Fuck. Yeah.
Why aren't the Democrats hitting them with the chair? Throwing them an anchor? Dropping the hammer? Sucker punching the dazed and confused? Biting their ear?
Maybe the Manchurian candidates aren't in the White House.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 20, 2006 08:40 AMI am sorry I have been so quiet lately; I've been trying to adhere to two principles: don't embarrass your blogfather with ranting, and if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
I will never, ever forget this last week. I was watching a live thread at Kos's place on the censure vote; Frist lied, Republicans knifed, and then it was Reid's turn. He tried to change the subject. I'm not kidding.
"Oh my fucking God..." was the response of one my heroines, RenaRF. Fiercely intelligent, pretty, sexy, great writer...horribly hurt, painfully banging the words out so somebody could tell her what she just saw didn't really happen. It had.
Pelosi did 3 incredible face plants by fucking up Slaughter's reports, not supporting Feingold and then kifing every blogger out there with that regulation bill--Kos was flaming mad about it.
I want to be a good Democrat so I say nothing. I'm so disgusted I don't know how to express it. Getting furiously angry at the incredibly incompetent chumps we call party leadership is ridiculous, the motherfuckers don't deserve it.
[shrugs] I watch and wait. Better that than to throw it all away forever. But I will never, ever forget last week.
Posted by paradox at March 20, 2006 08:52 AMI think majority of Democrats writing here agree and are frustated that the current Democratic leadership in Congress has no backbone to stand up to Bush Administration. So what should be done. I think all Democrats should support the opposion candidates in the Democratic primaries. Throw these bums out with those Republican ones.
Posted by suresh at March 20, 2006 09:42 AMI'm also feeling very disheartened today. Yesterday the St. Pete Times did a story comparing our local Democratic organization to the local Republicans. It made us look terrible, but I can't say it was inaccurate. A few of us (mostly DFAers and GLBT caucus members) are working as hard as we can to get organized at the grassroots level, but with no money and the horrible reputation of the local DEC, I'm not sure how we can get the job done by November. On top of all of that, we have to try to defend the Democratic leaders in Washington. The odds seem insurmountable.
The real kicker for me was a column, also in yesterday's St. Pete Times, by Philip Gailey. Gailey laments the fact that the Dems don't have a message and that they aren't calling attention to all the things Bush has f**ked up. It makes perfect sense until he quotes Jacob Weisberg:
"Since assuming their positions after the last election, the three have appeared somewhere between useless and disastrous as party leaders," Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate.com, wrote in the Financial Times. "Individually, they lack substance and policy smarts (Ms. Pelosi); coherence and force (Mr. Reid); and steadiness and mainstream appeal (Mr. Dean). Collectively, they convey an image of liberal elitism, disarray and crabbiness."
Howard Dean is the one person who seems to understand what is happening. He tries to address it and is accused of being "unsteady." With absolutely no respect to Jacob Weisberg, Dean brings these things up months before the rest of you morons inside the Beltway even notice and YOU characterize him as crazy.
It's hard enough to fight the Republicans and the media, but when we have to fight our own cowardly party leaders, I don't know if I have the strength.
That is why I have been registered green for years. I made the switch when Gore picked holy Joe. If we stay in the party, they take us for granted, but do not listen. So, show them that they need to work for our support.
Posted by Coaster Dave at March 20, 2006 09:44 AMBoy, it's nice to find someone else who's ranting about the same things I'm ranting about! The DLC/cowering class is alive and well and already strategizing to make the entire Congress beholden to it is 2006 and run Hillary in 2008, and they're sinking Feingold merely because he's Not Hillary. Can't we all pull in the same direction for a change?
My overlong dissertations: here and here and here and here.
But I don't think there will be a new party; I just think it'll be a long lot of work to beat down both the Baby Bushes and the accommodationist neoClintonites (hey, I just invented a word!) over the next forty years.
Posted by Thersites at March 20, 2006 10:06 AMAh, crud, my html didn't work. Top few posts at http://vichydems.blogspot.com.
Posted by Thersites at March 20, 2006 10:07 AMMethinks Pelosi has bigger cajones than Reid.
Just saying.............
Posted by Christopher at March 20, 2006 10:26 AMIt gets frustrating sometimes, and yeah our party sucks at the moment. But we here in the netroots are in the early stages of building something new and dynamic. Sometimes you got to get right down to the bottom of the barrel and wallow in the rot for awhile before you begin to see the light.
Posted by islander at March 20, 2006 10:41 AMTalk about a third party doesn't scare the Democratic Establishment at all, because they know it will fail, and they don't care much about splitting the liberal vote and losing to Republicans, so long as they hold onto their safe blue seats and their corporate donations. What scares them is the idea that we might try to take the Democratic party back from them. And they should be scared. And that's what we should be working for. It's not as hard as you think. First, all hands to promote Lamont. Let's get activists from all across the country pounding the Connecticut pavement to defeat Lieberman. Full court press. Make an example of one DINO and you'll be amazed how quickly the other cowards fall into line. We just have to make them more scared of US than they are of Rove. Look at how good Sherrod Brown's rhetoric (at least) has gotten since he saw the Hackett threat face to face. Punish Pelosi, too, It is in the bluest of blue districts that we should work hardest to take on the appeasers, sending the message that no one is safe if they ignore the base. Then, destroy Hillary in the 08 primaries. And Bayh. And all the others who were wrong about the war and remain wrong now. It will take work, but it can be done. If the effort that we put into the Kerry campaign were mobilized for the primaries, we would win easily. After all, we know the Dem establishment are losers. So don't lament them. Scare them (it's easy!) Bully them (it's easy!) Beat them (it's easy!).
Posted by the exile at March 20, 2006 10:41 AMExile,
I'm with you all the way. It's just hard today.
My Gosh.....a weekend at Camp David must have turned up a bottle of uppers for George. His speech today, given to a paying crowd of sycophants, was sick. But gone was the somber "there will be sacrifices ahead" Bush of last week's Good News From Iraq speech, replaced by a hysterically upbeat Howdy Doody reincarnation. Sure, he still can't put a sentence together or follow a train of thought, but the guy was happy, happy. And why not. "Questioner" after Questioner praised Bush euphorically and pledged their undying support. One guy gushed on so long that George began to get antsy, and the guy never even asked a question - just heaped the praise on the War President. Ug. One odd thing though, when he launched into a question over education, he got really, really worked up. Looked like he was gonna blow a gasket - just rambled on an on. That was weird. It reminded me again of the first and third Kerry debates where Bush, out of his cage at last, went nutso. One has to wonder what he'd do with real questions instead of Jeff Gannon style softballs.
Posted by T2 at March 20, 2006 11:34 AMI'm sympathetic to Feingold's censure motion but I don't want us to lose sight of something that hasn't happened yet: we still don't fully understand what Bush was doing with the NSA spying program. We still need investigations; we still need a definitive picture of the abuses and who was doing what. We still need a definitive picture of where Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are taking the NSA spying program in relation to spying on Americans. If anyone has seen a definitive picture, feel free to say so in the comments or e-mail me. I've seen enough facts to know we need to know more but I suspect there's more to it than a sloppy process of trying to legally justify what they're doing.
There also hasn't been enough discussion of how easy it is to use today's technology to spy on Americans and how easy it would be to abuse that technology and how willing some people in the Bush Administration would be to use that technology for political gain. And the technology will improve. Even if we could trust the Bush Administration (and how many people trust the Bush Administration these days?), we need to know that real safeguards are in place and that they are being adhered to.
But at least Feingold's censure motion makes one thing clear: there are ways to hold Bush accountable that even Republicans in Congress ought to be able to accept. If Republicans cannot hold Bush accountable, it's time to send people to Washington who can.
Posted by Craig at March 20, 2006 12:09 PMI am sorry I have been so quiet lately; I've been trying to adhere to two principles: don't embarrass your blogfather with ranting, and if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
The advantages of being one of the blogfather's nephews once removed is that we get to rant, spew nasty, walk around in scubby clothes, drink beer on the front porch of our mobile home, and scream obscenities at the neighbors.
Just saying.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 20, 2006 12:29 PMI encourage everyone to continue to post the president's declaration of war.
It is w who certified things as true. It is w who states the reasons for war. It is w who signed the document.
The document is wrong on every factual basis.
Americans need to be shown this over and over and over again. The happy talk bamboozle should not be able to overcome a short, easily read piece of paper.
Perhaps Keith Olberman will post it when asking about reasons for war? Nobody else will.
Posted by MacMan at March 20, 2006 01:21 PMThis is a nice change from a month ago when you advised us all not to bash the Democrats too much, because maybe their strategy of hugging the Republicans on defense could work, and really it wouldn't behoove us to be too divided:
Let it go. Waging war on our own Senators and representatives between now and November is just what the GOP wants. Sure, we feel the Democrats are potentially making another big mistake this year by not challenging the GOP and White House, but the decision has been made and the consultants have gained the ear of the leadership once again to play it safe and hope the six-year itch will turn out the GOP through a cautious campaign based on “culture of corruption” and “we’re not a rubber stamp.” Will it work?
It might, if the Democrats stick to Bush on national security at least through November, taking away Karl’s club.
Good to have you back.
Posted by Alexander "Benjamins" Hamilton at March 20, 2006 01:30 PMHm. Can't make the link live. If you want to C&P, here:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006860.php#006860
Posted by Alexander "Benjamins" Hamilton at March 20, 2006 01:31 PMUcch, and my italics didn't enclose all the quote properly. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Posted by Alexander "Benjamins" Hamilton at March 20, 2006 01:33 PMAlexander Hamilton:
If Democrats in congress play safe and restrict from criticizing Bush as they have done since 9/11, they are playing in hands of Karl Rove. Besides the Democratic base is already turnedoff with these gutless Dems and come November, these people may not show up to vote.
Posted by suresh at March 20, 2006 03:28 PMHey, I didn't say it, I was quoting Steve back to himself!
Posted by Alexander "Benjamins" Hamilton at March 20, 2006 06:20 PMThe establishment Democratic leadership does not have a message for the American people. This is incredibly and regretably true. It is also true that any one of us blogosphere D's could readily list a dozen policy initiatives that a Democratic congress could promise to enact in their first one hundred days in office. Any one of us could write a "Left Blogoshere Contract With America".
But what if we all submitted our twelve top initiatives? There might be twenty to thirty very common items and perhaps six items on nearly every list.
I would like one of our accomplished blogsites to take on the task of collecting and collating these lists. The end result would be a list of a dozen or so priorities that would identify the Democratic party, or at least the Democratic wing of the party.
I think this is something we need to do ourselves. The leadership is incapacitated for some reason. That is pitiful but it is no reason for us to merely whine.
Posted by Paul Schoenfeld at March 20, 2006 07:44 PMIt gets frustrating sometimes, and yeah our party sucks at the moment. But we here in the netroots are in the early stages of building something new and dynamic. Sometimes you got to get right down to the bottom of the barrel and wallow in the rot for awhile before you begin to see the light.
Islander, we haven't got the time. We need our Party to get in the trenches with us. Here we are fighting for America with absolutely no help from our own Party. We are approximately 7 months away from the 2006 elections. Hello.
Posted by Judith at March 20, 2006 08:34 PM"The Liberty Party" or "The Progress Party" might be better names for the alternative political party that surely will be needed after 2006. This year we need to elect as many Democrats as possible to slow the bleeding of our Republic. Both major political parties are corporately corrupted, playing "good cop/bad cop". The Green Party argues amongst themselves and get no national candidates elected while The Libertarian Party is much too rigid philosophically.
A fresh new coalition of progressives/liberals which includes some libertarian/fiscal conservative principles with a strong and clear platform could become stronger than hapless Democrats and the dying Republican cons.Maybe even by 2008 with a strong and honest candidate - but surely by 2012.
curt
Posted by curt at March 21, 2006 05:47 AMVote on this: Do you think that "Reid And Pelosi Should Get Out Of The Way"?
Posted by Al at March 21, 2006 09:19 AM