Why aren't our leaders calling for Bush's resignation??? People

are DYING due to his negligence! First he stoops work on the levees and now he can't handle the aftermath! And he REFUSED aid from Holland ,Russia and Venezuela! Are we still supposed to be polite? What are our people doing???????? If no one speaks out about this other than Clark, I will resign from the Party. This could result in civil war and total economic collapse and we are saying NOTHING?????????

There's no way he's going to get kicked out during this. We have to ride the wave of his incompetency

However she has acted frightened that Bush would deny ALL aid . That is no doubt true as NO didn't vote for him! And she is a DEM. She and Mary Landrieu are the reason the Mitigation fund was cut. It was during the election and the Bushies admitted they wanted to make them look bad! And the Repukes accuse us of politicizing things. They played politics with the lives of all these people. I hope they rot forever in hell!

You expect them to be working during out nation's worst natural disaster or something?

And it doesn't get better after that either.

I mean, I don't doubt it but this is the first i've heard of it. Please tell me where that came from

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x152131



Regretably, this is what I believe about most of our dem leaders. There are too many examples of rolling over and benign neglect of issues for me to believe that our dems in congress, as a group, are representing us. Nothing new for a lot of us I think, but well put in the linked article and worth a save.

In this important battle, it is good to understand who's team you're on.


Entire August 31 article at Counterpunch: http://counterpunch.org/walsh08312005.html

The Democrats and the War

By JOHN WALSH

Standard fare in the mainstream media as well as in both Left and Libertarian blogs, web sites and magazines, is that the Democrats are spineless. But this view simply does not fit the facts, and it is dangerous to boot, because it leads us to underestimate one of our most sinister and cynical pro-war adversaries, the Democratic Party establishment. For, if left to their own devices, the Dems will do what Kucinich warned of and substitute a Democratic for a Republican version of the war on Iraq.

snip

No, the idea of the spineless but virtuous Democrat does not hold up. The real reason has to be that the Dems do not give a damn about the electorate. The Dem establishment must in fact favor the war. And the reason is not hard to find. They play to the same real but hidden constituencies as the Republicans ­ the oil tycoons, AIPAC, the barons of the military industrial complex and those who make their fortunes from empire, ranging from the banks to Bechtel. This is their class and if one of the pols dares play traitor to his class, he or she will soon be an outcast. Ask Ted Kennedy. When Kennedy called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq last January, he was virtually denounced by the rest of the Dem leadership. And although the media is afflicted with many and mortal problems, do not tell me that the media makes it impossible for the Dems to take a strong anti-war position. When Kennedy did so, it was all over the media from the front pages of the dailies to the Sunday morning TV talk shows.


The Dems know full well there is an enormous anti-war constituency out there. If they used their considerable resources to organize it and give voice to it, then it would quickly prevail. A sorry example is Cindy Sheehan's effort. Not a single major Democrat has shown up at Camp Casey. They are blowing off Sheehan just like Bush

end excerpt