

- It goes without saying that Bush* must not be allowed to 'serve' another term. But how will you make this happen? Vote him out? Don't hold your breath on that one. Enough naive Americans will vote for him...putting the race close enough to be stolen...again.

- That's one reason why we can't simply 'wait' for him to be voted out of office. We can use the fact that he's a criminal against him.

The grassroots cannot lead. It is the responsibility of the leadership must represent and lead. It is a responsibility they have completely and utterly failed to attempt let alone acomplish. The leadership must take the lead in bringing the truth about Republican goals to the mainstream. The grassroots cannot do this.

- Yet...millions of Americans will turn out to vote for Bush* in 2004...not knowing the whole truth about ANY of these issues. It's up to the Democratic party to inform them.

Fine, tell them the truth. Then provide an alternative. Even if it's not possible to know what is going to happen in the next year, the candidate Democrats choose has to say what is possible for right now... today... that would improve the situation and ask why is it not being done. Facts and figures need to be pulled out to demonstrate why another path is possible, not just a lot of hot air.

Meanwhile, focusing on the Presidential race is totally appropriate, but we need also to focus on the Congressional races. A Democratic President with a Republican-dominated Congress is not going to be nearly as effective as one with a Democratic-dominated Congress. If Democrats want to prove to the people of the U.S. that they have better ideas, it's important that Democratic ideas not get modified or amended or outright voted down in Congress. The system of checks and balances has been virtually nullified for the past three years and it's time to not just put it back in place but to totally undo the damage that's been done by this administration. A Republican Congress is not going to let that happen.

Finally, we have to take all our Congressional representatives to task for their votes. Opposition to the $87 billion was strong among the people, yet Congress refused to pay attention to the people. Cities and towns are declaring themselves Patriot Act Free Zones, yet Congress refuses to pay attention to them. Thousands of people are marching in the streets, sending letters, faxes, and e-mails to their representatives, and writing letters to the editor or calling in on talk radio programs opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq yet few members of Congress have so much as said that they've heard us. It's as if the people don't exist! If my representative thinks I'm wrong, let him explain why and then tell me what he thinks is better. That I could respect. Being ignored is what I don't appreciate. Being ignored is what starts sometimes violent and destructive kinds of revolutions.

Millions marched in protest against the colonial occupation of Iraq. As the opposition party, the Democrats should have been not just participating in anti-Republican marches but organizing them. This is how politics works in situations where the democratic process is not effective. These are the tactics that the Democratic party must use because it has no other options left given that the reThugs control all three branches of government.

Want to make a point when you can't win a legislative vote? Put a million people in the streets.

are people in leadership positions willing to become squeeky wheels. Turn the speeches in front of empty chairs and C-Span cameras into press conferences on the capitol steps. They need to appear at anti-war protests for people to start paying attention. Hold town meetings in their districts and blast the administration's policies, expose them. Have a group of party leaders tour the states for a "discussion" with America. The way I see it , the dems have people in office that aren't outraged. They have some that even agree with neocon world view. It will take more than Byrd and Kennedy talking in empty senate chambers.

...or they become easy targets for the well-paid talking heads on the Right.

- As stated above....Republicans are able to frame the debate on so many issues because they speak as one voice. For instance... didn't see ANY dissent within the party when they were pushing for the ban on late term abortions.

- And indeed...the lack of 'outrage' coming from the party gives the impression that George* is doing a good job.

leadership that is silent or only allows a few to make speeches in empty halls as its only form of protest is complicit in the loss of power to the republicans. They are complicit in our loss of our democracy. The leadership has to be warned by the voters who vote democratic that we will seek their removal, whether they are elected officials or are part of the DNC.

Rockefeller is more inclined to be bipartisan, the party leadership is pressuring the dems on the committee to act independently.

Daschle is the one behind the hearing the dems held with the three ex-CIA officers regarding the Plame affair.

Your failure to mention all these things is not consistent with your professed interest.

And who cares? Sorry state, two years after he got ANTHRAXED and went puppy dog on the USA PATRIOT Act, Daschle (according to you, but I'd like to see you substantiate it) finally pressures Rockefeller to attack the neocons on the most blatant and obvious and public set of lies in world history - I mean, at this point, every country in the world that isn't being bombed personally is LAUGHING at how criminal and incompetent the Cheney gang's routine to justify the Iraq invasion was, from the first moment... and I'm supposed to be impressed?

The Demo leadership saluted IWR and Homeland SD and PATRIOT. They didn't even SHOW UP to vote on the $87 billion! They have let the worst, most fascist regime in U.S. history run rampant for three years. They have a long way to go to make up for this - a lot further than Daschle "pressuring" the "bipartisan" Rockefeller, even if true.

and therefore impossible to satisfy.

The leaked intelligence committee memo should presumably be evidence of the dems doing what you are asking for, but you don't mention it.

Same with the subpoenas to the FAA and the Pentagon.

If a dem read your message, they would see right through it, it's not honest criticism, it's just bashing.

...are difficult to satisfy. But you say they're 'impossible' only because you don't agree that Democrats are withholding the truth about what they know is happening within our government. They know the Bushies are complicit or trying to cover up evidence related to 9-11. They know that the invasion and occupation. of Iraq was illegal and immoral. They know that bombing civilian targets in Iraq is a war crime. They know the Bushies lied about the reasons to invade Iraq.

- But frankly...I'm sick and tired of excusing liars and the enablers of liars just for the sake of 'winning'. We're no better than those who commit crimes against the United States when we help them cover-up.

- Your blind faith and enabling of Democratic complicity is not in any way commendable. You know damn well the Democratic party has not made ANY effort to expose the worse crimes and malfeasance of the Bush* government. Any attempt they've made is for SHOW only...demonstrated by the fact that they haven't followed up with any real attempt to bring the Bushies to justice.

- The 'memo' means nothing unless it's followed by action. Indeed....it's you trying to hide certain things....like the Democrats announcing that they had no plans to pursue or investigate the many lies Bush* told to push this nation into war. Neither will you mention that the Dems have dropped the ball on so many issues...from Enron to 9-11.

- The truth means something. The Democrats have a duty and responsibility...as the other half of the two party system of government...to enforce the laws and prosecute criminal acts. Clinton was impeached for an affair in the White House. Bush* has committed much worse crimes and the Democrats are afraid to say so in a public forum. If they lose the 2004 election it will be because many on the left will refuse to vote for cowards and enablers of criminals.

not talking about bushcos criminal behavior from enron to 9-11 to imminent threat etc. is depriving us of valuable weapons.
it's frustrating to me, for example, when the status quo is talking about getting tough on wall street -- it's people from wall street making the new ''tough rules''.
like they don't go home to their friends and neighbors and explain carefully about how to get around these new ''tough rules''.
what else are they going to talk about? origami?

Classic Q.

if by classic you mean interchangable with any post Q has ever written.

This post could literally have been written at any time over the past two years, since there is, as usual, no reference to any current event.

I see this as a hallmark of propaganda. The message stays the same, regardless of the reality. There is absolutely nothing the dems could do that would cause Q to stop posting this exact same message, since it's not clear exactly what Q wants.

I've asked several times on this thread, exactly what Q wants and have been ignored.

...is that you spend more time questioning my motives than addressing the issues.

- And incidentally...you should look up the definition of 'progaganda'. Your diatribe suggests something sinister...like wanting the whole truth is somehow un-Democratic.

- I count you among those who trash the other side for being dishonest...but rarely demands the same kind of honesty from their own party.

- You'll find many that agree with my arguments about the weakness and outright enabling of the Democratic party. I've given credit where credit is due. I'm proud of Democrats like Byrd and Kennedy...not simply because they're Democrats...but because they're not afraid to TELL THE TRUTH.

But that won't get him to the W.H.

But here is the problem - the Democrats who claim they were either "misled" or stand by their decision (to defend their own egos), are now unable to join forces to present a unified front against Bush.

with the exception of Lieberman who makes no aplogies and is unpopular among Democrats, they are weak men.

Weak men.

The response has to be getting our former allies that the idiot son Bushie alienated back on board, give Iraq to the U.N. get our soldiers out except for whats needed as support and internationalize the rebuilding of Iraq. That would shut the Republicans mouths except for the rabid right wingers who aren't going to be swayed anyway and would get the outspoken support of our allies. Do you seriously think they want the idiot from texas for another 4 years?
Democrats have an alternative!!

to the white house?
i think i smell a fish.

Just to clear out the stink here lets define the parameters.

When the reality doesn't change, the subject doesn't either.

when they control the apparatus of government. The loss of the check and balance the press used to be is another hurdle. The press will dismiss it as a partisan witchhunt and still give us court trials and celebrities. The truth will not reach the population.

...are you saying they would ALL be ignored if they organized and demanded Bush* be held responsible for his words and actions?

- That's a defeatist attitude and let's the Bushies AND the Democrats off the hook.

- Democrats have a duty to their country, the people and their party. Saying otherwise is to admit we've given up and accept the idea of a one-party state where corruption is acceptable as long as no one talks about it.

- Everything the Republicans do could be described as 'partisan'. Who gives a shit if THEY think that demanding accountablity is partisan? What else would you expect them to say when they're trying to hide so many things from the American people?

I was giving a synopsis of the difficulty. My other post was that our leaders must become "squeeky wheels". That means never being silent about this. Always be noisey until it finally starts to stick. It seems there are many democrats not willing to be a squeeky wheel. Silence is defeat. Go directly to the people when the press fails to do its job.

...has to be 'greased' by the party. No one else is going to do it. Not the media...and certainly not the Bushies.

- I just don't understand the reluctant of the Democratic party to get in the 'game'. To do what they were hired to do: represent the best interests of the people. It's NOT in their best interests to have a dictatorial executive branch that uses executive orders like royal decrees.

- It's one thing to 'support' the Democratic party. It's quite another to become part of the problem by not saying anything when they've obviously lost their way.

our system was not designed to be a party system. It was predicated on citizen government. Therefore, the problems we are seeing today is the result of the two party system. Under a two party system, we've always been one party away from tyranny and/or abuse of power. It no longer is government "government by the people, for the people".

but the other posters here are critisizing q and people who think like q because they think questioning the dem party and it's behavior is a waste of time.
they don't buy the argument that dems are in fact status quo and part of the problem.
more or less, i see q's point. dems are status quo and therefore part of the problem -- it's hard to get them to be as harsh as they need to be on bushco because of some of their own complicit behavior{think old arguments on gatt and nafta, or clinton moderate, liberal or whatever}.
but the dems are still left with the problem that they ''seem'' to be losing some significant ground. i.e. schwarzeneger, and the two recent governorships.
it doesn't seem unreasonable to to me to think that something is wrong here. and then to hammer that out.
but if the dem party is a religion to you{not you specifically} then it's hard to get perspective.

...that Bush* needs to be 'brought to justice'?

- Some Dem posters on DU seem afraid of even broaching the subject. They respond with things like...'well...the Dems ARE opposing Bush*. Bullpuckey. Three years later Bush* is stronger than ever...despite pulling stunts that would mean impeachment for any other 'president'.

- It seems that 'conservative' Democrats and others are actually afraid to confront the Bushies in a direct fashion. It's as if they want to seem 'polite' about it.

- That is...we don't have to guess what the Founders intended for this country. They left behind the Federalist papers and thousands of pages of letters and diaries. They explained the concept of public schools, 'bearing arms', militias, separation of church and state, free speech, right to assemble, etc. What they didn't put in the Constitution they wrote in their letters.

- Yet...we have the Neocons and RWingers using some sort of strange revisionism to reinvent the Constitution until it fits their ideologies.

- But you're right...'our' government no longer works for us...we work for the government.

On the scale you talk about, I think it is impossible. We'd need to overhaul the way our government does business to get those kinds of results. Think Reagan. Think Nixon. Think of all their cronies that are right back in positions of power. They will probably dump it all on Bush and ride out of the wave into the next Republican administration, if it even gets that far.

You're asking the impossible--you're asking for a group of people that benefit enormously from the system (any congressperson) to change it so they too may one day exposed for their incompetence/corruption. It's probably not going to happen.

- Nothing is 'impossible'. Well...perhaps immortality.

- But you just described a group of people that 'benefit from the system'. You're talking about organized corruption....a government mafia. They can't ALL be in the mafia...can they?

Seriously, I'm always just discouraged when I read the threads. It's really weird, because I'm in Ohio (A VERY important swing state). I'm in a swing county. I'm in a county that just gave Democrats 65% of the overall county vote. In other words, we just swung a major swing county (population over 700K) to the Democratic side.

We have been screaming about the Repugs in Columbus. We have been screaming about Bush. We have basically followed everything the national party was doing for the last 6 months.

We won. BIG. Dozens of INCUMBENT Repugs went down. The rest of Ohio also swung Dem. Pennsylvania voted VERY Dem. Michigan voted Dem. Illinois voted very Dem. New Jersey voted very Dem. West Virginia voted very Dem. Virginia voted Dem.

But I get all of this negativity, over some washed up Georgia Senator and VERY red states like Kentucky and Mississippi.

Why Q? Why? Is it possible for you to stop EATING UP MEDIA SPIN, and start looking at the positives?

q is just mapping the neighborhood -- it's 2:00 am and it's smart to know whats going on around you.
q's not nearly as tough on the dems as some folk here are.
and it's never good to be complacent -- right wingers never let down their guard and regularly whip into shape people who might flag in their interest.
i'm willing to learn in order to win and change things.

...but that doesn't mean you have to curl up in a fetal position and die. If you think America (the way it was) is worth fighting for...then you must begin to make ALL politicians accountable for what they do in OUR name.

- I beg to differ: it's YOU eating up the media spin...I'm trying to warn against it. The media is giving Democrats false hope...knowing that they'll do everything to back Bush* in 2004 while they discredit Democrats.

- Jesus...is the whole Democratic party suffering from retrograde amnesia? We can't seem to remember back to 2000...when the media and the supreme Court installed a dolt as figurehead president*. This wasn't just some meaningless event that happened three years ago...it literally changed the face of politics in America. And here we have so many Democrats seemingly 'trusting' the Bushies NOT to cheat again.

- Democrats have no reason to trust the system or the Bushies. But instead of making sure they don't SCREW us again in 2004...we're playing politics as usual: fighing over which candidate will best fit into the RWing torture chamber.

- As sure as the sun will rise this morning...the Bushies plan to stay in office by any means necessary. Knowing this...we should be making preparations...including doing our duty to country by bringing the most corrupt administration in history to justice.

- I believe in doing more than just 'hoping' that things will change.

- To show you what a 'fun' kind of guy I can be...I spent most of the night studying the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. Interesting stuff. I was astounded to read charges against the Nazis that are weirdly similar to what the Bushies are doing today.

- I strongly suggest that DUers brush up on history. A good place to do it: The Avalon Project at Yale Law School:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm

You come on here and complain that the Democratic Party is not doing enought to reveal the crimes of the BFEE, and then you spend the night reading about the Nuremburg Trials.

I, on the other hand, come here and try to point out that it is also our responsibility to spread the word of the Democratic agenda.

THEN, I spent the rest of the evening e-mailing my reps and the WH on the subject of the SC drug raid that blatenly disregarded the Constitution.

Therein lies the difference. I feel it is my duty as a Democrat to speak out as loudly as possible to the people who can effect change.
You would rather come here and post some long and lame diatribe about how disillusioned you are with the Democratic party.

Get off you ass and do something besides complain. Send e-mails, talk to your neighbors, print and post flyers in your community, hell, do ANYTHING YOU CAN to try to help effect change.
You may be surprised how many people there are that feel the same way we do, but are afraid to voice it because they don't want to be portrayed as "Unpatriotic"

Did you even vote on the 4th?

...is that the Democratic message isn't getting out there. Yes...it's great that your dog, cat and neighbor now know everything about the party...but we're being smashed on the national level.

- Yes...there is a difference: your 'duty' seems different than mine. I tend to think of myself as an AMERICAN before a Democrat. You tend to think in terms of party politics and I in terms of the common good.

- Your last few sentences expose the shallowness of your argument. You end by suggesting that perhaps I'm not 'involved' enough and simply 'complain' instead of doing 'something'. I've been involved in Democratic politics for over 30 years...but I've never been a blind supporter of any political party. And just so you can read my threads without getting hives...I've always voted Democratic.

- You suggest that 'many' don't speak out because they're afraid to be called 'unpatriotic'. That's silly...and allows fear to control your life. It's like giving up your lunch money to the schoolyard bully instead of standing up for yourself.

- It's nice that you're emailing and doing your 'duty' as a Democrat. But what about your 'duty' to your country? It really bothers me that some think that being a Democrat is more important than being an American. Perhaps that's why you don't feel a duty to make your own party accountable?

- One more thing: you're busy trying to work WITHIN a system that's broken and disabled. I'm trying to fix the system so Democrats have an even playing field.

As should you.

This statement, - You suggest that 'many' don't speak out because they're afraid to be called 'unpatriotic'. That's silly...and allows fear to control your life. It's like giving up your lunch money to the schoolyard bully instead of standing up for yourself.
whether you know it or not is extremely insensitive.

There are many people in this world who DID give up their lunch money to the local bully. Strength is not something everyone is blessed with. Those that are not as strong as some of us, need us to stand up and show some compassion for them. Not degrade them for their lack of strength as you did in that statement.

It's called being "all inclusive". We include EVERYONE who has a desire to be included. That is why I am a Democrat. I don't like leaving people out. I like being surrounded by like minded people, and if some of them have ideas that they are afraid to publicly express, I am more than happy to act as their mouthpiece.

Don't you get it Q? This administration is the worst thing I've seen happen to my country in my 47 years of life. My main focus is to get rid of this cabal by whatever means necessary under the law. If that means I look a blind partisan for the time being, then so be it.

I prefer to be the squeaky wheel, you prefer to write useless articles criticizing our reps, that, by the way, the Democrats in their states, elected.

I'm finished with this debate.
Thanks

...that put Bush* in office. How quickly we forget history.

- Democrats could have used our legal/justice system to keep Bush* out of office in the first place. At the very least they could have stood up with the Black Caucus and defended their civil rights in Florida and other places. Failing that...they could have prevented him from becoming the 'most popular president in wartime history' by demanding that the whole truth about 9-11 be told to the American people.

- I'm not talking about 'strength'. Remember that little lady who refused to be bullied to the back of the bus because of the color of her skin?

- I'm not degrading them for their 'lack of strength'...I'm calling them on their lack of resolve, courage and patriotism. After all...'evil' prospers when good men/women do nothing.

- You're dreaming if you think the party is still has a desire to include 'everyone'. Saying they're 'included' means nothing if you're not prepared to help or stand up for them. Democrats SAY Blacks are 'included'..but time and again have failed to stand up for their rights as citizens. Florida is a great example: Blacks turned out in record numbers to vote for Gore...but many of their votes were thrown in the trash. What was the Democratic response: get over it. We can't just say we have a big tent and do things like this.

- If your 'main focus' is to get rid of the Bushies...you're sure going about it in the wrong way. How many times do you have to be slapped in the face before you realize someone is slapping you? The Bushies are gleefully slapping the shit out of us and our Constitution. And your response is to run a candidate against them in a rigged election?

And your response is to run a candidate against them in a rigged election?

Once again I ask, What do you want, exactly

I am astonished that you keep complaining and criticizing, yet you offer NO solutions. You don't even talk about what actions you would like to see your reps take.

Quit bitching and say something.

- I guess I made a mistake in persuing this conversation. You seem to have no idea what's going on. But you're not alone. Most of the Democratic party has their eyes and ears covered so they won't have to do something, anything to stop the Bushies.

- I've offered a 'solution'...but you're too afraid to consider it. Suffice it to say that the Bushies have no intention of leaving the WH...even if they lose the 2004 election. Don't believe me? Let's pick up on this conversation again when Bush* serves his second term.

- What you fail to grasp is that we can no longer play 'politics as usual'. These are dangerous times and we CAN'T depend on the same Democratic institutions to guarantee free and fair elections...or even a 'free press'. Those things are gone and we have to find a new strategy to fight a new type of politician willing to win by any means.

- If I sound 'harsh' at your obtuseness it's because I'm amazed that you and most of the Democratic party just doesn't seem to 'get' the seriousness of the situation. You say that we MUST get rid of Bush*...but then offer no solutions beyond voting to accomplish that goal. But...what if Bush* once again pulls off a dubious 'win'? Will you say we'll just have to try harder next time? Blame Nader?

- Haven't you felt a twinge in your gut knowing that the Bushies have gotten away with so many things? They're not even going to be held responsible for their lies that pushed this nation to war OR outting a CIA agent. This is f**king treason and high crimes. Yet our response to this is simply running a candidate against this criminal in 2004? You can bet the farm that a Democratic president would have been impeached by this time if the roles were reversed.

- I'm 'astonished' that you're NOT complaining.

ob·tuse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-ts, -tys, b-)
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est

Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.


obtuseness

\Ob*tuse"ness\, n. State or quality of being obtuse.

A personal attack is still a personal attack even if you try to be intellectual about it. It only serves to try to intimidate your opponent. Thus it is a typical ploy used when an intelligent answer is not forthcoming to the attacker. A tactic used quite frequently by the right wing when they are faced with facts that refute their position.

Don't do it again Q

If you would actually state what it is you want to happen, you might actually get results. But you are still only complaining.

...it's an observation. If I wanted to 'attack' you I wouldn't use a sissy word like obtuse. (BTW...I find it funny that you had to look up the word so you could accuse me of attacking you. Thanks for the early morning chuckle).

- But the question remains: why are you being so obtuse?

- Let's take up this conversation again after the 2004 election.

but you are wrong.

I would prefer to end this conversation while we still maintain some civility.

...

- Don't you find it strange that the RWingers are now accusing Democrats of 'treason' over the leaked 'Dem memo'? You may laugh at this...but this is exactly how they get the upper hand and frame the debate. Right now the discussion is about the 'memo'...and all has been forgotten about the real treason of outting a CIA operative.

- This is how they've been kicking our asses for over a decade. Aren't you getting a bit tired of this? We have valid reasons to prosecute REAL crimes...some of them ongoing...and we're sitting back and allowing them to call us treasonous.

- This will continue until the PARTY gets pissed enough to fight back...and tell the 'schoolyard bully' we're not going to take it any more.

an episode Q will want to studiously ignore, like so many other events in the real world.


Reality: it's the republicans, specifically Bush, that are responsible for these things.

Myth: the dems are as guilty as the republicans.

The intention is that the public outrage is muted due to the ridiculous perception that the dems are no better.

It worked the same way with the corporate scandals. The overwhelming majority of the corporate money went to the republicans, but some dems weren't "pure" so that was siezed upon to make it look like they were equally guilty.

...for these things. I've never stated otherwise. But who is responsible if they're not prosecuted or held accountable? Certainly you're not suggesting we should let them investigate and punish themselves? By the way...how is Ashcroft's 'investigation' going into the outting of the CIA agent?

- And speaking of corporate scandals...how is Lieberman's investigation into Enron going? Haven't heard anything about that for a while.

- If you saw your neighbor murder someone...would you turn them in...or just close your blinds and turn up the music? You see...that's the problem here. It's not that Democrats are 'just like' Republicans. It's that they've seen them commit crimes but fail to do their duty and turn them in.

- Incidentally...Levin is doing a great job. But the rest of the party is mostly ignoring his work. He can't do anything alone. (I missed Levin this time because I refuse to watch their phony news channel. It will rot your brain and make you sterile).

You give credit to Levin, etc. only when forced to.

And often you spin any dems' actions by saying "yeah, but where's the leadership."

If you were as concerned as you say, you would be emphasizing these things the dems are doing. Instead, you are doing the opposite. You are minimizing them.

Your posts are very long, and they have very few links or references to actual events that are happening now. The fact that in recent days the dems are taking extraordinary actions, I find it disturbing that none of these things make their way into your very long posts.

...for 'forcing' me to say things. But I've been at DU a 'long time' and anyone who knows my threads will tell you I've posted dozens of anti-Bush*/neocon threads. I've given credit to many Democrats in the past. Guess you were washing your hair and missed them.

- I'm not 'spinning anything'. I'm saying that the Bushies are committing crimes and we can't allow them to investigation and prosecute themselves. It's up to the Democrats to do it. There's no one else with that capability.

- What would happen if...like you...all of us did nothing but praise the party and remained silent when they made mistakes or errors in judgment? Wouldn't that make us just like the march-in-lockstep RWingers?

- Well...my apologies if you think my posts are long. Sometimes I get carried away and write novellas instead of short, succinct sentences. I don't feel the need to provide links with my opinions. I take it for granted that most on DU are informed enough to understand the context and background.

- If you're 'disturbed' that I'm not referrencing enough 'current events'...you're free to start a thread of your own. That's the great thing about DU.

they read like disclaimers to me, like something stuck in there in case people are wondering why someone who HATES the dems so much is posting at DU.

...I guess it's true that you can't please all the people all the time.

- Here's the crux of the matter: We're three years into the Bush* regime and little has been done to wear down the many coats of teflon that seem to protect him from political harm.

- I'm continually surprised that after three years of Bush...more Democrats aren't yelling at their leadership to DO SOMETHING to lessen his chances for pulling off a 'win' in 2004. Half the population thinks he's Reagan II and they'll vote for him even if he sprouts horns and breaths fire. To them...he's the next Gipper...there to save them from pot smoking, Godless hippies and taxes.

- I've vote Democratic in 2004. If Bush* stays in office...you and most of the Democratic party will owe me an apology.

http://www.democrats.org/blog/

Proudly advertising David Corn's "The lies of president Bush" and Al Franken's "Lies and the lying liars who tell them."

I'm with Al Franken, who has a guest entry there. He knows everything you are saying, and much more, and he's focusing on the real problem.

The real problem is the republicans, not the democrats, despite all your propaganda efforts to blend them into "they're all the same."


edit: one huge plus for the DNC blog is that it is perfectly integrated with the positive alternative that the Dems offer, which is essential for winning 2004. For people who are already sold, the red meat is what we want, but for a lot of people the positive vision is crucial.

- What's next? Will you call me a 'commie'?

- It's easy to accuse someone of spreading misinformation. Now...be a good DUer and point out an example. One will do nicely.

- And let's be honest here...your last sentence is a great example of 'misinformation' when you claim that I've stated that 'they're all the same'. You're getting a bit carried away with your blind defense.

I've been saying that for months, back to when you kept declaring the WMD story was dead, just when it was breaking big.

I use the words misinformation and propaganda sparingly because I don't think namecalling is effective. It makes it to easy for the discussion to get bogged down in semantics.

- You shouldn't use the word 'misinformation' unless you're prepared to back it up with at least some kind of evidence. Otherwise it's akin to smearing someone's character.

- An issue isn't kept 'alive' with only a few Democrats discussing it on the house floor or on faux news. The party should shout it from the rooftops and keep the issue alive in the media.

- And simply TALKING about it isn't going to hurt the Bushies...considering that they're in control of the very content of what passes for news these days.

- Bush* must be prosecuted. The evidence is there for the whole world to see.

and finish the accusation?

It's so simple: the Democratic Party (www.democrats.org) is perfect (www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/perfect), and any critique (dict.die.net/critique/) necessitates inferring a hostile motive.

Perfection needs no fixing, because it's perfect!

:eyes:

- And being perfectly said...I have nothing to add.

Q's critiques are hostile, but some others' are not.

An example is my own critique that the dems aren't as vocal as I'd like them to be on the mutual fund scandal, and that I think that it could be that they take too much money from the financial industry.

I sent this critique to the DNC. I didn't see any reason for posting it here. In fact, I think it's possible the critique is off-base, so it would be counterproductive to post it here. It could be spreading misinformation.

I think the difference between me and Q is that to me, to spread misinformation about the dems is against what I'm here to do, whereas with Q it's the reason he's here.

- If you have a moment...perhaps you could provide an example of this misinformation?

- And you didn't answer my question: if you witnessed a serious crime...would you close your eyes or turn them in? Would you allow that hypothetical murderer to go free because you didn't want to get involved?

- Okay...I have things to do this morning. If you're not going to debate...but simply accuse me of things you can't prove...I'll go take my dogs for a walk.

- It's a serious thing to accuse someone of 'spreading misinformation'. It's a PC way of accusing someone of lying. Get on with it and defend your position.

magic? incantations spoken by jerry falwell at republican covens?
surely dems have to take some kind of tactical responsibility for their current position?
how many times does the dnc need to be told that support for gatt and nafta are hurting the party before they believe? just for example.
how many times do african americans have to warn dems stop taking their votes for granted? and please try to remember the shameful behavior of white dems in the house and senate when the votes on the election were being counted there. not one senator would stand shouder to shoulder with the black congressional congress in protest over the vote in florida. talk about GROSS self interested behavior.
the dem party is a political organization -- not a religion -- it won't disintegrate from questioning some of their tactical moves.

...I'll agree with you that it's 'proper' to question tactics. Some tactics are just plain stupid and harmful to the party.

- The Black caucus had a valid complaint about their civil rights being violated in the 2000 fiasco. Their votes were ILLEGALLY removed and thrown away. Now THIS is an issue worthy of fighting over. So then...what stopped the Dems from taking up the cause and fighting for civil rights? We've never been given an explanation.

- The Democrats didn't steal or throw away those votes. Yeah...we can blame the Bushies and their operatives for that. But the impression that was left was that Democrats didn't fight because it wasn't an important issue. But what is more important than civil rights in a Democracy?

- Granted...we need to choose our battles wisely...but THAT was a battle that needed to be fought.

talking about Dean and gun control, he mentioned how democrats paid the political price for voting for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban.

That's why it's called courage, it's because it comes with a price. It can cause them to lose.

It makes no sense to demand dems "have a spine" and then use their defeats as proof they suck.

- The Democratic party is in the worse shape it's been for...well...over 200 years....and the prospects look bleak. The party isn't losing ground because someone doesn't like their position on guns or abortion. They're losing because most Americans don't understand what Democrats are all about. The Party has allowed the other side to define them...lie about them.

- Dems are the minority party because they won't fight back. It's not so much about being right or wrong...but STANDING UP and DEFENDING what they say they believe.

...for the Brady Bill and the ASSAULT weapons ban. They did however pay a price for backtracking and acting like they didn't believe in what they did. The Dem base agrees with gun control. The only ones that disagree with it wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

- What happened is that the RWing has been allowed to frame the debate on guns. Just as they've framed the debate on so many other issues...from abortion to national security to the environment.

- Part of the problem is that the left doesn't have a team of well-paid propagandists they can send out to clearly define the Democratic position. Those Dems that DO show up to debate are usually either closet Republicans or quickly concede ground to the screaming, intolerant RWingers.

- Another problem is that the Democratic party is perceived as 'wishy-washy' on so many issues. For instance...they SAY they believe in a woman's right of 'choice'...but then succumb to political pressure from the right and vote to ban 'certain types' of abortion. This makes them look like they really don't believe in what they say on the campaign trail.

- Yes...courage comes with a price. But that price doesn't always mean defeat. I reject the idea that Dems are losing because they've shown too much courage...but just the opposite.

Or at least for the initial thoughtful post. Too many times in the past eighty years, Democrats have sought to "go along to get along." From the coup attempt against FDR to Gore's handling of election 2000, the attacks by the right wing on the Constitution and on the American people have been put aside with little remonstrance.

So many times, Democrats have set aside any response to crimes of conservative ideologues "for the good of the country." But it looks increasingly clear that this policy of appeasement only fuels further perfidy. THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THEY ARE MADE TO FEEL SOME PAIN.

If a Democrat wins the White House in 2004 (and I think it's probable) the right wingers will not be stopped from their wicked ways. Just as Bill Clinton was assaulted from DAY ONE of his presidency, a new Dem president will be subjected to vicious assault.

No more appeasement. If this is a bloodless civil war (as some say) then let it be acknowledged and engaged. Let the representatives of the people use the law and the provisions of the Constitution to duel, and where the law and the Constitution are exceeded, implement the Constitutional remedy with full force.

come on, pals. This is a great topic.

...it's not 'good for the country' to allow an election to be stolen...or even appear to be stolen. Although few talk about it...many on the left still resent the Dem party for their lack of fight in THAT battle.

- It's almost as if Democrats are afraid to talk about it...admit that we had an election stolen from us like candy from a baby. Rather than admit it...many Dems are still in deep denial...blaming everything from third party candidates to Gore for what the Bushies did to us.

- All the moderates were kicked out of the GOP in the 80s and 90s...and the party was taken over by extremists and zealots like Gingrich and Lott. Perhaps the Dem party has never learned how to deal with such political extremism in America...but they better learn real fast.

and this is what i mean when i talk about checking out our surroundings. street smarts.
example one: killing abortion doctors
example two: timothy mcveigh and right wing radio hate messages.
example three: republican congress people rushing to the defence of racist freaks like that weaver character in idaho who was blatantly caught in the act of gun running.
example four: the damn near character rape of janet reno and the koresh compound in waco.
example five: iran-contra and the butchering of priests and nuns in el savador.
add your own to the list -- but the republicans mean business -- and liberals of all stripes need to take stock of the neighborhood they live in.

...just as they do with their other special interests...without regard to the Constitution or the common good. The GOP really doesn't care about the abortion issue...after all, they kill childen and babies in the womb with their bombs all the time. Their push for abortion legislation is a way of 'buying' votes and keeping a loyal voting base.

- The point is that the New Republican party could give a shit about the Constitution and representative government. They have no interest in bipartisanship unless they can use it to their advantage. They give lip service to the idea of Democracy while using the executive order like a royal decree. They start wars and invade countries simply because they can.

- I joined the Democratic party because in the 60s and 70s the party had guts. But they lost those 'guts' in the 80s and have been slipping and sliding ever since. They tried to bring the Reagan Republicans to justice over the Iran/Contra scandal...but the GOP already had judges in just the right places, political smear machines and a compliant media already in place.

- Democrats simply can't afford to play by the old rules....when both sides actually worked together for the good of the people.

...along with a staff of former and current felons who have worked to circumvent the Constitution and the will of the people.

- It's bad enough that loyal Republicans refuse to see what's right in front of their faces. Like with Reagan...they really don't care what the Bushies do as long as they're in POWER and keep the Democratic party on the defensive and in the minority.

- But I really don't understand what has happened to my beloved Democratic party. Every single one of us knows that the Bushies have consolidated power into a totalitarian state and have intimidated Democrats into rubber stamping their agenda. We KNOW that preemptive, aggressive war is illegal and immoral. We KNOW that the Bushies are somehow complicit in 9-11 and are hiding evidence that would piont to their guilt. We KNOW they lied about the reasons to invade Iraq. We know all these things and still don't seem to be pissed enough to do something about it as a party.

- What will it take before the party finally understands that cooperating with fascists only weakens us while emboldening them to take more power? Will it take four more years of Bush* before they finally understand that America is no longer a Democratic Republic and that our government is horribly corrupt?

- Have we simply given up? Is it our fate to be slaves and serfs in the New Bush* Empire?

Published on Sunday, November 9, 2003 by the Independent / UK

'No President has Lied so Baldly and so Often and so Demonstrably'
by Andrew Gumbel

The intelligence process is a bit like virginity," says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. "Once you prostitute it, it's never the same. Your credibility never recovers.

"Watching what has happened with Iraq over the past several months has been like watching your daughter being raped."

Such is an indication of the extraordinary depth of feeling within the US intelligence community as the Bush administration's basis for the war in Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction, the dark hint of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida - has been shown to have been built on air. Mr McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era and preparing the President's daily security brief for Ronald Reagan. Now he is co-founder of a group of former CIA employees called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or Vips for short.

What the Bush White House has done, he believes, is far worse than the false premise that dragged the United States into the Vietnam War - a reported second attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin which later turned out not to have taken place. "The Gulf of Tonkin was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and Lyndon Johnson seized on that. That's very different from the very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that we've seen to justify a war. This is an order of magnitude different. It's so blatant."

Mr McGovern accuses Mr Bush of an extraordinary act of chutzpah - taking advantage of his authority as President of the United States to make people believe there must be something to his insistent allegations that Iraq possessed potentially devastating weaponry. - http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1109-02.htm