I hate to be so critical (really) but, there are more than a few folks here who need Gov.101

[bigtree]

I can't believe the notions that some folks have about the abilities of our Democratic majorities. It explains a great deal of the anger and frustration toward our party, I believe.

[onehandle]

1. Yep. nt

[Goblinmonger]

2. I do know that they

don't have to roll over and play dead everytime that the minority says they might filibuster. They might actually make them filibuster so they look like idiots. They might actually send the Iraq defunding bill to Bush a few dozen more times so that he has to veto it and look like a prick along with the Republicans in 08 rather than looking like we "didn't do anything" which people will believe if there is only one shot. They might act like they actually won an election quite clearly on the war rather than sitting on their asses. Don't know why that means I need Gov 101 refresher course.

[Bjornsdotter]

4. You don't

...some here like to feel that they are superior. :eyes:

:toast:

[robinlynne]

18. or else it's some sort of party uber alles...

[brentspeak]

3. You can say that again.

[Richardo]

5. Critical away.

The ignorance of simple civics on this board is appalling at times.

Recommended.

[hurricaneric]

6. Agreed!!

We need more knowledge and level-headedness about the current situation.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Just an education in general. Really, it's just the same problem the whole country has...

... DUers just like to self-congratulate themselves a la Huxley's Alphas, etc.

[radiclib]

29. "self-congratulate themselves" is redundant

my pompous friend :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

33. True that - thanks!

[bluestateguy]

8. If they lose battles in the Senate, fine. I just want them to go down fighting.

Yesterday's vote on the Webb amendment is a good example. They fought the good fight, stayed united and lost. I can't fault them for that.

Today, however, was just an embarassment.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

9. Then please explain why

When the Reps were the majority the Dems couldn't block a damn thing?

[AuntPatsy]

12. Good question I await an answer.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

16. Don't hold your breath n/t

[robinlynne]

20. interesting, isn't it.

[hurricaneric]

32. What do you mean they couldn't block a damn thing?

that's a cop out. How about becuase they didn't have the votes. Seems simple enough.

[tkmorris]

43. . edited

[The Vinyl Ripper]

49. Do the Reps have the votes now?

[bigtree]

38. They can always find a group of republicans to bond with on conservative initiatives

harder to build liberal (progressive) coalitions using the opposition for the few votes needed.

So, there's a definite bending from a minority of Democrats toward republican alternatives. Apparently enough of them to blend with a solid republican majority to overcome filibusters and vetoes. With 49 republicans, it doesn't take but a fraction of Democrats to muck things up (like on the FISA bill)

[papau]

79. the GOP made the tax cuts part of the budget - so it could not be filibustered - the

knee jerk acceptance of the removal of civil liberty by at least 5 Dems prevented that filibuster.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. The OP neglected to define what 'notions' we misbelieve

so he can deftly dodge any of our notions we enumerate here that are difficult to attack.

[bigtree]

95. I'm here for you WP

I'm pretty accessible and responsive to questions.

[bdamomma]

134. did they (repigs) change the rules when Dems took control?

just asking?

[radiclib]

10. Please elaborate

We're not all mindreaders. Maybe you can teach us.

[BlooInBloo]

14. The body to whom the 1st Amendment is restrictive is a neverending source....

... of amusement with DUer posts, for one example.

[radiclib]

27. OK I admit it. I'm dumb as a bag of doorknobs

but I'll need that in a decipherable language.

[BlooInBloo]

30. Heh. The 1st Amendment prohibts *Congress* from doing various things inhibiting free speech...

... It does NOT prohibit private parties from doing that. DUers like to bitch about DU moderators infringing on their 1st amendment rights.

[radiclib]

34. Hah!

Thanks.

[valerief]

11. Scolding is so impressive. nt

[grasswire]

13. never forget that there are provocateurs here...

...who work to split the party just as they did in 2000.

To Dems: if you are unhappy that we can't get our way in Congress, go hassle a Republican. They are the obstructionists. Pressure just a few to vote our way, and we'll get what we want.

[hurricaneric]

37. Again, I totally agree.

We need more logical talk like this.

[Dr Fate]

130. Do you include the DLCers who supported Lieberman (I-3rd party) in this group?

Or is it just Liberal 3rd parties, rather than the DLC endorsed, pro-Bush ones that are the problem?

Gee, if only they spent their time hassling Republicnas rather then attacking anti-war DEMS- right? LOL!

[bdamomma]

135. yea, call a Repigs office.

[Dr Fate]

138. LOL! Yes- if you disagree with a DEM "centrist" ask a Republican to set him straight-LOL!!

You are right- that is essentially what we are being told to do.

"Dont like what the DEMS are doing?- well, you had better politely ask the Republicans to make them stop!" LOL!!!

[Purveyor]

15. I think a full understanding of the parlimentarian rules of both the House and Senate would

surprise even those calling for a need of Gov. 101...

[bigtree]

19. I never stop learning

I think we're even losing some of the knowledge from Congress as these ancients retire from the staff as well as from the legislature itself. I think that might explain some of the stupidity like the advancement of the republican FISA bill

[robinlynne]

25. even simpler, just watch bill moyers bi-partisan show about impeachment and congress,

before posting posts like this one.

[onenote]

50. you are absolutely right about that

The way the House and, particularly the Senate operate reflect a couple hundred years of tradition, fealty to arcane rules and a system that requires a certain degree of compromise.

[noise]

17. Sounds like code

for 'Dems must hold their powder.'

[bigtree]

23. English 101

[Seabiscuit]

100. You mean: "Assholiness 101".

What a steaming pile of vapid condescension.

[bigtree]

104. my, my

there's a bit of dialog

[Seabiscuit]

117. "Assholiness 201".

Straight from the pompous horse's ass.

[bigtree]

124. is that code?

lovely

[HughMoran]

24. Should they give it up after 2 years?

?

[AuntPatsy]

21. Your reading one right here. but i am willing and able and want to learn.

[HughMoran]

22. Simple but effective

...and don't listen to the nay-sayers who think you can simply pull out the rule book and force an unwilling minority. Well, you could but lose the majority in the process. Folks who propose that are only thinking of themselves and not the long-term prospects for the Democratic party.

[canetoad]

69. I don't think the public

has a responsibility to be protecting any damn political party and it's majority . You do exactly the same as those bastards do, vote in your own self interest.

[madfloridian]

26. I know they don't have to vote for an amendment against Moveon

.

[cali]

28. Well then

you should have explained what they're missing, instead of just telling people that they're ignorant.

[Rex]

36. I second that.

Help us out, expand what you mean please.

[bigtree]

39. what, write a thesis?

get real

[Rex]

41. Hmm...

So you berate people, but won't help them to see the light. K.

[bigtree]

46. do you really feel 'berated?'

[cali]

78. no. not write a thesis

just write a few paragraphs about what you think DUers are ignorant of. Your OP was some lazy shit.

[bigtree]

93. as opposed to the other shit that flies around here

I meant the criticism to be targeted to folks who KNOW they haven't a clue about how a bill becomes law. Somehow I think you must realize that.

And, Cali, I explain and explain. I think you know that as well. If I took the time to detail the mistakes and misconceptions that have flown for fact around here it would be a huge mess of a post.

So, I would suggest, for quite a few posters here, at least a cursory reading of 'How a Bill Becomes Law'. I think it might help in their handicapping of events, as well as focus their advocacy and activism in a constructive way. I can imagine the response to some of the appeals which suggest things which the legislators know are just not possible under the rules, the law, and the environment in this Congress. That is pretty much all I wanted to say in this post.

That expression from me is a FAR better use of time than a great deal of the "shit" that flies around GD.

[Usrename]

140. Ok, if you are such a parilimentary genius, illuminate us on this.

41 votes were needed to stop the Alito confirmation.

42 Senators voted that he was unfit for the office.

There he sits.

Go ahead, illuminate us dumbfucks who just don't know any better.

We are sooooooooo fucking stoopid, right?

[Usrename]

146. That's what I thought.

You are special.

[provis99]

31. Here's why we're pissed at the Democrats in Congress

Its not because they aren't able to actively do something against Bush. To stop the war, all they have to do is DO NOTHING. They don't have to vote on a spending bill for the war. Republicans can't stop them from doing nothing. I have low expectations for them; but surely I can hope they're strong enough to DO NOTHING. Yet the putzes have kept the war going by enacting spending bills, giving Bush even more money than he requests for the war.

Do you get it?

[bigtree]

45. I'm one who believes that 'doing nothing' about Iraq cedes their responsibility

. . . to those who will continue doing things, like Bush using the regular Defense funds (in a variety of mechanisms outlined by the GAO) to support his deployments without the funds he's postured about.

Unless Congress passes some kind of legislation which mandates an end to the occupation there is NOTHING mandating Bush to end it. To act to restrain Bush without a mandate of law is an amazing strategy against someone who's demonstrated such disregard and indifference to passive actions by this Congress.

Even with the mandate of law, there will still be a struggle to enforce Congress' will, but I think, without legislation, there's no telling how Bush will limp our troops along.

As for that temporary supplemental bill, it was passed AFTER the failure of ANY strategy to get Bush to end his occupation failed to get the necessary support to advance it into action or law. I feel that money intended for the troops should not be held hostage to our politics. Defunding schemes undertaken without any mandate for an end to the deployments relies on the dubious expectation that Bush would notice or care enough the effect of some budget shortfall on the troops to cause him to end his occupation before the end of his term. I don't think he gives a damn.

[Ghost in the Machine]

51. The problem is, even if Congress passed legislation mandating the end of the war,

King george would just render it moot with a signing statement. That's why the *first* priority should be impeachment and removal of him and Cheney both.

Remove the main source of the roadblock first, then concentrate on the left over debris (obstructionist repugs). With the main roadblock removed, the obstructionists won't have anything to obstruct. It's pretty simple,... really, it is...

[bigtree]

52. that's the rub, isn't it? removing them.

not really all that simple . . .

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. The concept is simple, and the process should follow easily if you follow the rules

Documented crimes have been committed, *and* admitted to on National television. Anyone who votes not to impeach and/or not to convict needs to be run out on a rail too, since they stand for criminals instead of the people whom they were elected to serve.

We need just one or two pro impeachment Dems speaking out every chance they get, and they need to pressure the republics by telling them they are going to paint them as criminal enablers during the next election cycle.

We need to concentrate on badgering our REPUG representatives and try to get them sold on impeachment.

We're never going to get anywhere until we remove the biggest obstacle in our way. Bush/Cheney. That's a fact, no matter how you slice it. Anyone should be able to see that now. If the Scooter Libby sentence communtation didn't open some eyes, what more will it take? Ignoring and refusing to answer subpoenas hasn't enraged people enough. How much more?

What's it going to take to wake some people up?

[Selatius]

59. The process of impeachment is necessarily a political one.

By having the trial in the Senate, it's likely all you end up doing is generating another straight party-line vote or a virtual party-line vote. Procedurally, it's rather easy to remove a president. Unfortunately, I don't think the Founding Fathers could really account for the judgment of senators being compromised by partisanship and special interest money.

Overcoming the sheer level of partisanship being displayed by Repubs and the vested interests that don't want the war to end? That's terribly difficult.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. That's why we at least *need* an open vote in the House and Senate

on whether to start impeachment proceedings. It's a way to smoke out the rest of the enablers and expose them for the world to see who and what they are. Criminal Enablers who stand by the crimes of the misadministration instead of protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign *and* domestic.

I say smoke the snakes out. We need to clean house in DC. Big time...

[Selatius]

72. I don't think the Democratic leadership is willing to do that.

Pelosi took the issue of impeachment off the table, yet Bush loves to state that "everything is on the table." You have people like Diane Feinstein whose husband's contracting firm is getting millions in contracts in Iraq. Some people don't want the war to end.

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. Great reason not to impeach! To appease the war profiteers!

NOT!

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you've resigned yourself to accepting a corporatocracy rule and not being represented by your elected officials.

I haven't given up yet... I'm stubborn that way. I want my kids to grow up in the same country, with the same freedoms, that I did. That's what it boils down to for me...

I've heard "impeachment wouldn't be good for the country, it would be devisive"... ummm, like *keeping* Bush in power is good for the country?? Where's the logic?

I'll live free, or die fighting for my freedom...

[Selatius]

90. Yeah, I'm getting close to the point of resignation. I am starting to understand why so few vote.

If Jesus and Satan were in Congress and negotiating on a bill to be passed, what would the result be? Satan wants to kill you, and Jesus wants to save you. What would the compromise be? Beating you to a bloody pulp but still keep you alive?

[MadHound]

80. Since you're such an expert on Civics 101, then please explain why the Dems

Aren't exercising their right as the majority party to hold up each and every supplemental war funding bill in committee, thus starving the beast and forcing the troops to come home. This is well within the scope of Constitutional powers granted to the majority, yet the Dems aren't exercising it. Why's that?

[Dr Fate]

132. Apparently becuase anti-war swing voters ALSO cut class a lot in 8th grade civics?

What ever the reason, I'm sure it is due to the faults and ignornace of anti-war voters. Right? LOL!!

Naybe the real answer is because: THEY DONT WANT TO.

[KAZ]

35. I think we're all being pushed to the limit, which makes

emotions run high. Man, if you could hear me yell at my tee-vee. What are they supposed to do? Helplessness is an emotion rubbed raw. When they take to the streets in protest, the media ignores. They go through countless wingnut chain emails, giving up on replying. They think that if they post what they really want to happen to the Decider, he'll decide a not to pleasant status for them. So they want their warriors (elected officials) to do it for them. We're 3/4s the way down the rabbit hole, and it's just going to get worse. Exponentially.

[bigtree]

48. it's always been a pain.

I thought our generation would rule by now, but Congress still has its dinos and their bastard children

[Raster]

40. I just love it when someone begins a post with "I hate to be so critical"

Really??? Doesn't seem to be stopping you, now does it? Must not hate it that fucking bad.

[bigtree]

47. No, it's not so bad doing that here

I'm a pussycat compared to the shit that flies around DU sometimes

[tyedyeto]

42. Part of the problem is....

you can read, and re-read, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc. But with so many rules, Congress (both houses), has enacted over the years, plus every executive order that has been enacted..... you need to be a lawyer or some such to interpret what can and cannot happen in both houses of Congress these days.

[Auntie Bush]

44. Right! They seem to think that just because we are the majority

that we can do anything. They don't know we need a super majority to get our will accomplished. They don't even realize that if those in red states want to win an election they can't be pure Democrats. Some need basic English and should look the word compromise up in the dictionary. Some don't realize there is an art to politics...it isn't just voting and campaigning.

Some will be a lot happier and less stressed out after they take politics 101.

[Marr]

74. You don't need a supermajority to avoid passing the opposition's legislation.

People are angry not just because the Democrats are incapable of moving their professed agenda, but because they actually seem to be moving the Republican agenda instead. They avoid fights so diligently and collapse so quickly that it leads one to suspect that they simply do not *want* to win.

The FISA Bill is one example, but there are too many others.

[EFerrari]

54. You want to educate people out of their feeling of frustration and betrayal.

Is that right?

[bigtree]

56. I would think that more knowledge about the legislative process could make some folks more resolute

There is a tendency here to rise and fall with every predictable obstruction. And every obstruction is met with these calls to abandon the system for some pie-in-the-sky panacea which would substitute for the inability of our slim majority to achieve the necessary amount of votes (or other support) to advance our concerns into action or law. Political change is never been easy, or assured just because we've voted for our particular legislators. The process is a maze of interests and motivations positioned as obstacles to that change. As many schemes as we can conjure to overcome our majority's ability to prevail legislatively, there are counter rights the minority can conjure to obstruct. Understanding the limits of our legislators in the Democratic majority to overcome those minority rights might bring some realism to our demands and more recognition of where the real opposition to our demands actually lies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. The real stumbling block to our demands are the Dems who vote with the Republicans.

The so called "moderates" or Blue Dogs who consistently vote with the Republicans giving them the majority. And, yet we have many people who call for our continued support of Democratic politicians who are in effect Republicans.

I give you the recent "Move-on" vote as evidence. Not to mention the continued votes to fund the war that they regularly apologize for and promise to do something about, someday, when they're powder is baked just right.

[bigtree]

62. I hear you

I'm going to bed now though, friend. I'm thinking of the influence of that minority too. Never a reciprocal number of republicans available to bend to liberal (progressive) initiatives.

[BlooInBloo]

61. To some non-zero degree, those feelings are due to overestimating what was possible...

... with a bare majority.

[EFerrari]

63. Yes, it's only a nominal majority.

But if you think it all the way through, the effort shouldn't be coming from the constituency but from the people we've hired to represent us. Period.

[BlooInBloo]

64. And that's another mistake. lol!

When what's-his-name said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance, he didn't mean that you could offload that vigilance to the politicians. The effort will always, of necessity, come from the electorate. Or it won't come at all.

[EFerrari]

66. It's not a mistake to expect people to do their job.

That's a reasonable expectation even if the electorate will, of necessity, have to ride their corruptible @sses. Where we are right now is ridiculous, already.

/ack

[BlooInBloo]

89. Oh - that wasn't so bad. :)

[EFerrari]

118. I'm getting soft in my dotage.

Just don't bring up Niagara Falls.

lol

[BlooInBloo]

65. I'll read you yelling at me tomorrow - I'm sleepy. 'Nite!

[EFerrari]

68. LOL! Sorry. 'Nite! n/t

[pingzing58]

55. Pork and Pet projects included in funding bills kept the membership in line. What now? Where is

you scratch my back and I'll agree to fund your bridge to nowhere? We need the pork to keep our political system in line. That's the only way to punish those that do not follow the party line.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. There are more than a few folks here who need to realize that government is the problem.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

Many mistakenly believe that the "leaders" of government have a desire to serve our interests. A notion disproved by history.

[bigtree]

58. that's why we have to be as informed about the process as they are

. . .and keep ourselves informed about those issues and concerns which we entrust to the bidding of those in Congress and thoroughly involve ourselves in the process of resolving those issues and concerns in tandem with our legislators by challenging ourselves to read, watch and listen with a respect and a desire for understanding of differing views and opinions in our deliberation and debate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. And, then do what?

I consider myself informed on the issues. I consider myself well-informed on the process. Whereas you see the "process" as the solution, I see the process as the problem.

Working from the "inside" hasn't worked. The Democratic Party continues to woo the right and ignore the left which it considers the safe votes.

The legislators don't work "in tandem" with the people. They work in tandem with their colleagues, their handlers, the folks that give them money, and the pollsters. Instead of us pleading with them for redress of our grievances, they should be pleading with us for our votes. And, when they fail to redress our grievances we should fail to vote for them.

It's called democracy.

[hfojvt]

73. that's a very Republican notion, IMO

Shall we drown it in the bathtub then?

[Marr]

70. I'm not surprised that you didn't offer any examples.

The Democrats control the agenda. They can say which bills come to the floor for a vote. This majority is not powerless, but they refuse to exercise that power.

But if you've got some wonderful excuse for why their powder is so damn dry, then please Professor, educate me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

76. When the system is corrupted, there is no harm in pointing out that

the emperor's concubine, have no clothes.

[Vinca]

77. Compared to the general population, DU is a brain trust. nt

[ShortnFiery]

81. And with their recent cowardly behavior and 11% approval rating it's not going to change ...

anytime soon. :grr: :thumbsdown:

[bdamomma]

136. that approval rating will go down more in the upcoming weeks.

[EstimatedProphet]

82. You can say that again

[Warren Stupidity]

83. A bit dishonest to attack like this without stating what you are attacking.

If there are notions that you think are wrong-headed, perhaps in order to have an honest discussion, you might actually list what those notions are.

[Richardo]

86. We can start with this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1861434&mesg_id=1861434

[Marrah_G]

85. I could not agree more

[camero]

87. Gov't 101

1. Announce campaign (for which ever office)
2. Go over lists of focus groups to establish rhetoric and to see what works with potential voters
3. Start taking bribes errrrrr campaign contributions from wealthy individuals and groups
4. Makes speeches based on established rhetoric that works on the focus group
5. Yay! We got elected! Thank supporters and focus groups. Especially financial supporters.
6. Vote with financial supporters while maintaining rhetoric to keep core focus groups mullified.
7. Solicit new bribes errrrrrrrrrr there I go again from same financial supporters for the next halftime show (elections).
8. Have burly cops deal with any and all dissent and make sure to keep them in the zone (or quiet, whichever is more prudent).

[JNelson6563]

88. When your political experience consists of

playing keyboard commando, indulging in nothing but knee-jerk reactions to everything.....

Well, you get the picture. Those who have no real knowledge (or desire to acquire any) of how things work in the world will never know anything but frustration and disappointment.

Julie

[JerseygirlCT]

91. I know we're all enormously frustrated

And some louder talk might help us with that, as well as smarter framing of the situation. (The Dems aren't failing so much as being blocked. Why was it that when the tables were turned it wasn't put that way?)

But yes, understanding more about how the whole messy process works would help, as well, probably, as being able to take a longer view.

What we need to do is funnel that frustration into ensuring a large Democratic majority next time. Filibuster proof. And a Dem president to go with it.

[tom_paine]

92. One question, though, bigtree:

Why is it that the Bushies, in similar constarints, lacking votes to convict and even lacking a case with any legal merit, a case in which more felonious and RICO activity was performed in setting Clinton's "perjury trap" than he committed in his answers or his actions (a consensual office BJ), why is it they were able to tie the nation in knots?

Come to think of it, here's another: How is it possible that Democratic Bills take 60 votes to pass but Bushie Bills take 50 EVERY TIME NOW?

(please don't lecture me about filibusters, I am looking for the deeper layers of the onion here than a simple civics lesson, I know the mechanics of what is happening, but WHY?)

If you can answer these questions to even a tiny bit of my satisafction (it has to make sense, and be bolstered by either direct evidence or logical analogies and examples...no ad hominem, please or this converstaion is over), I may lend some creedence to your opinion, which is obviously shared by half or more of DU, I would guess.

So convince me. Why is it the Republics, in the exact same sitauation 10 years ago, without even a case that passed the smell test of remotest crtiminal importance, were able to carry off what is apparently impossible for the Democratic Leadership, or anything even close to it, in terms of political resistance, come to think of it?

Convince me. Explain why cogently and clearly this seeming Orwellian/Totalitarian Double-Standard, makes sense in the context of the Old American Constitutional System, of Checks and Balances, as written and as practiced in the years 1945-1985?

Do that, and you will have gone a long way towards making me scratch my head and re-examine my 90% certainty.

I just don't think you will be able to. No one has, and I have been asking some variant of this same question since I joined DU in April 2001, probably a thousand times or more.

Hell, I can't even remember anyone TRYING to explain it. It's such a conversation killer, usually.

Anyway, please feel free to take a shot and convince me. I will try to keep an open mind and listen.

[bigtree]

94. I answered that above. I'm going to repeat my perception. I slept on it.

Republicans can always find *Democrats willing to vote on conservative initiatives to make up that 60 vote gap since their numbers fall short. I think it's been 10-12 votes they need. That's not a significant number of Democrats, but it's enough to allow these conservative bills to squeak through -- enacted into law because of the republican president. It is the moderate faction of the party which is responsible. They have influence because of their willingness and ability to form that bond with republicans whenever the want.

It's much harder to build liberal (progressive) coalitions using the opposition for the few votes needed.

So, there's a definite bending from a minority of Democrats toward republican alternatives. Apparently enough of them to blend with a solid republican majority to overcome filibusters and vetoes. Right now, with 49 republicans, it doesn't take but a fraction of Democrats to muck things up (like on the FISA bill).

[tom_paine]

98. Sorry, you really haven't answered my question at all, but just rehashed

Apologies, but I am not convinced by a discussion of the mechanics, and I already said that wasn't what I was looking for.

Let's try this again, from another angle.

If the situations were currently fully reversed (even the aisle-crossers), do you think the Republics would sit back and take even a tenth of the shit they heaped on the Dems? Can you say that with a straight face?

If this premise is true, don't you think the Republics would find a way to obstruct, ANY way they could? And then find a way to get their side and message out about it, no matter the truth or factuality of it (we Democrats have the advantage of having at least 90% of the truth on our side, at this time in history)?

What lies at the heart of this double-standard? Why hasn't Keith Olbermann's wild success been imitated in other shows, as any show that has enjoyed such a meteroic rise in popularity normally would have by now or soon in the future?

These are all different questions, but they lie at the heart of the matter and are all interconnected in the deeper layers of the onion, so to speak. Much moreso than vote counts and the Constitutional "rules", which no longer really exist for Bushies in any meaningful way, except for saporadic exceptions like Abramoff, where the machinery of Old America rustily creaks along still in some small areas of government.

You did not address these larger issues in your post and that is the ONLY angle which will convince me, because that is the very specific question I asked you and all the attendant questions. Rehashing the same stuff I have read before on DU a thousand times in the past six months isn't exactly a revelation to me, nor does it convince me.

It is intersting, but even the dimension of the mechanics you discuss are caged within the False Bushie Reality Bubble (please, don't be insulted; it has happened to me and to everyone at one time or another).

BECAUSE YOUR POINT AND THE DYNAMIC UNDERLYING IT ARE PREDICANT ON THE "NEW REALITY" that Democratic Bills take 60 votes but Bushie Bills take 51 now, at least on anything that counts. The dynamic changes if the Progressives only need a coalition of 51 instead of 60. The Bushies, of coursde, require 51 under either scenario.

I refuse to accept The New Bushie Reality, and you should too, if that reality defies basic common sense.

If you wish to, take another shot at convincing me, but understand that you must dig deeper if you are to convince me, beyond civics, especially considering what I believe is an nearly indisputable point about The New Bushie Reality and the fact that your premise rests upon it's faulty foundation.

Apologies if this offends. I do not wish to.

And I still maintain, if the situation was FULLY REVERSED, the Republics would still do what they do, and it would be a hundred times more effective than the Democrats today.

God, it makes me sad and sick to say that, but reality is reality. Seven years is seven years of the same shit over and over and over and over and over...minority, majority, whatever...

We may just have to agree to disagree in the end, but thank you for taking the civil conversation, and also if you try again, I promise to listen again. You'll notice that I didn't just say what you said was BS or anything rude, and that I bolstered my belief with a concrete example of why exactly I believe your premise is faulty.

Which is more than anyone gives or gets around here at DU, most of the time. And that is sad, too.

[bigtree]

101. I don't agree with your premise that Democrats aren't doing what they can

I'm not convinced by your argument that we should subvert the democratic process to overcome what everyone knows is a disparity in numbers needed to overcome their minority right to obstruct. If you mean that our party hasn't been effective in challenging them politically, I'd agree. I'd also like to see more confrontation. But, I'm not certain that mere confrontation is always beneficial if you are intending to influence the public to pressure the opposition. It has it's limits if it isn't guaranteed to move the issue.

I stand by my numbers. The equation you've described is made possible by that minority of Democrats who are apparently willing and able to join with republican whenever they want. There just isn't the same number of republicans that are willing to bend to our core initiatives.

Again, we need more political confrontation, but to suggest that by merely taking a confrontational stance we're going to move the numbers in a way which would advance our concerns into action or law doesn't really take into account the predictable opposition. Some political stances work, others sometimes work against us. Generally, though, the equation remains the same: a narrowly divided Congress, a solid obstruction vote, a minority of Democrats willing to bend to republican alternatives . . .

[tom_paine]

108. 1) I can't win for losing, can I? 2) We must agree to disagree, then

1) Well, if I come over aggressively and with a take-no-prisoners attitude in my forceful defense, then I am a publicity-seeking bigmouth doomsaying glory hound. If I bend over backwards to try to be nice and make sure that my comments aren't interpreted as ad hominems, then I am a condescending fuck.

How's THAT for a catch-22 and some fucking irony? Yeah I am mad about that bullshit, but WTF else is new about that bullshit? Been dealing with it for seven years here in a place where people should know better. How's that for condescention, and yeah, NOW I'm trying to be so.

Ok, now I am going to take a deep breath and calm down for

2) We are at loggerheads now and our basic differences have come to the fore. You believe the filibuster/no-filibuster dichotomy (a False Bushie-Created Dichotomy with no relation to the Old American Republic which came before it, IMHO) makes sense and is initiated by the 10 Dems that routinely defect to the Repugs. But you forget one key fact a filibuster only takes 40 Democrats to hang together to make it happen, as the Repugs are schooling us again that there is one-standard for them and one for us AND splitting the Dems from the Base, a two-fer.

So the dynamic of the filibuster CANNOT logically or factually have any material connection to those last 10 Dems you speak of because they simply ARE NOT NEEDED...only the first 41 are.

We must agree to disagree. I'd thank you for conversing civilly again because it is so damned rare around here that I was genuinely enjoying it until 97 and 99, but I wouldn't want to be a condescending fuck, now would I?

[bigtree]

120. c'mon. you're projecting your own insecurity. I wouldn't think of you that way

. . . just because you're being 'aggressive'. I don't think anything moves in Congress without pressure.

The problem with both of our equations is that the votes aren't the same on every issue. Alliances shift. Individual legislators must be targeted on one vote, but not on others where they might agree. There isn't a rigid, liberal bloc of votes in our party right now. It's been hard to elect those types from some regions of the country.

The opposition only has one job which is to cravenly gather just enough votes to serve their master. It's always more complicated with our party. I think it's because the majority of us actually give a damn and the rest tend to be politically mailable to the influences of their constituency back home or their money benefactors.

But, overall, the vast majority of our party tends to do the right things, most of the time. It's on these issues which have solid republican opposition, there are always some politically vulnerable legislators who bail on us. I don't think we focus on them enough, individually. I think the tendency lately has been to argue that the entire party is to blame, when we know the culprits.

Also, there hasn't been the type of political brilliance I would like to see from our leadership. Either they've lost all of the experts or they're not listening to them.

[tom_paine]

123. Now that's some good condescension. "projecting my own insecurity"

That's some good Oprah/Springer-type sneaky shot out of the side of your mouth at me. Like posts 97 and 99. Yah.

Enough.

Go Cheney yourself.

[bigtree]

126. why do you think I would call you those things? I wouldn't. And I don't think of you that way.

I read your arguments with dispassion and respect. I'm sorry if that seems condescending

[AikidoSoul]

144. Who are the culprits?

I know some of them, but not all.

Is there a list on DU?

[wiggs]

96. Disagree. It's part of the majority's job to get it done. There are many, many

ways to swing public support, armbend behind the scenes, use the threat of impeachment, use the threat of subpoena, use the threat of withholding funds, get out the properly framed message, use high visibility of the office, do something about hearings, use the courts, etc...

This is NOT a simple case of counting republicans and democrats in the senate. There is a LOT more our dc reps could be doing in order to get the votes needed. They are NOT helpless.

[bigtree]

102. I agree that the political action hasn't been as intense as it might be

also, I'd like to see more withholding support and funding to pressure Bush and his republicans, as well as you.

[polichick]

113. You're right, they're NOT helpless...

They're GUTLESS ~ and worried more about their own political skins than our troops in Iraq.

[Individualist]

97. I detest condescension

and those who use it.

[bigtree]

99. ironic isn't it?

[polichick]

103. All people need to know is that the Dems are the ones who decide which...

...bills come to the floor for a vote ~ war funding bills, MoveOn condemnation bills, any bills.

[bigtree]

106. the MoveOn thing was an amendment to the Defense bill

The bill is open to amendments. In the Senate, anyone can offer an amendment. The fact that there were enough (a minority) Democrats willing to join with a solid republican majority allowed it to advance to a vote

[RestoreGore]

105. Then they shouldn't make promises they can't keep just to get votes

[bigtree]

107. If you thought that our agenda was guaranteed with such a slim majority you were mistaken

we voted to give them enough votes to roll over the WH. It didn't happen. Maybe next time around . . .

[RestoreGore]

109. Well, with all due respect, you know what you can do with your "maybe next time around,"

There may not be a next time.

[polichick]

110. For crying out loud...

...our foolish Dems are voting with the Reps against the base ~ we have every reason to be pissed off!

Next time Bush needs more money for his faux war, do you think they'll refuse to bring the bill to the floor ~ the way Reps kept the paper-trail bill from coming to the floor?

[tom_paine]

111. And wanting strong principled action one merely ONE of the many issues of

Constitutional Import is conflated into meaning "we expect to have 100% of our agenda achieved" is one of the biggest, most grotesuqely constructed Straw Men I have ever seen.

It just occurred to me. That is one gigantic Macy's-Float-at-Thanksgiving-Parade BIG Straw Man.

Ridiculous in fact. Most DUers would be satisfied with 10% of our agenda being passed or even acted upon. Fugheddabout 100%. Fuck, apparently, forget about 20%.

How did I miss that one? Trying too hard to be nice to people, for which I apparently a condescending prick, so why bother?

That is one of the biggest, most odious, one of the most false Straw Men I have ever seen slipped into a converstaion.

Not the biggest. But up there.

:puke:

Yeh...100% of the agenda. I'll settle for NOTHING LESS.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bigtree]

112. of course you should be pissed at that

I really don't know how this present round with the Defense bill will come out.

I do think the overall bill will advance. Whether or not the Iraq part of that budget advances depends on whether they bring *that part to the floor. After the leadership allowed the FISA bill to advance, we have good reason to wonder whether some republican alternative will emerge and get enough votes to send it to the House. In the House, same question. After Pelosi let FISA advance, there's good reason to wonder if she'd just let a republican alternative on Iraq sail through. I'm hoping that she's listening to her liberal constituents and legislators. She has much more means to block the alternatives, or at least send them into conference.

[polichick]

114. I'd like to see just one of our so-called leaders laying it on the line...

...the way Keith Olbermann does. To do that, he or she would have to put the country (especially our troops) ahead of re-election considerations.

[Forkboy]

115. And there are some here who need a lesson in Courage 101

I realize that's probably asking for too much at this point though.

[bigtree]

121. courage?

a great deal of the stuff which is presented as courage around here really has no way to advance any of what we want into action or law.

[Forkboy]

122. I agree with that.

Still doesn't excuse the ones who don't have any.

[Enrique]

116. I never took Gov 101

I confess I'm often confused when watching C-span.

[rucky]

119. How about Negotiation 101:

DO:

Draft a bill stating what you want.

Get support for said bill.

Take it to committee and THEN start negotiating. Or not.


DON'T:

Start negotiating.

Draft a bill stating what you think will pass.

Get bipartisan support for bill.

Take it to committe and re-draft bill to quell any potential opposition.

Take bill to floor and call for a 60% majority to pass it.

Watch the bill go down in flames.

[wiggs]

125. I contend that these guys know exactly how to get it done...that they're

smart, experienced, connected, and resourceful. They know about negotiation, arm-bending, give-and-take, trading votes, etc..

Given that, then I have to assume they're playing this the way they want to play it. There are lots of things they COULD be doing, but they're not and it's not because they are spineless or ignorant.

[rucky]

128. so where is this deliberate strategy going?

play it out for me, because I don't see any good that can come of it.

[wiggs]

131. Exactly. No good will come of it for you or me or 95% of the public. But

there are enough dems and pugs that come from the 5% of the nation who grew up on estates, sit on boards of multi-national corporations, take donations from wall street, and buy into the ideology that an imperial US fueled by corporate power is good for the world regardless of the means to get there. They want to concentrate power and wealth into fewer hands...their friends' hands.

Look...most of the people elected to national office are the types who run around in elite circles. Or they WANT to run around in elite circles. While they may also believe in helping ordinary folks, when it comes down to it their priorities are not ours. Their lifestyles are not ours. Their friends are not people we know. They talk all day long with influential, ambitious, accomplished, connected, moneyed people.

I contend that many dems don't mind the idea of doing what it takes to sustain american supremacy, increase corporate strength, and concentrate wealth... even if it involves taking from other countries, overthrowing other governments, curtailing individual rights, courting authoritarianism, quelling dissent, and turning a blind eye to election integrity. This is my regretable conclusion after watching and reading about the events of the last 6 years. I see no other reasonable explanation.

52 of the world's largest 100 economies are companies.

[rucky]

139. Yep. We're so busy playing partisan war...

it's easy to forget we're actually in a class war. No red/blue to speak of - only green.

[wiggs]

133. I wish I could say, as I did naively a few years ago, that the dc dems

are keeping their powder dry, that they're negotiating behind the scenes, that they're agreeing to support bills and nominees because they're getting something else in exchange, that they are using the threat of inherent contempt to force cooperation, that they're secretly telling the WH to get with the program or the impeachment bunny will visit them, that they didn't filibuster judicial nominees in exchange for better nominees, that they didn't challenge Ohio electoral votes because they would pursue evidence of election fraud in other ways or at least pursue reform....etc, etc..

I see no reason to believe they are doing more than what we see.

I am amazed that dems and republicans both have allowed outrage after outrage go by practically unanswered.

[Sparkly]

127. Wish I could K&R this repeatedly!!!!

:kick:

[Dr Fate]

129. LOL! Maybe we should tell that excuse to all the anti-war moderates and swingvoters too.

"You need to go back and read your 8th grade civics books- just because the majority of Americans want the war to end doesnt mean that we are going to end it. Now, run along, little ignorant people- and go read your 8th grade civics, THEN complain. By the way- dont forget vote DEM!..." LOL!!!

Give me a break- these are the same excuses and talking points we heard when DEMS were the MINORITY.

It has little to do with an understanding of 8th grade civics and a lot to do with the fact that certain DEMS are not smart enough or tough enough (or, they actually agree with Bush on the war after all?) to make the case to the public in a way that would make the GOP budge.

I've heard enough BS about "dry powder" and I've seen enough DEM strategic bungling over 8 years to know it is probably not a matter of inability, but a matter of unwillingness or ineptness...

[BostonMa]

137. I hate to be so critical - BUT I WILL DO IT ANYHOW

[_dynamicdems]

141. Maybe there should be a forum about government.

Sometimes we all need a good rant. And there has been plenty to rant about. But it would be nice to have an educational forum, so we could all learn more about the system and processes.

For example: Is there any possible way around Bush's veto? What exactly does it take to impeach a President? Can elections be overturned? How does a citizen go about proposing a bill? What exactly does "The Freedom of Information Act" cover? What do I need to do in order to run for public office? And so on...

[bigtree]

143. I agree. Sometimes we ask these questions here and get empty air

I'd like to see them sit at the top of the list at a forum where folks who have some knowledge can come and give assistance. It's really hard sometimes to fathom the rules from what's offered on sites. Quite often you have to wade through the history of some legislative effort to find a parliamentary ruling.

[_dynamicdems]

145. That would be great!

Wading through the history of a legislative effort is tough even if you know what you're looking for. Many people don't even know how or where to begin.

There are people here who have the knowledge and this would be a terrific public service.

Any volunteers?

[AZBlue]

142. I wouldn't even call them majorities.

They barely have more than half and it's not enough to do much with - I said this after the 06 elections, but no one wanted to hear it then.