Why are the Democrats such chickenshit cowards?

We have damn near an Uber Majortity in the House and Senate and an overwhelming percentage of Americans voted for Change from the past 8 years of idiocracy in November.

So why then are the Dems so scared of the crazy, looney, fanatics on the fringe of the reichwing?

Our actions in DC remind me of a dog that's been beat for years and still flinches whenever we hear a car door close.

Are we EVER going to take charge of the debate in this country, or are we doomed to the same fate we suffered once Newt got his dirty little mitts into Bill and Monica back in the mid 90's?

it's a system that no longer represents the voters and the democrats are in as deep as the thugs

is NOT appoint chiefs of staff that have no interest in doing anything that will piss off said corporatist interests.

Or at least not listen to these morans when they advise corporate suckupism.

I wrote to President Obama the other day (ok, I write almost every day) and said I'd believe he was on the side of the working class the day I hear Rahm is resigning to spend more time with his family. With him in there we don't need to worry if corporate lobbyists have access to the President. Rahm is pleading their case just fine.

He picked 'em, so I guess they're who he *wants* to listen to.....

+1

influential and new people for a private dinner meeting,slip em a Rufie and take pictures of little boys and farm animals in compromising positions.. and they own them.

Who is holding up the process and who was PAID for by whom. The very least he could do, is tell them behind closed doors that their racket is over or they will be over.

Aside and put an end to their bullshit.

I agree with what you are saying, but I'm saying that President Obama CAN make those who are keeping real reform from happening to knock off their shit.

LBJ would have already had them in the White House threatening them that he would make it so they could not even be elected to a dog catcher in a small town, unless they sat down and shut up.

emotional energy.. sorry

i don't think he will ever have the guts to do what NEEDS TO BE DONE. it doesn't look good, they are not exposing the Reich Wing tactics of lies and deception.. not a chance in hell, ReThugs got him by the balls. i still watch once in a while to see if things are changing but they are not

all Democrats she might very well deck your ass.

And properly so.

are in the Senate, not on DU.

Boxer, for example, has the distinct advantage of being from a state with a considerable and workable percentage of moderate to progressive Democrats. Ben Nelson, repellent though his voting record may be, does not enjoy that advantage.

National Democrats, by writ of the Constitution, are bound by the Founders' vision of 2 Senators per state. I see no Democratic Senators from Idaho, for example, and those voters' Senators are on the same committees as Rhode Island's Senators and Massachusetts' Senators.

If you know of a plan to liberalize the U.S. Senate coast to coast, I am definitely interested in seeing it implemented immediately.

We've got Health care being decided by 6 senators from states whose populations don't make up a significant plurality of our population. It's deliberately set up to take power away from larger more populous states. It was not designed to give a shit about public will and it certainly isn't behaving as though public opinion means a damn thing to it.

to population and without regard to regional ideologies.

The senate? Not so much. It took a constitutional amendment to even allow people to VOTE for senators. It was not designed to be all that reflective of what the people want.

You don't like certain Senators? Neither do I.

Then you work to defeat them at the polls. You'll find that it is not easy to unseat sitting senators. Not even very easy to unseat Reps.

Incumbents have extensive advantages.

After period of service certain of them become committee chairs and extend their influence even further.

Lincoln reminded the citizenry that they have both a Constitutional and a revolutionary power to change government. He urged the former but found he was in a landscape of vitriolic disregard for the process.

It would be a shame, IMO, to move public discourse to any similar zone now.

amalgam of the public. I'm saying it is not. What the public wants has little if anything to do with what the Senate does as is evidenced by how this health care debate is going.

You're answering an argument I never made. I never said that it wasn't part of the division of power. I'm not saying that it's not part of the legislative branch. I'm saying that it does not represent the will of the people as much as you claim it is. And it wasn't really designed to that's why it was originally set up there wasn't even direct election of Senators.

Your ad hoc civics lesson is insulting. I actually know what part of the government the Senate is.

every 6 years.

Those are statewide ballots and anyone registered to vote may vote. This was not always the case. It is now.

Certainly there are Senators with greater influence than other Senators. But they are -- all 100 of them -- answerable to public confirmation by election, or if the voters decide to turn them out, they are nevertheless equally answerable to the public will.

It's a brute matter of arithmetic. The Senate candidate with the most votes in those public-access elections wins / retains the seat.

It is by no means a perfect institution but there are none, so that standard does not obtain.

Any number of Democrats also endorse Lieberman. Had I been a voter in Connecticut, I would have supported Ned, but as I don't even live in that state, I literally had no vote. I sent Ned a modest check. Republicans helped re-elect Lieberman, by the way, as he was defeated in the primary by Lamont.

It's all fine and well to screech from the margins that Democrats are "chicken shit," but it does seem to me that that broad brush debasing is not applicable in the examples of Mario Cuomo, Robert F. Kennedy, FDR, Bella Abzug, Barbara Jordan, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and on and on down an impressive list.

includes lots of dead folks. Jordan is a hero to me. She's been dead a long time. RFK was murdered when I was 8, and I am the same age as Obama.
Ironic, that's all.

all the time.

The models of public service was the point.

The post in question spoke in the present tense. Are chickenshit. Not were. The irony is that you could not snap a list of current, non dead, Democrats to use to prove your point. The irony is that to prove the point, you had to go grave digging.
Sure they were good public servants, but they are gone, past, and were such before many of our current voters were even born. Before they were born.
It is ironic, and sad as well. You proved the point that Democrats were not always chicken shit but you did not make any point relevant to this time. Ironic. And sad as hell.

What flavor you want? Boxer? Waters? Schweitzer? Dean? Sherrod Brown? Sheldon Whitehouse? Russ Feingold? Tammy Baldwin? Nadler?

Your requirement of a political organization would appear to suggest that Lincoln, revered now, was "Lincoln" prior to his election. That is not the case.

The past is prologue, as Joe Biden suggested in the 2008 vice presidential debate.

History matters.

The past is the past, the present is the present. No one can vote for Jordan anymore, she proves nothing about the current crop. Of course history matters, no one said it didn't. But the present matters far more. Your list is now much more useful, and I will add DeFazio, Watson, and others as well.
Much of what we are talking about is why the right controls the message. Quoting the past to explain the present while they scream 'socialist' is not really much to bring to the table.
Being in the now matters. 1991. That is when the world began for many of our voters. They don't have those memories to draw from. Those names mean little to them, and while it is important, this is not exactly the time to stop and teach them about Abzug, this is the time to have another Abzug for them to learn from.
You are spending much time pondering my personal outlook. Which is all conjecture for you, as we are strangers. You have no standing to speak of 'my requirements' at all, kid. This is about elected officials being craven, and many many of them are. But you got to the denigration and assumptions and taunting thing right away, as folks do when the position they stake out is so very incorrect that all they can do is lash out. Lollipops? WTF? History matters? Who said other wise? People die? You think that is news that needs to be told between peers discussing party leadership? Really think I don't know people die?
And sadly, not one of the people you mentioned, nor that I mentioned, is anywhere near being a Barbara Jordan. That is the point I'm making. Nothing else. No confections or requirements nor confusion about the human condition.
Democrats of today are far beneath the stature of such people, and co-option of great past leaders to mitigate the mediocrity of our current batch looks desperate to me, and more so to those younger than me. Once upon a time, we stood for something is not much of a place to start from.
I'm sure it works great with older people, it seems the Democratic electorate is very content and happy about everything, so no worries, right?

The folks braying like fools out in the fog are the weak ones.

You can make distinctions among available gestures of public service, including which of the public servants you feel are owed courtesy and respect.

I most definitely did not perceive that ability of distinction and good judgment in the OP.

you are a one trick pony. You listed a bunch of long dead, heroic Democrats to prove the current batch is not cowardly or complicit. I found that to be ironic, and very sad. I wish we had more like those from the past, I do not see these as being on the same level, just members of the same party, like Bush and Lincoln. In return, you delivered mockery and snark. If you had better to offer, you would have. None of that personal stuff was called for, nor was it helpful. Just rude for no reason. Rude in lieu of reason. Enjoy your day.

us are important.

Hence the historical references to accomplished Democratic leaders and representatives.

One summons the examples of one's blood ancestors, social ancestors, and political ancestors to glean from those models the workable translations of the future.

When Rosa Parks was alive she set into motion a dramatic and historic context in which human dignity was to be honored against its absence.

Such a model is no less (and maybe more) relevant in death in that it persuades later generations of its virtues.

One is called to the good model.

He had the audacity to say there wasn't much difference between the Parties. I guess we showed him....

Dems are more mellow in general since they are less crazy?
There are many reasons I suppose...

like the Republicans give theirs.

in office.


Support is a two way street.

if you are not willing to give the other

People voted for Democrats to try to fix things and we have them about to sell us out to corporations, yet again. So tell me, how exactly do you think this type of behavior over and over again is going to garner support from the people. And when we call to tell them what we want they dismiss us, act as though we don't know anything and get irritated by the nerve of the populace to dare voice what they want. But they'll bend over backwards to placate fucking Republicans who won't vote for anything they propose anyway.

And you expect us to just continue to support such behavior? I think not. Contrary to what you seem to be implying, the Democrats are not entitled to our support merely by being Democrats. They need to DO something for us too.

you want Democratic politicians with spines then you have to give them the needed support.

We've complaining of cowardice and your solution is to support them anyway. How long are we supposed to support spineless politicians before the hint is gotten that these politicians aren't going to do anything for us.

if politicians know they have no supporters they can count on.

But when the people say they want something and go so far as to call them to say that they want something (AKA showing support) and the politicians STILL don't bother then the people are right to withhold any further support.

What about that concept is too hard for you to comprehend?

ENTITLED to our vote and don't have to earn it. And you couldn't be more wrong.

You make excuses for the politicians not taking a stand for the people who voted for them against the people who bought them, a choice that has been made AFTER the people have already told them what they want and what they'll support. Then you claim that the reason we're sold out is because we don't support the politicians. It's specious bullshit and your refusal to hold these politicians feet to the fire is quite pathetic. Especially as you insist on blaming the voters and supporters in the first place. As long as people like you refuse to hold the politicians feet to the fire they will never do the right thing.

http://wwww.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/7/763441/-Rahm-attacks-progressives-as-F*CKing-STUPID

it's simply why the Democrats lack courage and boldness.

The ONLY difference between a Republican politician and a Democratic politician is that the Republican tell you flat out that intends to screw you, while the Democrat promises to buy you dinner first

There's ONE party in America: the corporate party. And they rule over us like the gullible sheep we are.

:eyes:

The Republicans know how to fight. The Democrats ALWAYS back down.

Fucking chickenshit spineless cowards.

while Glenn Beck works the private sector as a contracted employee.

Those are not the same things.

Some of Bush's people did far worse things. Bush gave them medals instead of throwing them under the bus.

I really do hope dems learn to lead. People like Harry Reid should not be senate majority leader. The guy took on the mafia in Nevada, and now he is afraid of a filibuster. Bush could get what he wanted done with 50 senators, and we can't get what we want done with 60 senators. It is pathetic. Reid might actually lose in 2010, which honestly wouldn't bother me much. Maybe it'd send a message to the other dems in the senate. Besides, the dems aren't really using the supermajority they have effectively.


I don't think 'all' democrats are cowards though. The congressional progressive caucus seems to be fighting back for health reform.

depends significantly on the caliber of public servant his boss is.

And as you point out accurately, George W. Bush was a ______________, which I'm leaving blank for any and all of us to fill in whatever negative noun we want. The first thing that came to mind was 'betrayor,' as in his betraying of the elemental part of public service, namely serving others, as in his abandonment of duty to the citizens of the Gulf Coast as Katrina approached and slammed into them.

And sadly, the list gets a lot longer.

republican fucking assholes on the other...

here i am, stuck in the middle with you.



:evilgrin:

... and very well too.

do their job this time. Their jobs will not be so secure if the party forgets about its progressive base

Michelle Bachman saying crazy shit every time she opens her mouth. Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist.

Apologies? None.

Resignations? Are you fucking kidding me?

Is there any Democrat in our leadership who either owns, or can rent, a pair of balls?

I'm sick to death of this shit.

The right has convinced us that we are gentile in all instances. We bouhgt it. WE chide each other if we get uppity. WE are fucking idiots. Passion, is the liberals weapons. But we have been disarmed.

I don't like you comparing Democrats to chicken shit. I have chickens in my back yard, and their shit does wonders for the garden -- far more than any Democrat has done for it.

other "chicken shit cowards" but that there is no prohibition on the site for calling Democrats generally "chicken shit cowards."

Just a point of consideration.

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," - Dennis Kucinich

on communism, soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on terror or weak on national defense and have thereby let 'pukes mostly set our national agenda. One only has to fast forward from WWII to the present to see the unmitigated disaster unleashed upon this Republic, its Constitution, and we the people by this 'puke-fest. :P

Only a some are cowards, some are plugging away for us, some are will O the wind, and others just weren't theocrats and couldn't go along with the Reich but are still conservative.

no matter HOW much it alienates and pisses off the folks who voted for them. Now, THAT takes real guts!

sw

Why are the Democrats such chickenshit cowards?

We tend to lose out on the ability to pucsh big/important policy because ee clearly lack the single minded fanatisms that clearly mark the other nut jobs. It's to our detriment that we don't focus all of our energies, all of our collective efforts to just one subject at hand....the destruction of the opposing party. It's what the Republicans have a a single minded goal. We are actually focused on outcomes and policy changes and the betterment of the nation as a whole.

they try way to hard to NOT act like those idiots, that they would rather look like cowards then bullies.

I say fuck that, they need to bulldoze the pukes into oblivion without mercy.