The Democrats Want a Non-Binding Withdrawal. Do You Know Why?

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6930

The Democrats Want a Non-Binding Withdrawal. Do You Know Why?
by Timothy Gatto | Apr 19 2007 - 6:56pm

I hate to say “I told you so”, but the Democratic stand on the withdrawal timetable is now going to be a non-binding “advisory” as reported by The Washington Post. For exactly the reasons I wrote about a few weeks ago, The Post says: “The compromises may cost Democrats votes among antiwar liberals, but they hope to pick up some Republicans.” No kidding. This just blatantly shows what constituency they are aiming for, and it’s not the Liberal/Progressive camp. It never was except when they wanted to win the last election.

This it politics at it’s worst. The Democrats have just become totally transparent and from my point of view, I don’t like what I’m seeing. Like I have stated over and over, the Democrats have morphed into “Republican Lite”. Why they insist on negating a huge segment of the population that is just finding it’s voice seems like political suicide to me. When Nancy Pelosi first came out and said “impeachment is off the table” that too was an attempt at not alienating the center-right. The truth is that now, at this juncture, the two sides have polarized so much that the center-right is vanishing.

This only proves that the people are not the constituency that the Democratic Party is seeking. Sure, they want to be seen as leading in the polls, they want the public to support their approach to government, and they make an attempt to get the public to support their agenda. The ones that they are truly trying to win over however, are the Corporations and the PAC’s. Once you put that into the equation, everything now makes sense. They want the “appearance” of public support, but more than that, they want and need the corporate and special interest money. It’s no wonder that Nancy Pelosi took impeachment “off the table” when you understand that corporations and special interests paid for 66% of her campaign. When you think about it you might be astonished, but when you find out that she was at the bottom of the list as far as campaign donations from corporate and special interest groups, you then can really see who is running the show.

snip//

We spent $420 Billion dollars last year. Our closest competitor China, spent $16.2 Billion. Quite a difference, don’t you think? That is a good reason to pay for your political allies to get into office. I don’t think the Defense contractors are going to be bankrolling Liberal/Progressives anytime soon. The only way we can change the game is to change the way political campaigns are funded. A good place to learn about that is to go to The Center for Responsive Politics or opensecrets.org. They will tell you who exactly took how much from whom.

So sleep well tonight knowing that the “loyal opposition” is caving in before the legislation is even vetoed. This was all a well played out drama to make you believe that the Democrats are “with us”. They are not. Maybe they wish that they could be, but things being what they are, they really have no choice but to kowtow to those footing the bill for their campaigns. Clean Money Elections are trying to change the way politics is played in this country and they are making remarkable progress. Check them out and maybe help them. We have to change this pathetic control of out legislators or we lose out to fascism, corporate control of the government. I don’t make this stuff up, but I sure wish I did.

[librechik]

1. cuz they don't want to look TOO strong

that would be unfeminine.

[EFerrari]

2. We have to make their money worthless. That's the only solution

I can see.

They'll never take money out of elections so we have to devaluate their currency.

[Raven]

3. This is going to be very bad news for the guy who go elected up here in NH on an anti-war

agenda. We and some other great grassroots groups got him in and by God, we'll take him out in 2008. If he thinks he can rely on renegade Repubs in 2008 he's smoking something. Actually, I think it would be very instructive to our politicians to take some new rep out after 2 years because he fucked over the people who got him elected. It might send a big, big message that your congressional seat is not a sinecure or an anuity.

[PSPS]

4. "sinecure"

Nice use of vocabulary!

[rzemanfl]

5. Yeah, but annuity has two n's. n/t

[Raven]

6. Woops! I can pronounce it but I could never spell! :-)

[onyourleft]

8. Agreed, Raven.

The next election may have to be a wake up call. We put him in, we can take him out.

[bemildred]

9. There is a good argument for throwing as many weasels out as possible.

And continuing to do so until they figure out who they need to be afraid of. Right now they fear the money boys and the media. We need to teach them to fear the voting public.

[AliceBlitzstein]

7. it stops Republicans from shifting the blame

from themselves. I don't know whether or not it will work.