The "Do Nothing" Democrats? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 08-07-2007, 03:19 PM

Now that Congress is in recess until mid-September, I thought it is appropriate to review what the so called "do nothing Democrats" have done in 7 months...

...and that is enact more than 80 bills in one either one house or both, more than 25 of which Bush has threatened to veto, including:

New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act

Higher Education Access Act of 2007

College Cost Reduction Act of 2007

Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act

Child Labor Protection Act of 2007

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007

Improving Head Start Act of 2007

10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act

America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act

Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act

Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act of 2007

Accountability in Contracting Act

Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007

Healthy Communities Water Supply Act

The Bush administration offers a "Statement of Administration Policy" to explain why Bush opposes, at some level, all of the above.

Not a bad 7 months, IMO.

In spite of a low opinion of Congress in general, its no surprise to me that Americans believe Democrats do a better job of addressing most issues than Republicans (at least according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll):

http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 03:32 PM

I'd never call them the "Do Nothing" Democrats. They do a lot, Part of what they do, though is pander and not stick with their campaign promises. We all know that the Dems are the worse of two evils. I doubt that's an issue with any centerist or liberal, or even many Republicans now. The issue is how they will roll over and/or give up on such huge issues. That's the frustrating stuff, imho.

dc_dux · 08-07-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd never call them the "Do Nothing" Democrats. They do a lot, Part of what they do, though is pander and not stick with their campaign promises. We all know that the Dems are the worse of two evils. I doubt that's an issue with any centerist or liberal, or even many Republicans now. The issue is how they will roll over and/or give up on such huge issues. That's the frustrating stuff, imho.

I dont consider the Dems the lesser of two evils or the worst of two evils...IMO, they are best hope for America's future.....despite the fact that they disappoint me from time to time, particularly as they attempt to be conciliatory to Bush and the Republicans in Congress (only to be rebuffed and criticized for not giving more) in order to find common ground to move ahead in the best interest of the country.

FoolThemAll · 08-07-2007, 05:22 PM

I think willravel meant that Reps are the worse of two evils. That'd make more sense in the context, what with "even many Republicans now".

And hell, here's one Republican who, at least as far as the executive office is concerned, might just agree.

(But I can't wait for Granholm to go away.)

samcol · 08-07-2007, 05:35 PM

Sorry, but those bills are almost meaningless to me. The name of the bill often has little to do with what it actually does and sometimes actually does the opposite. Don't be so quick to give credit when it may not be due.

Think Patriot Act... very patriotic

, Military Commissions act... destroys habeas corpus etc. Don't think for a moment the Democrats are above using Orwellian tactics for bills.

Plus, when we really need them to get us out of Iraq, they are no where to be seen. And they are still bowing down to Bush's every want.

Sad really.

QuasiMondo · 08-07-2007, 05:57 PM

They did pull an all-nighter. That has to count for something...

dc_dux · 08-07-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Sorry, but those bills are almost meaningless to me. The name of the bill often has little to do with what it actually does and sometimes actually does the opposite. Don't be so quick to give credit when it may not be due.

Think Patriot Act... very patriotic

, Military Commissions act... destroys habeas corpus etc. Don't think for a moment the Democrats are above using Orwellian tactics for bills.

Plus, when we really need them to get us out of Iraq, they are no where to be seen. And they are still bowing down to Bush's every want.

Sad really.

samcol....You might try doing a little research before you dismiss every Democratic legislative proposal as meaningless. Then we can discuss them in a more rational manner

And to get us out of Iraq requires the President and Republicans in Congress to respond to the desires of the American people as well. I think you know the Democrats dont have the numbers to do it alone.

samcol · 08-08-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

samcol....You might try doing a little research before you dismiss every Democratic legislative proposal as meaningless. Then we can discuss them in a more rational manner

And to get us out of Iraq requires the President and Republicans in Congress to respond to the desires of the American people as well. I think you know the Democrats dont have the numbers to do it alone.

I meant they were meaningless as presented with just the title. It's not like there's anything to discuss when all we are working with is the titles of a bunch of proposed bills. Like I was saying the "Patriot Act" sounds great, but under the surface is another story. So, without examining all 80 bills, I would still say they are a 'do nothing congress' considering they have failed on two of the biggest issues being Iraq and the totaly disregard for their constituents on the spy bill.

They don't need the President, why don't they defund the war to get us out.?

Congressional Democrats Fail Again.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 08:11 AM

I get it.

You dont want to discuss or acknowledge anything but the war and the FISA bill, both of which were voted against by more than 2/3rds of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

seretogis · 08-08-2007, 08:19 AM

Do the battles really matter if the war is lost? The Battle of Normandy wouldn't mean jack-shit if we still ended up speaking German. Maybe the Democrats didn't fail to get us out of Iraq -- maybe they never planned to in the first place.

roachboy · 08-08-2007, 08:29 AM

ok so here's what i dont understand about the perception of the democratic party in the context of this congress. everyone knew from the moment the election returns were tabulated that the numbers in both houses were such that the democrats were not in a position to overturn the idiot logic of the war in iraq, the even more idiotic "war on terror" and the programs related to it unless the republicans were to stop voting in partyline block. everyone knows this.

if this is true, how did it come about that the democrats are being held to a test of their-----whatever-------mettle (or choose another stupid, subjectively-oriented rightwing meme to designate manliness) by their ability or inability to undo the entirety of the bushwar on "terror" and the ira debacle within that given that EVERYBODY KNOWS the numerical situation?

and if there really is such broadbased opposition to the war in iraq as everyone claims when discussing the democrats, then why is it that these same arguments are not being applied to the republicans--why is it that there is no complaining about the republican party's continuing the vote as a politburo-style bloc on party lines when it comes to legislation concerned with iraq and the other idiotic wars?

i oppose everything about the "war on terror" and have from the outset--but look at the fucking numbers people--where did the idea arise that these numbers (the composition of congress on party lines) did not matter?

it seems to me that the press coverage of this congress is unfolding entirely within a conservative rhetorical logic--generate ridiculous, unrealizable expectations about the opposition and then watch them encounter the self-evident (the numbers in congress) and then brand them failures because they were not able to somehow trascend the situation that EVERYBODY KNOWS obtains in the actually existing congress?

why the hell are any of us buying into this?
i mean think about it.

i am not a fan of the democratic party, the moderate wing of the singel american conservative party---but i really do not understand how it is that reality gets bracketed and labels attributed to the democrats when the fact is as i have said above--and again EVERYONE FUCKING KNOWS THIS.

so what is going on?

samcol · 08-08-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I get it.

You dont want to discuss or acknowledge anything but the war and the FISA bill, both of which were voted against by more than 2/3rds of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

No, it's just that they won by campaigning on the Iraq war issue and the loss of civil liberties. Then they not only don't do anything about stopping these things, they actually do the opposite and actively contribute to making them worse. In just 6 months they've totally abandoned the issues that made them win. yay.....

But hey, I guess they're doing something by introducing 80+ bills that were probably written by the DNC 10 years ago and have just been lieing around. Plus, I'm not a liberal (or federalist) either so the the whole idea of micromanaging state and local issues has little to be desired honestly.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 08:33 AM

For anyone to have expected the Democrats to get us out of Iraq without Republican support was sheer folly.

The Democrats have a two vote majority in the Senate (51-49). With Sen. Johnson from SD having been in the hospital and unable to vote at all this session and Lieberman being more hawkish than many Republicans to fund the surge..there is no Democratic majority...and certainly not a veto-proof majority in either house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ok so here's what i dont understand about the perception of the democratic party in the context of this congress. everyone knew from the moment the election returns were tabulated that the numbers in both houses were such that the democrats were not in a position to overturn the idiot logic of the war in iraq, the even more idiotic "war on terror" and the programs related to it unless the republicans were to stop voting in partyline block. everyone knows this.

Obviously many do not wish to acknowledge this simple but irrefutable fact.

Samcol...the numbers dont lie.....perhaps you can explain how the Democrats can defund the war.

samcol · 08-08-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ok so here's what i dont understand about the perception of the democratic party in the context of this congress. everyone knew from the moment the election returns were tabulated that the numbers in both houses were such that the democrats were not in a position to overturn the idiot logic of the war in iraq, the even more idiotic "war on terror" and the programs related to it unless the republicans were to stop voting in partyline block. everyone knows this.

if this is true, how did it come about that the democrats are being held to a test of their-----whatever-------mettle (or choose another stupid, subjectively-oriented rightwing meme to designate manliness) by their ability or inability to undo the entirety of the bushwar on "terror" and the ira debacle within that given that EVERYBODY KNOWS the numerical situation?

and if there really is such broadbased opposition to the war in iraq as everyone claims when discussing the democrats, then why is it that these same arguments are not being applied to the republicans--why is it that there is no complaining about the republican party's continuing the vote as a politburo-style bloc on party lines when it comes to legislation concerned with iraq and the other idiotic wars?

i oppose everything about the "war on terror" and have from the outset--but look at the fucking numbers people--where did the idea arise that these numbers (the composition of congress on party lines) did not matter?

it seems to me that the press coverage of this congress is unfolding entirely within a conservative rhetorical logic--generate ridiculous, unrealizable expectations about the opposition and then watch them encounter the self-evident (the numbers in congress) and then brand them failures because they were not able to somehow trascend the situation that EVERYBODY KNOWS obtains in the actually existing congress?

why the hell are any of us buying into this?
i mean think about it.

i am not a fan of the democratic party, the moderate wing of the singel american conservative party---but i really do not understand how it is that reality gets bracketed and labels attributed to the democrats when the fact is as i have said above--and again EVERYONE FUCKING KNOWS THIS.

so what is going on?

Isn't it pretty sad that the opposition party to the president would have to have about 80% of congress for them to "maybe" get us out of Iraq and end the war on terror. However, we're still supposed to support the Democrats.

About the Republican congressman, I think it's just a forgone conclusion that they are going to go along with whatever the decider says and nothing can sway them from that, even losing seats as was demonstrated in 06. It's almost more of a lost cause to try and change the Republicans then it is to get the Democrats to do what they said they would do.

Honestly though, am I missing something? Seriously why aren't the Democrats on strike filibustering everything and voting no on every piece of legislation until Iraq issue and war on terror is resolved. That's what a real opposition party would do even if they didn't have the house or senate which they have both.

THEY AREN'T EVEN TRYING, THAT'S WHAT IS SO DISGUSTING.

roachboy · 08-08-2007, 08:43 AM

so it seems to me then, dc, that no matter how fervently one might wish the war in iraq to be moving in a coherent-ish manner toward a conclusion, holding the democratic bloc within congress accountable for the continuation of the bush administration's and republican party's war is absurd.
and if folk walk down this interpretive corridor, blaming the democratic party for the numbers that obtain in congress, then they walk down it as chumps.

again, i am no fan of the democrats, but for gods sake maybe we could collectively try to be more rational in how we see congressional action and inaction than the bloody television talking heads would have us be?

seriously, people, this is just stupid.

why are people not even more angry and disgusted at the republicans and thinking about sweeping the last remaining traces of their bloc outta power in the next elections? send them back under the ideological rock from which they came?

and where is the public pressure on the whole of congress to break with the bushpeople?
when did the public go to sleep?

meanwhile in iraq:

Quote:

US kills 32 'militants' in Iraq raid

Staff and agencies
Wednesday August 8, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

US-led forces killed 32 suspected militants in a raid on the Sadr City district of eastern Baghdad, the US military said today.

It said the raid was part of an operation targeting fighters allegedly smuggling arms from Iran. Tehran has repeatedly denied providing lethal assistance to Iraqi groups.

"The individuals detained and the terrorists killed during the raid are believed to be members of a cell of a special groups terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq into Iran for terrorist training," the US military said in a statement.

The statement was issued after Iraqi police and witnesses in Sadr City said a bombardment by US helicopters and armoured vehicles killed nine civilians, including two women, and wounded six others.

Men and young boys wept over wooden coffins covered with blankets, while women shrouded in black accused the Americans of attacking civilians.

Today's raid was the latest in a series of strikes against Shia militias, which US commanders have said are responsible for an increasing number of attacks against American forces.

Attacks on US-led forces using EFPs reached a new high in July, according to the American military. The devices were used to carry out 99 attacks last month and accounted for a third of the combat deaths suffered by the American-led forces, US military officials said.

"July was an all-time high," said Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the US second-in-command, told the New York Times.

While the US president, George Bush, prefers to single out the threat from al-Qaida in Iraq, Shia militias represent the main danger to American soldiers in Baghdad. According to Gen Odierno, Shia militants carried out 73% of the attacks that killed or wounded US troops in Baghdad last month.

Iraq today called on its neighbours to stop fighters crossing their borders to join insurgents in Iraq or risk the spread of militancy in the region.

"Terrorism is going to spread to your territories because you are not helping enough," the head of Iraqi military intelligence, Hussein Kamal, told an international security meeting on Iraq in Damascus. "We want more help from our neighbours, especially Saudi Arabia and Syria, who have suffered from crimes linked to insecurity in Iraq," he said, in reference to attacks in the two neighbouring Arab states.

"The border agreements with our neighbours must be activated. Wanted people must be handed in."

Syria is hosting the two-day meeting that opened today at a government complex on the outskirts of the capital. The US, Britain, Iran and Jordan are taking part. Saudi Arabia, whose relations with Syria have been tense because of a political crisis in Lebanon, chose to stay away.

On a visit to Iran, the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, sought Tehran's help in curbing violence in his country. It was Mr Maliki's second visit to Tehran in less than a year, coming days after US and Iranian experts held talks in Baghdad on improving Iraq's security.

"We want to promote economic ties and other ties that contribute to combating terrorism and its challenges," Mr Maliki told the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, a British soldier killed in Iraq was named today as news of another UK death in the country emerged. Private Craig Barber, 20, from Ogmore Vale in Wales, was killed by small arms fire on Monday during an operation in Basra City.

The soldier, who was the first British loss in Iraq this month, was named as the Ministry of Defence confirmed another British serviceman was killed in the country last night. The second soldier, of 1 Squadron, RAF Regiment, was on a separate operation in Basra City and was also killed by small arms fire. His next of kin have been informed.

At the UN, the security council was set to pass a draft resolution giving the organisation an expanded role in Iraq when its mandate runs out this month. But the organisation's staff union said the UN should withdraw all of its workers from the country until the security situation improves.

The UN has kept a small presence in Iraq since a truck bomb destroyed its Baghdad headquarters in August 2003, killing its envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 21 others. The UN allows a maximum of 65 overseas workers to reside in the country. The draft resolution, backed by the US and UK, would raise the limit to 95.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2144239,00.html

maybe this blame the loyal opposition thing is a simple function of people not being able to quite handle the magnitude of the fuckup in iraq? and it continues. and it continues. and it continues. and it continues.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ok so here's what i dont understand about the perception of the democratic party in the context of this congress. everyone knew from the moment the election returns were tabulated that the numbers in both houses were such that the democrats were not in a position to overturn the idiot logic of the war in iraq, the even more idiotic "war on terror" and the programs related to it unless the republicans were to stop voting in partyline block. everyone knows this.

if this is true, how did it come about that the democrats are being held to a test of their-----whatever-------mettle (or choose another stupid, subjectively-oriented rightwing meme to designate manliness) by their ability or inability to undo the entirety of the bushwar on "terror" and the ira debacle within that given that EVERYBODY KNOWS the numerical situation?

and if there really is such broadbased opposition to the war in iraq as everyone claims when discussing the democrats, then why is it that these same arguments are not being applied to the republicans--why is it that there is no complaining about the republican party's continuing the vote as a politburo-style bloc on party lines when it comes to legislation concerned with iraq and the other idiotic wars?

i oppose everything about the "war on terror" and have from the outset--but look at the fucking numbers people--where did the idea arise that these numbers (the composition of congress on party lines) did not matter?

it seems to me that the press coverage of this congress is unfolding entirely within a conservative rhetorical logic--generate ridiculous, unrealizable expectations about the opposition and then watch them encounter the self-evident (the numbers in congress) and then brand them failures because they were not able to somehow trascend the situation that EVERYBODY KNOWS obtains in the actually existing congress?

why the hell are any of us buying into this?
i mean think about it.

i am not a fan of the democratic party, the moderate wing of the singel american conservative party---but i really do not understand how it is that reality gets bracketed and labels attributed to the democrats when the fact is as i have said above--and again EVERYONE FUCKING KNOWS THIS.

so what is going on?

You're hiding behind the majority thing, but it doesn't hold up. Democrats in the Senate voted to give Bush "expanded eavesdropping authority" for 6 months. The vote in the Senate was 60-28. It's not like the Democrats are trying. It's not as simple as inability to protect us. They're attacking us, too.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 09:01 AM

Hell...the Republicans (who are for the troops?) blocked a bill by Jim Webb (hardly a flaming liberal) that specified a`minimum period between 2nd, 3rd or 4th deployments to Iraq. (it required time at home at least equal to the length of time of their last deployment)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00241

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 09:05 AM

DC, haven't you already told me this isn't about the lesser of two evils? We all know how horrible the GOP is. That has nothing to do with the 60-28 vote in favor of Bush wiretapping our phones for another 6 months.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You're hiding behind the majority thing, but it doesn't hold up. Democrats in the Senate voted to give Bush "expanded eavesdropping authority" for 6 months. The vote in the Senate was 60-28. It's not like the Democrats are trying. It's not as simple as inability to protect us. They're attacking us, too.

will....it is reasonable to hold those Democrats who voted for the FISA bill accountable on an individual basis.....but a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted against it.

"The Democrats" is not a single entity with one mind and body.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

will....it is reasonable to hold those Democrats who voted for the FISA bill accountable on an individual basis.....but a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted against it.

"The Democrats" is not a single entity with one mind and body.

They need to clean house. That's been the point since the beginning. They're weak because some are good, some are okay, some are crappy, and some are cowardly traitors. Until the Democrats can unify against the neocons, they're a useless lot.

roachboy · 08-08-2007, 09:18 AM

will: what the hell do you mean "i am hiding behind the majority thing"?

1. there is no doubt that the democrats are basically a faction within the oligarchical system that the americans confuse with democracy. so there is no surprise in much of what they do when it comes to choosing between party interests and those of representativeness.

2. my point is not at all "yay! democrats"--it is much more what did you expect?

3. my own political view on this is that this paralysis over the iraq war is a protracted demonstration of just how fundamentally a wreck the american system is. i am appalled by the lack of alternative perspectives. i think--and i have said from time to time here--that the situation is such that far more radical positions than you see embodied in existing organizations might get an extensive public hearing at this point. i see the united states as sliding into a legitimation crisis--political discourse is unhinged from reality, the actions of the parties within the oligarchy self-evidently do not and cannot represent anything like the "will of the people" simply because the people are locked out of anything approaching meanigful expression. and i think we are drifting into the twilight of the very short-lived american empire. the ideological direction that the americans have--to my mind--had imposed on them is incoherent, had been incoherent and the legitimation crisis is linked to the simple fact that the americans are playing out the sorry, pathetic endgame of that ideology.

so with all that said, i STILL do not understand how it has come to pass that the democrats are being blamed for their inability to stop the logic particular to bushworld. on the other hand, it take the fact that this logic is still in place at all as an index of the extent to which the problems we observe and debate in this tiny fishbowl are STRUCTURAL---not just the result of particular events but a deep fundamental crisis that is unfolding across events.

i think people have a sense of this--but there are few viewpoints that affirm the problem and many that are geared around management through diversion or avoidance, whether intentional or not. i find little beyond a pattern of structured avoidance in the claims that the democrats have somehow wandered into a kind of waterloo because they have not been able to stop the bush people--when it remains true, like it or not, that they are not in a position to stop the bush people. period. be as snippy as you want about it, but there is no getting around this fact.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

They need to clean house. That's been the point since the beginning. They're weak because some are good, some are okay, some are crappy, and some are cowardly traitors. Until the Democrats can unify against the neocons, they're a useless lot.

Its really up to their respective constituents to decide. The "party" cant clean house.

And, if I had a Senator, I would expect that person to vote what he/she believes is in the best interest of constituents and the country, and not be an automaton who unquestionable "tows the party line".

Whatever their individual reasons (political expediency, self preservation, interest of constituents, good of the country, vote of conscience ...), IMO, Democrats are more willing to buck their leader than Republicans.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its really up to their respective constituents to decide. The "party" cant clean house.

And, if I had a Senator, I would expect that person to vote what he/she believes is in the best interest of constituents and the country, and not be an automaton who unquestionable "tows the party line".

Of course they can. They can present better candidates in the local areas where the asshole traitor Democrats are and back them during the next election cycle. Both parties do that kind of thing all the time. And it usually works. Shit, Bush lost the election in 2000 and his party got him in the White House.

But all they'd really have to do is to send a notice to their local papers telling them their representative is actually a Republican. We might even see impeachments of Senators. Which would be awesome.

roachboy · 08-08-2007, 09:34 AM

i am curious about how the republicans manage to maintain block voting patterns in congress. any insight into this dc?

samcol · 08-08-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

DC, haven't you already told me this isn't about the lesser of two evils? We all know how horrible the GOP is. That has nothing to do with the 60-28 vote in favor of Bush wiretapping our phones for another 6 months.

Seems with every point they bring up it is about 'lesser of two evils.'

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 09:57 AM

roachboy...I know how the Republicans maintained a voting block in the House when they had the majority.....the "Hastert Rule"

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert would not allow a bill or amendment to be considered on the floor unless it had the support of the "majority of the majority". That is, unless a majority of Republicans supported it.

The worst example was the Medicare prescription drug bill...where there was a bi-partisan majority with an amendment to require negotiating prescription drug prices....but Hastert would not allow a vote because it did not have majority of Republican support.

Same with a vote on the 9-11 Commission recommendations at the time. I bi-partisan alternative was blocked from even being considered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov26.html

Howard Dean had another explanation for the Republican voting pattern.

"Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

A bit of a stretch, but I think most would agree that the Democratic party is more diverse with a bigger tent.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Seems with every point they bring up it is about 'lesser of two evils.'

I think I represent a quagmire. I am one of the most anti-Republican members on TFP, and I'm also against the Democrats. The main way the Democrats gain support is by showing just how bad the Republicans are. I already know how bad they are. I'd sooner choke a puppy than vote Republican, even in the case of RP. I'm also not voting Democrat, though. It's getting clear that Hillary will be our next president, and she's going to shit all over because she's one of the many Democrats who panders to the right and is more interested in politics than fixing our country. If Kucinich, the only candidate for president with balls, miraculously was on the ticket, I might vote for him, but he's doing even worse than RP. The Dems give me no reasonable options, and I won't vote for the Republicans. That leaves third parties. I have no problem voting for the right person, even knowing he or she won't win.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The main way the Democrats gain support is by showing just how bad the Republicans are. I already know how bad they are.

Will....I really dont understand why you (and Pan and samcol) keep repeating that mantra and are unwilling to acknowledge the many recent legislative initiatives of the Democrats listed in the OP

Even if you dont agree with the bills (like samcol), they were not enacted to show how bad Republicans are...they were enacted because they represent their core values and what the voters want.

samcol · 08-08-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The main way the Democrats gain support is by showing just how bad the Republicans are.

Great point. That's their whole platform, but when it really comes down to it time and time again they support Bush. If you point this out though somehow you are coming down too hard on supposedly the only party that can stop Bush. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will....I really dont understand why you (and Pan) keep repeating that mantra and are unwilling to acknowledge the many positive recent legislative initiatives of the Democrats listed in the OP

Even if you dont agree with the bills (like samcol), they were not enacted to show how bad Republicans are...they were eancted because they represent their core values and what the voters want.

Why were the Democrats elected? What was the primary platform? Ending the war in Iraq, stopping domestic spying, and even impeachment. Since then we've had one vote to end the war, Dems are voting in favor of domestic spying, and Pelosi took impeachment off the table. I'm not suggesting that the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act isn't important. It really, really is. That's not what they represented to the people, though. They were elected to bring the troops home, stop the spying, and remove Bush from power. It is in those pivotal areas that they are found to be wanting, and it's because of their unwillingness to back their campaign promises that I find them reprehensible.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 10:18 AM

will.....I agree the Democrats were elected in part on the war issue...but hardly on the issues of spying and impeachment.

Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, outlined their 6 point platform for 2006:

“In November, America will have a choice. And Democrats will work very hard over the next six months to make that choice very clear to the American people. We will put America first where it belongs again.

“Democrats will fight to raise the minimum wage. Hard-working Americans deserve a living wage. (accomplished)

“Democrats will fight for middle class tax fairness. (in progress)

“Democrats will fight for real reform and ethics legislation that includes a complete ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists, ending special interest provisions being added in the dead of night. (accomplished)

“Democrats will enact 100% of the 9/11 Commission recommendations: its time to inspect all cargo, lock down loose nuclear material and make sure we are prepared for disasters and for the aftermath of disasters. (accomplished)

“Democrats will fix the disastrous Republican Medicare Part D – we should be helping our seniors, not drug companies. (in progress)

“Democrats will ensure that 2006 is a year of transition in Iraq – the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own future. It’s appalling that the President would say that this will be left to the next President. He owes it to the American people to get us out. (we shall see in the coming months)

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/04/d...rman_ho_21.php

These were the issues the Democrats campaigned on and the focus of most Democratic ads.. and the issues they were elected on.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 10:22 AM

The party platform isn't the same as the individual platform. You know this.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 10:24 AM

You asked "why were the Democrats elected? what was the primary platform?"

I responded in the best and most honest way I could.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 10:38 AM

Here's the thing: if they did speak on it, they went back on their word. If they didn't they're traitors right there next to Bush. It's a catch 22, either way you lose.

ubertuber · 08-08-2007, 02:52 PM

dc_dux, I think part of the issue is that you are feel that the Dems aren't getting credit for passing a bunch of legislation. I bet that will, Pan, and I would concede that they have indeed cleared some bills from the Congress. However, that's what they're SUPPOSED to do. I'll do my part and go and see what those bills are for, but it is my feeling that the big issues the Dems came into power on are going on with little change.

The numbers are what they are - that's arithmetic. It's clear that the Dems can't bring the troops home/change tax policies, reform the "War on Terror" without Republican support. However, it was my hope (but not my expectation) that they would manage to increase the cost to the Republican party of continuing in its path. There was even a glimmer of change back in March during the troop funding showdown, but since then, it has seemed like one capitulation after another without a strong effort to occupy the rhetorical high-ground. While disappointing, that's what I expected. You and host notwithstanding, I think that the lack of dramatic change in the status quo on these issues is going to cost the Dems in the next election. They really need to figure out how to affect some major, marketable changes. Otherwise, they'll risk looking as ineffective in power as they were out of power.

roachboy · 08-08-2007, 03:10 PM

ultimately, to echo what ubertuber said above and shift it slightly, it seems to me that the democrats are in a nasty bind. no matter what they do, they will take a pounding-they cant do what folk for some reason imagine they could do, which is what has been referenced repeatedly above--and they are taking a pr hit for it of considerable proportions. what i still dont get is the reason why people expected anything different from the present arrangement than what is happening, no matter what you feel about it. so it seems to me that the democrats are really losing another image battle and this time i cant tell who set the terms of the battle itself. they cant do what is tactically beyond their reach and they also cant seem to get a coherent message out about what they are doing.

i think people are dreaming too much. i would much much prefer to see something coherent being done in/about iraq--but it aint happening. that the democrats do not have the numbers of come into town all cowboy in the white hat and change everything all at once is obvious--but they are NOT the party responsible for the chaos in iraq and i absolutely do not understand how it is that people hold them responsible for the chaos in a sense because they lack the numbers to do anything.

the problem lay in the political order itself. that iraq happened at all is in itself an index of a serious, deep problem with how this government operates and how the political system of which it is an expression functions. it amounts to a wholesale breakdown in even the most rudimentary oversight of a self-evidently incompetent administration.

the actual problem is this business of only being politically free one day every four years.
the other problem is the wholesale bankrupcy of the dominant ideology.
all that is happening demonstrates that there must be new alternatives posited, new organizations built, new and more pressure brought to bear on this political system itself.
failing that, you'll see more of the same dribbling along, the same non-entities engaging in the politics of stalemate and capitulation and meanwhile in iraq...and meanwhile in afghanistan...and meanwhile in colombia...

look at the reality this system is producing, that it is inflicting on populations around the bloody world. the democratic party is but an aspect of the problem, it is not itself the problem.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 03:17 PM

uber.....there is little to support your suggestion (or Will's or Pan's) that recent votes will cost the Dems or that they will lose standing with the public (and Congressional seats) in 2008.

From the chart I posted in the OP from a recent poll:

where Dems are favored by wide margins on nearly all domestic issues as well as Iraq...

to other recent polls:

George Washington University Battleground Poll conducted by the Tarrance Group (R) and Lake Research Partners (D). July 15-18, 2007

"And, still thinking about the 2008 elections: If the election for Congress were being held today, and you had to make a choice, would you be voting for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your congressional district?" If unsure: "And which party's candidate do you lean toward at this time?

D - 47%
R - 40%

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 22-24, 2007

"If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your congressional district?" If unsure: "As of today, who do you lean more toward?"

D - 53%
R - 41%
Other - 3%

http://pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm

Roachboy...I dont disagree with you about the inadequacy of the Dem "message machine". They have been ineffectual in standing up to the White House bully pulpit.

Despite the public's overwhelming frustration and dissatisfaction with the incumbent Congress, the public still believes that the Dems provide the better way forward. To some that may make the Dems the "lesser of two evils".

I have a more positive outlook. I am of the belief that the Dems are the best hope for the future.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 03:41 PM

DC look at that poll. Look at it long and hard. Think about what it means. People think the Dems would do a better job in Iraq. Well, to be totally frank, no crap. Of course the Dems are better... but we've gone right back to the lesser of two evils stance again. I don't see any polls where the Dems are rated by themselves. I don't see a "Do you think the Dems are doing all they can to stop the war?" question.

Of the two evils, the best evil is out best hope for the future? I guess we're headed for an evil, but not TOO evil future.

mixedmedia · 08-08-2007, 03:43 PM

I agree with most of roachboy is saying here. The republicans were enabled to engage in all the skullduggery and monkeyshines that they have (in such a far and wide manner) by one single event. September 11, 2001.

At a time when the American public seems to be most swayed by collapsing bridges and Lindsay Lohan's driving record, it should be no surprise that no major designs are being implemented in Washington on "major issues." As disenfranchised as we may be politically, and we are largely (especially those of us who really care about what we are not seeing on television), what we are "paying attention to" does influence policymaking in Washington. Combine that with the fact that what we are "paying attention to" is largely arbitrary and meaningless, and well, it doesn't bode well for the democrats. I hate to say it, but they would have been a lot better off if the transition in Washington had happened closer to Katrina. I'm not saying I like it, but I believe it.

dc_dux · 08-08-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

DC look at that poll. Look at it long and hard. Think about what it means. People think the Dems would do a better job in Iraq. Well, to be totally frank, no crap. Of course the Dems are better... but we've gone right back to the lesser of two evils stance again. I don't see any polls where the Dems are rated by themselves. I don't see a "Do you think the Dems are doing all they can to stop the war?" question.

Of the two evils, the best evil is out best hope for the future? I guess we're headed for an evil, but not TOO evil future.

There are polls were the Dems and Repubs are rated separately (generally, not on specific issues):

Dems are still above 50% "very favorable" or "mostly favorable" in recent polls....even after the war votes earlier this summer
http://pollingreport.com/institut2.htm#Democrats

Repubs are below 40% "favorable" in recent polls
http://pollingreport.com/institut2.htm#Republicans

You consider the Dems the lesser of evils. I dont. "shrug" What more can I say.

08-07-2007, 03:19 PM	#1 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The "Do Nothing" Democrats? Now that Congress is in recess until mid-September, I thought it is appropriate to review what the so called "do nothing Democrats" have done in 7 months... ...and that is enact more than 80 bills in one either one house or both, more than 25 of which Bush has threatened to veto, including: New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act Higher Education Access Act of 2007 College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act Child Labor Protection Act of 2007 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007 Improving Head Start Act of 2007 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act of 2007 Accountability in Contracting Act Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 Healthy Communities Water Supply Act The Bush administration offers a "Statement of Administration Policy" to explain why Bush opposes, at some level, all of the above. Not a bad 7 months, IMO. In spite of a low opinion of Congress in general, its no surprise to me that Americans believe Democrats do a better job of addressing most issues than Republicans (at least according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll): http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-07-2007 at 03:24 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

08-07-2007, 05:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	I think willravel meant that Reps are the worse of two evils. That'd make more sense in the context, what with "even many Republicans now". And hell, here's one Republican who, at least as far as the executive office is concerned, might just agree. (But I can't wait for Granholm to go away.) __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

08-07-2007, 05:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Sorry, but those bills are almost meaningless to me. The name of the bill often has little to do with what it actually does and sometimes actually does the opposite. Don't be so quick to give credit when it may not be due. Think Patriot Act... very patriotic , Military Commissions act... destroys habeas corpus etc. Don't think for a moment the Democrats are above using Orwellian tactics for bills. Plus, when we really need them to get us out of Iraq, they are no where to be seen. And they are still bowing down to Bush's every want. Sad really. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. Last edited by samcol; 08-07-2007 at 05:38 PM..

08-07-2007, 05:57 PM	#6 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	They did pull an all-nighter. That has to count for something... __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

08-08-2007, 08:11 AM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I get it. You dont want to discuss or acknowledge anything but the war and the FISA bill, both of which were voted against by more than 2/3rds of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

08-07-2007, 03:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'd never call them the "Do Nothing" Democrats. They do a lot, Part of what they do, though is pander and not stick with their campaign promises. We all know that the Dems are the worse of two evils. I doubt that's an issue with any centerist or liberal, or even many Republicans now. The issue is how they will roll over and/or give up on such huge issues. That's the frustrating stuff, imho.

08-08-2007, 08:19 AM	#10 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Do the battles really matter if the war is lost? The Battle of Normandy wouldn't mean jack-shit if we still ended up speaking German. Maybe the Democrats didn't fail to get us out of Iraq -- maybe they never planned to in the first place. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

08-08-2007, 08:29 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok so here's what i dont understand about the perception of the democratic party in the context of this congress. everyone knew from the moment the election returns were tabulated that the numbers in both houses were such that the democrats were not in a position to overturn the idiot logic of the war in iraq, the even more idiotic "war on terror" and the programs related to it unless the republicans were to stop voting in partyline block. everyone knows this. if this is true, how did it come about that the democrats are being held to a test of their-----whatever-------mettle (or choose another stupid, subjectively-oriented rightwing meme to designate manliness) by their ability or inability to undo the entirety of the bushwar on "terror" and the ira debacle within that given that EVERYBODY KNOWS the numerical situation? and if there really is such broadbased opposition to the war in iraq as everyone claims when discussing the democrats, then why is it that these same arguments are not being applied to the republicans--why is it that there is no complaining about the republican party's continuing the vote as a politburo-style bloc on party lines when it comes to legislation concerned with iraq and the other idiotic wars? i oppose everything about the "war on terror" and have from the outset--but look at the fucking numbers people--where did the idea arise that these numbers (the composition of congress on party lines) did not matter? it seems to me that the press coverage of this congress is unfolding entirely within a conservative rhetorical logic--generate ridiculous, unrealizable expectations about the opposition and then watch them encounter the self-evident (the numbers in congress) and then brand them failures because they were not able to somehow trascend the situation that EVERYBODY KNOWS obtains in the actually existing congress? why the hell are any of us buying into this? i mean think about it. i am not a fan of the democratic party, the moderate wing of the singel american conservative party---but i really do not understand how it is that reality gets bracketed and labels attributed to the democrats when the fact is as i have said above--and again EVERYONE FUCKING KNOWS THIS. so what is going on? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-08-2007 at 08:31 AM..

08-08-2007, 09:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Hell...the Republicans (who are for the troops?) blocked a bill by Jim Webb (hardly a flaming liberal) that specified a`minimum period between 2nd, 3rd or 4th deployments to Iraq. (it required time at home at least equal to the length of time of their last deployment) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00241 __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

08-08-2007, 09:05 AM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	DC, haven't you already told me this isn't about the lesser of two evils? We all know how horrible the GOP is. That has nothing to do with the 60-28 vote in favor of Bush wiretapping our phones for another 6 months.

08-08-2007, 09:18 AM	#21 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	will: what the hell do you mean "i am hiding behind the majority thing"? 1. there is no doubt that the democrats are basically a faction within the oligarchical system that the americans confuse with democracy. so there is no surprise in much of what they do when it comes to choosing between party interests and those of representativeness. 2. my point is not at all "yay! democrats"--it is much more what did you expect? 3. my own political view on this is that this paralysis over the iraq war is a protracted demonstration of just how fundamentally a wreck the american system is. i am appalled by the lack of alternative perspectives. i think--and i have said from time to time here--that the situation is such that far more radical positions than you see embodied in existing organizations might get an extensive public hearing at this point. i see the united states as sliding into a legitimation crisis--political discourse is unhinged from reality, the actions of the parties within the oligarchy self-evidently do not and cannot represent anything like the "will of the people" simply because the people are locked out of anything approaching meanigful expression. and i think we are drifting into the twilight of the very short-lived american empire. the ideological direction that the americans have--to my mind--had imposed on them is incoherent, had been incoherent and the legitimation crisis is linked to the simple fact that the americans are playing out the sorry, pathetic endgame of that ideology. so with all that said, i STILL do not understand how it has come to pass that the democrats are being blamed for their inability to stop the logic particular to bushworld. on the other hand, it take the fact that this logic is still in place at all as an index of the extent to which the problems we observe and debate in this tiny fishbowl are STRUCTURAL---not just the result of particular events but a deep fundamental crisis that is unfolding across events. i think people have a sense of this--but there are few viewpoints that affirm the problem and many that are geared around management through diversion or avoidance, whether intentional or not. i find little beyond a pattern of structured avoidance in the claims that the democrats have somehow wandered into a kind of waterloo because they have not been able to stop the bush people--when it remains true, like it or not, that they are not in a position to stop the bush people. period. be as snippy as you want about it, but there is no getting around this fact. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2007, 09:34 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am curious about how the republicans manage to maintain block voting patterns in congress. any insight into this dc? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2007, 09:57 AM	#26 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	roachboy...I know how the Republicans maintained a voting block in the House when they had the majority.....the "Hastert Rule" Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert would not allow a bill or amendment to be considered on the floor unless it had the support of the "majority of the majority". That is, unless a majority of Republicans supported it. The worst example was the Medicare prescription drug bill...where there was a bi-partisan majority with an amendment to require negotiating prescription drug prices....but Hastert would not allow a vote because it did not have majority of Republican support. Same with a vote on the 9-11 Commission recommendations at the time. I bi-partisan alternative was blocked from even being considered. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov26.html Howard Dean had another explanation for the Republican voting pattern. "Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." A bit of a stretch, but I think most would agree that the Democratic party is more diverse with a bigger tent. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

08-08-2007, 10:18 AM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	will.....I agree the Democrats were elected in part on the war issue...but hardly on the issues of spying and impeachment. Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, outlined their 6 point platform for 2006: “In November, America will have a choice. And Democrats will work very hard over the next six months to make that choice very clear to the American people. We will put America first where it belongs again. “Democrats will fight to raise the minimum wage. Hard-working Americans deserve a living wage. (accomplished) “Democrats will fight for middle class tax fairness. (in progress) “Democrats will fight for real reform and ethics legislation that includes a complete ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists, ending special interest provisions being added in the dead of night. (accomplished) “Democrats will enact 100% of the 9/11 Commission recommendations: its time to inspect all cargo, lock down loose nuclear material and make sure we are prepared for disasters and for the aftermath of disasters. (accomplished) “Democrats will fix the disastrous Republican Medicare Part D – we should be helping our seniors, not drug companies. (in progress) “Democrats will ensure that 2006 is a year of transition in Iraq – the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own future. It’s appalling that the President would say that this will be left to the next President. He owes it to the American people to get us out. (we shall see in the coming months) http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/04/d...rman_ho_21.php These were the issues the Democrats campaigned on and the focus of most Democratic ads.. and the issues they were elected on. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-08-2007 at 10:23 AM..

08-08-2007, 10:22 AM	#32 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The party platform isn't the same as the individual platform. You know this.

08-08-2007, 10:24 AM	#33 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	You asked "why were the Democrats elected? what was the primary platform?" I responded in the best and most honest way I could. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

08-08-2007, 10:38 AM	#34 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Here's the thing: if they did speak on it, they went back on their word. If they didn't they're traitors right there next to Bush. It's a catch 22, either way you lose.

08-08-2007, 02:52 PM	#35 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	dc_dux, I think part of the issue is that you are feel that the Dems aren't getting credit for passing a bunch of legislation. I bet that will, Pan, and I would concede that they have indeed cleared some bills from the Congress. However, that's what they're SUPPOSED to do. I'll do my part and go and see what those bills are for, but it is my feeling that the big issues the Dems came into power on are going on with little change. The numbers are what they are - that's arithmetic. It's clear that the Dems can't bring the troops home/change tax policies, reform the "War on Terror" without Republican support. However, it was my hope (but not my expectation) that they would manage to increase the cost to the Republican party of continuing in its path. There was even a glimmer of change back in March during the troop funding showdown, but since then, it has seemed like one capitulation after another without a strong effort to occupy the rhetorical high-ground. While disappointing, that's what I expected. You and host notwithstanding, I think that the lack of dramatic change in the status quo on these issues is going to cost the Dems in the next election. They really need to figure out how to affect some major, marketable changes. Otherwise, they'll risk looking as ineffective in power as they were out of power. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

08-08-2007, 03:10 PM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ultimately, to echo what ubertuber said above and shift it slightly, it seems to me that the democrats are in a nasty bind. no matter what they do, they will take a pounding-they cant do what folk for some reason imagine they could do, which is what has been referenced repeatedly above--and they are taking a pr hit for it of considerable proportions. what i still dont get is the reason why people expected anything different from the present arrangement than what is happening, no matter what you feel about it. so it seems to me that the democrats are really losing another image battle and this time i cant tell who set the terms of the battle itself. they cant do what is tactically beyond their reach and they also cant seem to get a coherent message out about what they are doing. i think people are dreaming too much. i would much much prefer to see something coherent being done in/about iraq--but it aint happening. that the democrats do not have the numbers of come into town all cowboy in the white hat and change everything all at once is obvious--but they are NOT the party responsible for the chaos in iraq and i absolutely do not understand how it is that people hold them responsible for the chaos in a sense because they lack the numbers to do anything. the problem lay in the political order itself. that iraq happened at all is in itself an index of a serious, deep problem with how this government operates and how the political system of which it is an expression functions. it amounts to a wholesale breakdown in even the most rudimentary oversight of a self-evidently incompetent administration. the actual problem is this business of only being politically free one day every four years. the other problem is the wholesale bankrupcy of the dominant ideology. all that is happening demonstrates that there must be new alternatives posited, new organizations built, new and more pressure brought to bear on this political system itself. failing that, you'll see more of the same dribbling along, the same non-entities engaging in the politics of stalemate and capitulation and meanwhile in iraq...and meanwhile in afghanistan...and meanwhile in colombia... look at the reality this system is producing, that it is inflicting on populations around the bloody world. the democratic party is but an aspect of the problem, it is not itself the problem. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2007, 03:17 PM	#37 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	uber.....there is little to support your suggestion (or Will's or Pan's) that recent votes will cost the Dems or that they will lose standing with the public (and Congressional seats) in 2008. From the chart I posted in the OP from a recent poll: where Dems are favored by wide margins on nearly all domestic issues as well as Iraq... to other recent polls: George Washington University Battleground Poll conducted by the Tarrance Group (R) and Lake Research Partners (D). July 15-18, 2007 "And, still thinking about the 2008 elections: If the election for Congress were being held today, and you had to make a choice, would you be voting for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your congressional district?" If unsure: "And which party's candidate do you lean toward at this time? D - 47% R - 40% CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 22-24, 2007 "If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your congressional district?" If unsure: "As of today, who do you lean more toward?" D - 53% R - 41% Other - 3% http://pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm Roachboy...I dont disagree with you about the inadequacy of the Dem "message machine". They have been ineffectual in standing up to the White House bully pulpit. Despite the public's overwhelming frustration and dissatisfaction with the incumbent Congress, the public still believes that the Dems provide the better way forward. To some that may make the Dems the "lesser of two evils". I have a more positive outlook. I am of the belief that the Dems are the best hope for the future. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-08-2007 at 03:37 PM..

08-08-2007, 03:41 PM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	DC look at that poll. Look at it long and hard. Think about what it means. People think the Dems would do a better job in Iraq. Well, to be totally frank, no crap. Of course the Dems are better... but we've gone right back to the lesser of two evils stance again. I don't see any polls where the Dems are rated by themselves. I don't see a "Do you think the Dems are doing all they can to stop the war?" question. Of the two evils, the best evil is out best hope for the future? I guess we're headed for an evil, but not TOO evil future.

08-08-2007, 03:43 PM	#39 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I agree with most of roachboy is saying here. The republicans were enabled to engage in all the skullduggery and monkeyshines that they have (in such a far and wide manner) by one single event. September 11, 2001. At a time when the American public seems to be most swayed by collapsing bridges and Lindsay Lohan's driving record, it should be no surprise that no major designs are being implemented in Washington on "major issues." As disenfranchised as we may be politically, and we are largely (especially those of us who really care about what we are not seeing on television), what we are "paying attention to" does influence policymaking in Washington. Combine that with the fact that what we are "paying attention to" is largely arbitrary and meaningless, and well, it doesn't bode well for the democrats. I hate to say it, but they would have been a lot better off if the transition in Washington had happened closer to Katrina. I'm not saying I like it, but I believe it. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce