Swan Song for the Democrats

Swan Song for the Democrats

by Mike Whitney / May 28th, 2007

The Democrats did us all a favor by giving Bush his Iraq war-money. After all, the Dems have supported the war from the very beginning. They deserve to be exposed as the phonies they really are.

The truth is, no one is surprised by Friday’s vote. We have one party in America — “the War Party” — the Dems are just a junior partner in that system.

It boggles the mind that so many so-called “liberals” continue to be hoodwinked by the Democrats. After all, what do they have to offer: a slight boost in the hourly wage? Better management of foreign massacres?!?

What else?


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/swan-song-for-the-democrats/

I believe that recent history is what is hurting our cause and the dems. They see the folly of the clinton impeachement, they have gone through all these years being called cowards and unpatriotic everday for years and having their very citizenship questioned. they know the people want the war to end but, how much will they support them if things go badly. I think they are taking slow step.

What you are saying saying that since one person was framed for murder, no one should ever be tried for murder again.

The charges against Clinton were false, from start to finish. In the case of Bush, impeachment should be the first step to his being executed for outright treason. There is a difference, god dammit!

They can at least hold the impeachment hearings and determine if the law was broken and does it merit impeachment.

Recommended reading.

dp

I wouldn't use this last vote as the litmus test for the survival of the Democratic Party. Otherwise a lot of people here are wasting their time in their support of their favorite Democratic presidential candidate. I don't exactly why there was so much surprise over this last vote to defund the war because I do not remember reading that there was a clear majority that were willing to cut the funds before the vote.

to Washington to do.

What was the count before the vote? Who was noted for being solidly against funding the war? Who favored it? It's all about the numbers now based upon what is going on now. Was everybody assuming it would not pass solely based upon the election nearly 7 months ago? I guess they won't be assuming that when the vote comes up again in September and assume that it is a done deal when it is not, or was not.

the Dems who voted to fund the illegal occupation and thank them for their vote? bush probably did.

We knew it would pass. But we still don't know why so many Dems voted for it.

My two Dem Senators voted for it. One is a DINO and almost always votes with the GOP, especially on close roll call votes on important issues like the backruptcy bill, the telecommunications act, the IWR, for cloture on right wing Supreme court judges, for the medicade pharmacuetical industry welfare act. etc. I wasn't surprized by his vote because I've come to expect that we can't count on him to do the right thing.

Tester was another story, though. I was disappointed, shocked, and felt a deep sense of betrayal from his vote to buy the war and sell the farm.

When the vote comes up in September, of which year? How many more dead and wounded by then? Maybe we should measure it based on that. When 4500 US service personal are dead, and 50,000 have been wounded, then if they vote to continue to fund the carnage that will be it?

Too little too late. This is now a bipartisan war. Thanks, Dems, for nothing.

Impeach? Can't. It would detract from being about to fund the illegal and already lost occupation.

One thing the last vote should indicate clearly for those who didn't know it already. There will be no impeachment (but never say never). As for DINOs, you need to look at them philosophically: they still count for Democrats maintaining control of the House and Senate. You just need to know who they are. Perhaps they are from an otherwise red district or state and would not be in office if they were more liberal. Is a conservative Democrat closer to a Liberal Republican or a Liberal Democrat? If the political spectrum is a straight line, then they would be closer to a Liberal Republican. I would rather have them vote with the Democrats some, or a fair amount of the time rather than none at all which is what it would be if they were a flat out Republican. The trick is to know who they are and not to expect too much from them that Liberal Democrats would like.

So we can either go on from here or go out into the backyard and eat dirt, throwing dust and ashes our our heads and crying, "Woe is me". So let's suck it up and get on with it now that we know what it feels like to be a Cubs fan.

them, then they can't count on us.

It's a two way street, after all, not a bend-over-we're-driving street.

My DINO I would love to see get a primary challenge. I already called my freshman Senator and asked to be removed from the donar/voluteer list.

Why do the war buyers keep using game analogies? It's not what it feels like to be a Cubs fan, OK?
It's what it feels like to see your child ripped apart with an IED, burned and maimed. That's what it feels like.

Shit. Only in Empire America is the obscenity of war reduced to a fucking game...What the fuck is wrong with people?

I'll take a DINO you know is a DINO over a Republican any day because they count towards our majority. You have to be realistic about things and know as in all things you can't always get what you want. It can't be all or nothing because you will get nothing (a Republican) Most incumbents get reelected and there are some districts and states that will not elect other than a conservative Democrat, one which we Liberals like to call a DINO. That's how it works. Choose a more liberal candidate and you will get a Republican instead who will always vote like a Republican.

Sorry, I'm not a "war buyer", so save that cute nickname for somebody to whom it applies. I was talking about DINOs and our representatives in being like a Cubs fan--although they seem to disappoint, you keep the faith. Concerning the war funding, it ain't over till it's over. Stop the ranting and raving and let your representatives know how you feel, saving the "fucks" and all the vitriol if you want your messages to be read and treated seriously. The war was not funded again indefinitely and so there is another chance in September. So either curse, rant and rave or do something practical and intelligent that will do something.

in the Compromise of 1850, and then, especially in 1854. Even national churches were rent asunder over slavery, with Baptists, Methodist Episcopal and Presbyterians forming North and South wings. Effectively, the only large churces to remain intact were the Protestant Episcopal and Roman Catholic.

Then in 1860 there were three Democratic factions and they notably "bolted" the Convention in Charleston and now there were four parties: the new Republican, made up of many former Whigs, former Whigs who became National Democrats, Southern Democrats, and even an amalgam of former Whigs and Democrats who became Constitutional Unionists, as was Andrew Johnson, a former Democrat.

Let us recall that Churchill crossed the aisle from Tory to Liberal and then back to Tory again.

Perhaps we are merely seeing the third grand realignment of the Democratic Party in motion. Some political historians would argue that we are overdue for the realignment, and our recent inability to capture the national polls effectively save in the 06 Congressional races was evidence that a realignment was overdue.

Alas, for those who are political junkies, the old Chinese curse of "May you live in interesting times" is comes to fruition. And what a curse it is!