All of our Democratic legislators smeared

[bigtree]

. . . because of the actions of a minority of Democrats.

What a stupid exercise; promoting the actions of the minority of our party as representative of the whole. It's completely dishonest as it is self-defeating. What greater reward could that minority in our party get than to be elevated to standard-bearer status by the Democrats' constant critics?

It's much easier to attack our own party than to blame the obvious republican instigators and architects of the abuses of power. But, the fact remains that the vast majority of Democrats share the author's concerns about the creeping advance of Bush's imperious reign. The vast majority of Democratic legislators have committed themselves in words and action to challenging the administration's crimes and abuses.

It's a curious and unconvincing strategy to rhetorically lump those Democrats who have done the right thing in the same pile with those who haven't. It's like slap-fighting with eyes closed. It's an approach which is amateurish, completely uninformative to the point of outright dishonesty, and self-defeating in its appeal to apathy and division. We need to build on the support we have in Congress, not alienate those who stood up and voted the right way.

We need to recognize and tell the truth that the majority of legislators in our party are working to restore the democracy and justice Bush has hijacked and frittered away. The moderate minority doesn't deserve to have their betrayals define the majority of legislators in our party who regularly stand for and defend the same principles and values that have always served to distinguish the Democratic party from the republican opposition.

We should tell the truth about our party - what the majority stands for and regularly defends - rather than resigning ourselves to wearing the hat the minority fashioned with their republican allies. The haphazard elevation of the reprobative minority of our party needs to end. They don't represent our party.

[malaise]

1. A very good post but surely

you understand the anger.

[terrya]

2. Recommended

Thank you for putting things in proper perspective.

[speakclearly]

57. Isn't "wrong" wrong?

Shouldn't we be calling it like we see it. Should we support a DINO just because they have a "D" next to their name? Don't we compromise our own integrity by saying that Dems are "off limits" from ctiticism because they are Dems, and we can only criticize Republicans? Isn't that how we ended up with Joe Lieberman!

I tell you, I am surprised at some of you DUers who say we should exempt Dems from criticism. That means we are "buying into the system" and that ethics and integrity are meaningless (at least in my book). If you can defend a Dems who makes "wiretapping" legal this week, what will you be willing to "buy into" next week? An invasion of Iran?

Look into the mirror. do you even recognize yourself? I think I recognize just the tinges of a "smirk" at the corners of your mouth!

[Junkdrawer]

3. Which side is the leadership on????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1515976&mesg_id=1515976

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Ditto!!!! eom

[bigtree]

11. Both leaders voted against the republican legislation

but, I haven't heard one good explanation why they even bothered to bring these up for a vote if they thought for a minute the republican alternative would pass. Completely mismanaged, in my view.

I won't start ranting about how they 'sold out' or are in Bush's pocket tho. I suspect they had concerns this could be used against the party politically if there was even a hint of an attack between now and whenever they hashed the mess out. Call that what you want, but they are politicians, concerned, primarily, with politics.

The real problem is that most of the background on this is classified. That enabled the administration to present their 'threat' any way they wanted. Politically, I think, the important issue of civil liberties had been trumped in public opinion in the past by the fear the administration has generated. I'm not personally moved by those perceptions or by the fearmongering, but I'm only accountable to myself.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Question #1: WHY THE DIFFERENT RULES FOR THE DIFFERENT BILLS????

How come "our" bill was introduced in a way that required a 2/3 vote and "their" bill was a straight up-down vote?

[bigtree]

20. I haven't heard any reasonable explanation for that either.

Everything about the process that the leadership agreed to was a disaster.

I would like an answer on that question.

[dkofos]

16. Covering one own ASS is not representing the people.

[bigtree]

26. right

this was ultimately cover for Bush; engineered and delivered by the actions of the leadership.

Curious though, that they didn't give themselves the cover that some folks assume they were giving the party out of fear of being labeled soft on terrorism.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. Both Leaders Didn't Have To Place The Bills Up For Consideration Either. FISA was

fine. It was Shrub's Illegalities that weren't.

Check this statement out from Shrub. It reads to me that there is a clause in the Bill that sets him and his cohorts free and clear from their felonious acts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1517713

[bigtree]

28. Bush came to Congress after FISA sent him packing

and in the midst of lawsuits against the communications carriers that were causing them to pull back from cooperating with the administration on their spy hunt.

I'm not sure he got enough out of this legislation to satisfy the courts.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. Congress should have sent him packing too! eom

[OzarkDem]

27. Their job is to deliver the Dem vote as a bloc

If they only want to be held responsible for their own individual vote, they don't belong in leadership.

[Skidmore]

4. You know, that post is a bunch of unadulterated BS.

This little sanctimonious lecture would be tolerable if not for the fact that with each blow this nation takes from the complicity of this poor bunch of wayward fools upi call minority, you become less free. The majority deserve a swift kick as well because there is no indication that they find anything wrong with it. Sure this minority doesn't represent the party, but they are never sanctioned for this crap.

[bigtree]

17. 'NO indication that the majority finds anything wrong with it?'

Well, not in the media. Not in these disgusting smears that pass for journalism either. There's no obvious leadership rebuke, but that's not unusual. I really don't know what you expect for those who stood up and voted the right way to do after the fact of the vote that would put these legislators on their asses, but they do have ways of taking care of turncoats which may not be visible from the outside.

[Skidmore]

21. Name me one instance in the past seven years when they've have taken care of

a turncoat. Just one. If they had and had been successful doing so, we wouldn't be having these discussions now.

[bigtree]

32. They don't all have committee assignments that we can see flip

and, I don't have enough inside baseball to know where these turncoats will suffer on their own initiatives and efforts where they need cooperation. But, I know enough to recognize that retributions do happen.

In this case, though, it would be hard for Reid or Pelosi to come back and reprimand these turncoats for taking advantage of a situation they themselves orchestrated.

This is coming from a strong supporter of our leadership. I would support their replacement on this travesty alone - without all of the invectives. This is pure incompetence from the leadership; bordering on, seemingly, benign complicity.

[Anita Garcia]

23. Well said - Skid! n/t

[B Calm]

5. republicans suck, but at least they stick together!

[lazer47]

6. If you have a barrel of 51 apples of which there are 14 rotten

they will have affected the others and you have to empty the whole barrel, and start over, I know that is simplistic,, but it is also the truth.

[H2O Man]

8. Interesting point.

I do not think it is any more simplistic than saying that the entire democratic party is smeared when DUers express anger at those in congress. The total number of democrats in congress is but a tiny minority of the entire party, much as the apples in one barrel are a tiny fraction of the entire apple population.

[bigtree]

18. You should know very well what I'm referring to

Democrats this, and Democrats that . . .

Democrats are cowards, Democrats are spineless, Democrats are complicit . . .

My complaint has nothing to do at all with 'DUers express(ing) anger at those in congress.' The complaint is that the majority is being mis-characterized in the scattershots of accusations and insults.

What constructive purpose does it actually serve to lump them all in together when the majority don't share the views of these moderate defectors?

[H2O Man]

22. "The entire party smeared..."

I believe that is your quote. The democrats in congress are not the "entire party." Hence, even if any DUers did say that all democrats in congress are cowards, spineless, and/or complicit, it is inaccurate to say they smear the entire party.

[bigtree]

29. I think most folks know what I'm referring to.

But, I can see the parsing that can be made out of the title. I'll change it to reflect my reference to the legislators.

[H2O Man]

31. Thank you.

I think it is more accurate now.

[Individualist]

12. It's an excellent analogy, lazer47

DLC is the rot that has destroyed the party.

[sandnsea]

51. I can apples, I cut the rotten parts off

Almost never throw away an entire apple. Certainly never dump the whole barrel. Your analogy is foolish and childish.

[Old and In the Way]

9. We have a Congressional majority, but Republicans control the conversation.

Where's our mainstream media going ballistic on this administration's trampling of our civil rights? Why haven't they been doing front page exposes on this administration's crimes? Where are they running in-depth stories of what this legislation does and why it ultimately bad legislation for this country? Our Party let us down, but the Media has allowed this administration to control the message to the American people.

[marions ghost]

45. Right

any indictment of the Dems just has to factor this loss of the corporate media in. I know it's getting old to repeat this fact about big media betrayal...but once again, this is a critical as to why the Repugs can just play right to the media, knowing that their POV will be the one that is heard.

The Dems may speak eloquently and have all the right arguments, but unless you watch C-span all the time or follow the internet discussions and try to make sense of it all yourself, you do not get the Dem position. This latest FISA thing is an excellent example.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. When the leadership stands for taking impeachment off the table, your

atrgument should be with the leadership, not the party faithful who have woken up and smell the coffee, and a bitter brew it is.

"As ye sow," is all I have to say to the Dems. If you confuse that with "smearing" too bad. You just don't get it.

[HughMoran]

13. I agree with you - though there is anger in the air still

I am a little shocked at a couple of the comments above, but I will assume that they are still fuming about what they witnessed last night. I am still pissed as well. I watched as Democrat after Democrat espoused the beliefs that align with most here, yet because of a minority of Dems and a Republican party that has no moral compass, we are stuck with an illegal and unconstitutional law for another 6 months. Instead of getting discouraged, I think we should double-down and really put the pressure on the Democratic leadership to ensure that a bill like this cannot pass next time.

The sad part is that the Dem leadership had to put forth this bill due to the Blue Dog ass holes who would have caused a reasonable bill to fail - thus giving the Dems a really large black-eye just before the break. And they would have likely stayed in session to pass this criminal bill anyway. It sounds like those traitor Dems really do wield a large stick. Makes me angry...

[dkofos]

15. YES The majority of the dems did the right thing and should be commended.

It's the ALLEGED party leadership, the dlc and bluedogs who need a good ass woopin.

[FredStembottom]

19. I am worried about the results.

Sure, some of our Democratic Congresskids voted to slow the destruction of the Constitution down while in the Hazard Zone of an upcoming election.

But I need results. I need the speeding car to stop hitting people.

I need some Republican-style Party cohesion used for Good for a change.

I need our Party leadership to see the emergency. To enforce discipline suited to the destruction at hand.

I need Democratic representatives acting with at least half of the pure, focused determination that delivery truck drivers, joggers and 19 year old college students showed at the scene of the 35W bridge collapse.

I demand RESULTS. The Least Spineless Democrat Pageant can resume some other day.

[OzarkDem]

24. Dem leaders could have avoided it

by getting their votes in line. Its not rocket science.

The problem is, they apparently made their mind up some time ago, behind closed doors. They chose to let this bill pass by letting enough of their blue dog Dems vote against it. It was a collaboration by all Dem leaders. Why? We don't know.

So yes, the blue dog Dems deserve criticism as well as Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Emmanuel, et al.

Don't blame rank & file Dem voters for the mistakes of those inside the Beltway.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Dysfunctional party.

Our nominal political party won the November election yet the bipartisan War Party remains firmly in control of all branches of the federal government. Our party's efforts to do anything effective to rein in the executive branch have been a complete failure. Our party's congressional leadership team has to be judged on the basis of the record of this congress so far. On that basis they are a complete and total failure. We can pretend otherwise. We can sort out all the minor legislative victories (are there any besides the blood-soaked increase in the minimum wage?) and sing the praises of Pelosi and Reid for that. We can, as some here have done, applaud those of our congressional delegates who did not defect and vote with the War Party as if that were some sort of triumph. (Yes sure our army was vanquished, but most of our troops did not fight on the other side, only enough to guarantee defeat!) Or we can deal with the reality that the War Party, the Kleptocracy itself, remains firmly in control.

[bigtree]

34. We need a leadership which doesn't give a wit about what Bush wants

I don't want to hear any more from our leadership about what the WH wants unless they intend to oppose it with every fiber of their being.

It may not be the precise time for Pelosi and Reid to step off, but we need some unapologetic partisans to step up and replace them at the earliest opportunity. (As you know, I've been firmly in their corner until this travesty.)

I need a nap . . . or a drink. Or, a drink and a nap . . .

[Warren Stupidity]

35. And you have fought the good fight.

We need the base (that would be us), the netroots, the blogarians, the party faithful to be speaking with one voice in opposition to the travesty that has played out from January to August. This is not what we put our cash our time and our votes into the party for.

[jgraz]

50. No, we don't need partisans. We need principled opposition

Pelosi and Reid are partisans in that they seem to be acting in what they see as the best interests of the Democrats: do nothing, keep *'s most objectionable policies in place and then whine about how the big, bad Rethuglicans are blocking everything. For some reason, they see this as a winning strategy for 2008.

My feeling is that the only way they'll wake up is if we show them how this is absolutely NOT a winning strategy for 2008. We need to start providing some very stong and scary answers to the "who else are you gonna vote for" taunt. Until we do -- until the Dems start to worry about losing their "safe" seats -- we'll just see more of the same.

[Hydra]

36. I'm probably going to write a part in this for my journal this afternoon

Let's cut the crap and get down to brass tacks.

The DLCers and Pro-imperial dems and their apologists constantly say that we all have to stick together, compromise, and form a solid block.

Those same people broke ranks and voted this way, uncaring of our POV on the illegality of it, siding with a Fascist Prez who bears way too much resemblance to a dictator.

Where was the cohesion? What about the "stand together" rhetoric?

Oh, yeah. That came after.

"We know we just stuck a knife in your backs, but you need us! We have to work together to elect our mouthpie...ahem, I mean, the duly voted for democratic nominee in 2008. Also, we have IMPORTANT BUSINESS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to do. We have to stick together! That is, until one of you looney-left people try to get in the way of "progress."

[tanglefoot]

42. I don't think there is anything in the OP suggesting we all "stand together"

What he or she is saying is that we certainly have a right to throw poo at the idgits who voted for the FISA bill last night. But to throw poo at all Dems, even those who have fought the good fight and continue to do so only hurts us rather than helps us as a political organization.

Believe me, I feel your anger and share in your sense of betrayal over yesterday's votes. But I agree that it's much more productive to work against these dino's, to find someone to run against them and hold them accountable.

If tarring and feathering ends up costing those Dems who did the right thing, it will only take longer to take back our country.

[Hydra]

48. I was actually responding partially to Bigtree's other posts

Bigtree is suggesting not using so broad a brush. I'm suggesting who to point the finger at, and why, and why this can't continue- the right wing of the Dem party is sinking us, while telling us that we need them more than they need lefties like me. These DLCers and others like them are the people that deserve our wrath, and supporters of such behavior should be asked to explain how funneling power to * and company is in any way a democratic behavior whenever they want our support for THEIR needs.

I'm happy to see that many have finally reached their tipping points regarding these snakes in wool clothing, especially due to this "mishap."

[CrispyQ]

37. CNN's banner read that the democratically controlled House passed the FISA bill.

That's what we're up against. :banghead:

[tritsofme]

38. This bill was passed with the tacit support of the Democratic leadership

Steny Hoyer did not have to schedule a vote on the bill if he didn't want to. The issue could have died and they could have called Bush on his bluff and went into recess.

[Hydra]

39. Thank you for saying it

It reminded me of NAFTA and several other votes where the majority of the party got to say that they didn't vote for it while enough did answer "aye" to let it sail through.

[bigtree]

40. that was my impression

I believe it's open-season on their failed management of this. I vote 'no confidence' in the leadership over this one issue. We really can't afford any more appeasements to the administration, deliberate or not.

[tritsofme]

43. While not exactly the best model

During Dennis Hastert's reign as Speaker bills did not hit the floor unless there was support from a "majority of the majority" while this might not be a path to follow on every single issue, on issues like the wiretapping of American citizens by Alberto Gonzales, it might be a prudent strategy.

[Forkboy]

41. I know I normally harp on you,but this isn't a bad point.

I don't agree with some of the specifics of your post,but it's true that a minority of Dems were the ones to blame,not the majority,and that does get lost in the fog of war.

The trouble is that the Dems in the positions of power are just too damn nice in a time when nice is not needed,or even welcome anymore.I realize that's kind of an ugly statement in some ways,but it's true.We are being steamrolled left and right (literally,left and right).These are very,very special times.I truly believe we are in a period of history that will be looked back upon for a long,long time,and our actions will be recorded for history to see.We need to decide which side of that history we want to be remembered for.

[BlooInBloo]

44. DUers want nothing more than to rip on Democrats....

... And they'll take the actions of a minority of Democrats, and use it to castigate the whole.

DUers aren't gonna change on this, no matter how craven it is. We're therefore better off working to minimize those jackass Democrats who vote for fear.

[many a good man]

46. Nobody should never give those big bad bushies ANYTHING they want

[Disturbed]

47. Yellow dog Dems should kick those Blue dogs out.

Blue dogs are complicit with the Neo Fascists.

What are “Blue Dog” Democrats?

In the 106th Congress, the Blue Dogs are 30 fiscally conservative House Democrats who tend to vote together as a coalition on budgetary and economic issues. Their stated goal is to bring their own party back to the center of the ideological spectrum, and to forge good working relationships with moderate Republicans to help move that party more toward a centrist agenda.

They have been most influential since their creation in the 104th Congress because of the leverage they exert as a unified voting bloc. The Republican leadership, with 223 Members on its side of the aisle, has only 5 votes to spare to meet the minimum 218 required to pass legislation If more than 5 Republican Members stray from the fold on any given vote, the leadership often turns to the Blue Dogs on the Democratic side of the aisle to gain their bloc vote in exchange for negotiated changes in legislative language.

The Blue Dogs derive their name from the artwork of a Cajun painter, George Rodrigue, well known in Louisiana for his series of paintings featuring an unusual blue dog. The fledgling members of what became the Blue Dog Coalition used to meet regularly in the offices of then-Democrats Rep. Billy Tauzin and Rep. Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana. Tauzin has since switched to the Republican party and Hayes was defeated in a run for the Senate. The Louisiana representatives had Rodrigue’s blue dog paintings displayed on the walls of their offices, and these provided the inspiration for the coalition’s name. One of the Blue Dogs, Rep. John Tanner from Tennessee, maintains that Blue Dogs are simply “yellow dogs that have been choked by extremes in both political parties to the point they have turned blue.”
Blue Dog Democrats are an actual voting coalition made up of Members of Congress, whereas Yellow Dog Democrat is an expression -- it describes a certain kind of voter. Nor are Blue Dogs ideological relatives of the "Yellow Dogs" of the South, even though they have similar names.

More here: http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly55.htm

[Hydra]

49. Ah, so these are the dreaded "neutrals"

When you have two opposing forces, you frequently have a group on the sidelines watching for when they can jump in and gain the most advantage. Depending on what their situation is, they have different wants. In the case where there is no risk for them either way, though, they often just go to both parties in the conflict and say "make me an offer."

In cases where there are almost even forces in play for the first 2 parties, then the neutrals become a deciding factor, and those people reap huge rewards until one side or the other gets fed up with them and knocks them out of their position.

Figures, though. It means we really aren't the majority in the house. Without these...mercenaries...we're 5 votes short.

[NoodleyAppendage]

52. I see the WillPitt Contingent is working overtime performing damage repair.

EXCUSES, EXCUSES...EXCUSES.

Pelosi could have reigned in enough Dem votes to defeat the measure, and you know it. Stop excusing the indefensible.

J

[sandnsea]

53. It's a big country

Not everybody thinks the same way. I really don't know why that is so hard for DU to grasp. If people don't have accurate info, they can't make accurate decisions. That's what has to change, but nobody ever has a plan for that.

[Beerboy]

54. OK, everybody's unhappy with the vote,

but how is it a 'smear'? Did they not vote as recorded? Each congressional district has concerns of it's own. Just because your Congressman goes against you one time isn't the end of the World, ffs.

[farmboxer]

55. Yes, somewhat true

I have to think of Kucinich to calm down. I will vote for a Dem, but I will have to hold my nose to do such. Still, I am so damned disappointed. I have been very sich lately and am just simply tired of it all. I have lost my patience. Big Pharma almost killed me, doctors lie, all about the money. Will never take any of their dangerous prescription drugs ever again. I have seen so many people made very ill by corporate greed. I will go natural for the rest of my life, however long that will be. I will fight publically owned corporations, have joined a group that is doing such. They are making huge money off the sickness and deaths of people, and they do not care. So many lobbyiests from Pharma, and I do not trust the AMA, FDA, FTC, etc. It's all about the money. Vioxx anyone?

[mdmc]

56. hang in there

:kick:

[The Stranger]

58. They're members of the WAR PARTY, no longer Democrats.

A subset of Democrats have bolted their party's base to join a subset of Republicans and form THE WAR PARTY. The dominant issues have changed the political party landscape.

To continue to attack members of DU who realize and have reacted to this change is counter-productive. Stop doing it.