So Harry Reid wants to 'embarrass Bush into abandoning his war strategy'.

[Beelzebud]

Good luck with that, Harry, you fucking jackass..

Embarrass Bush? Is this idiot for real? Embarrass the guy that literally played a guitar while New Orleans drowned? A guy that said "bring 'em on" in regards to people killing our troops?

EMBARRASS BUSH? Are you fucking for real? Is THIS what we voted for??? Is THIS the best this little coward piece of shit can muster?

Pull the funding you fucking coward! PULL THE FUNDING. Anything less makes you part of the problem. Thinking you can embarrass George Bush is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

3rd Party option is looking better and better every day this coward fuck leads the Democratic Party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701484_pf.html

I'm sorry but this is NOT what I voted for. Harry Reid is a failure, he's a coward, and he's plain old dumb ass if he really thinks he can magically "embarrass Bush into abandoning his war strategy."

/end rant...

[skipos]

1. 3rd party option still looks to be a waste of time to me

I think Reid could be doing a lot more, but I think bigger majorities (that don't rely on Lieberman) would certainly help.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. Both Democratic Party and 3rd Party Waste of time

right now. Help build 3rd parties at local levels and get fusion voting and IRV voting on state and local ballots so in the future we have more choices. Actively support independants like Sanders as well. Pressure the Dem Party but don't expect much. When is the last time they FUNDAMENTALLY changed anything in this country? The only thing Clinton altered that had huge implications for working people was the anti-worker NAFTA. The Dem party will not do any real progressive work to alter the course of the ocuntry...the same big interest fund them. They do however create a shift in subjects that are allowed to brought up on a national scale and give progressives a chance to pressure them while building an independant movement. I agree also, Harry Reid is a dumb fuck. 73% of the country wants out of Iraq and he does close to nothing. Do you HONESTLY THINK this is the party that will give us universal healthcare or education? HA!

[skipos]

6. Do you HONESTLY THINK this is the party that will give us universal healthcare or education?

They are more likely to do it than a third party.

"When is the last time they FUNDAMENTALLY changed anything in this country?"
The 6 for 6 was a good start.

Sounds to me like it might be time for you to exit DEMOCRATIC Underground. :shrug:

[BayCityProgressive]

14. sOUNDS TO ME

LIKE YOU CAN'T TOLERATE OTHER OPINIONS. MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXIT AND GO TO FREE REPUBLIC. YOU WOULD FIT IN THERE. No, a third party won't change things, thats why I said build one at the local level. Try reading if you know how. I stand by what I said about the Dems, if you can't see that, it's time for you to take your binky and go home. The 6 for 6 was NOT a fundemental change to our country and it will not get past the desk of the President. the increase in the minimum wage is meager and the first in 10 years...not exactly a revolutionary act. The repeal of oil tax cuts simply takes them to the level they previously paid, the gov. ability to bargain for medicare lacks real teeth, the 9/11 recomendations were bipartisan study. Yes, the Democrats give us some good small reforms for progressives to launch movements off of..but they don't give us any major changes in the military/industrial complex or the corporate domination of the country. That is just fact.

[skipos]

15. Calm down friend.

I mean no harm. If you dislike Dems so much, maybe DU isn't for you. That's all I was saying. :)

[BayCityProgressive]

17. I may not think they are anything special

with the exception of a few...but they are all superior to the GOP. I think that sentiment is shared by a majority here.

[MzNov]

25. Harry Reid is the one who should be EMBARRASSED! He's worthless.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Bush will be embarassed if he is impeached

he can say bring it on

[Beelzebud]

8. Do you honestly think the Dems have the spine for impeachment?

They can't even deal with getting a vote on the Iraq war, what makes you think they'll go for impeachment.

[leftchick]

11. lol! no kidding, impeachment???

We can not get a fucking vote for a fucked up war that 63% of the whole fucking country is against and they have no spine for it? This is proof that we really have a one party, no opposition system in place. They are Appeasers and it is costing more lives every minute every day. It makes me sick...

:puke:

[w4rma]

18. Unfortunately with 66/67 votes in the Senate needed for a conviction it will stop at impeachment. nt

[magellan]

3. Stamp collecting, there's an idea

Maybe I'll start collecting stamps. Not only would that be a more productive use of my time than trying to get Congress to do its job, but philately is interesting and relaxing as well.

[Iwasthere]

5. I agree

Fuckin Bullshit!!!! I am embarrassed for Reid... stupid SOB! Everything is at stake and he is dabbling around the edges... Pull the funding NOW! Then more investigations, followed, quickly, by impeachment proceedings.

[Z_I_Peevey]

7. How can anyone still think it is possible to get a normal

human response to anything from the giggling sociopath? Boggles the mind.

[dkofos]

9. If Reid wants to embarrass someone about the war

why not go after the repubes for not representing the PEOPLES wishes.

Conduct a pole in states with repube Senators

Do you want the troops out of Iraq now. yes or no

When the pole results come in with a clear majority for getting out
call those repube Senators out and chastise them for not supporting their constituents.
Embarrass them on the floor of the Senate. Make it public record that these Senators
don't respect or represent the will of the PEOPLE.

But of course this won't be done.

[brazos121200]

10. I get the feeling that Reid only got the job of

Democratic leader because nobody else wanted it at the time. The Dems were in the minority with little prospect for getting the majority in the future. Now I bet several Dem Senators wish they had gone for the leadership position. I lost faith in Reid when he supported the corporate authored bankruptcy bill, that to me was an unforgivable sin. He seems hesitant and afraid to rock the boat, so I guess its time to look for new leadership.

[Individualist]

12. Reid is DLC

He knows very well that "embarrass Bush" is a pathetic joke.

[w4rma]

19. I disagree. (nt)

[mmonk]

13. If he isn't embarassed so far

what makes Reid think that is possible? The statement itself is embarassing.

[BayCityProgressive]

16. He may not embarrass bush

but he will embarrass many progressives who urged people to vote Democratic thinking there would be a change.

[quiet.american]

20. I would think it's impossible to embarrass someone who does not have a conscience. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Harry's a member of the Marshmallow wing of the party.

[pat_k]

22. Sure. The Constitution doesn't stop 'em; U.S. Code doesn't stop 'em; . . .

. . .International Law doesn't stop 'em -- but Bush and Cheney will turn right around out of "embarrasment."

The so-called "leadership" is more confused and deluded than the White House. When it comes to advancing fascism, Bush and Cheney know exactly what they are doing. The Dems sound like blathering idiots.

Bush and Cheney are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. That is their intent. Grab Unconstitutional power, do it willfully and publicly, and challenge Congress "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare."

They are betting on the cowardice of the Democrats.

So far, their winning that bet.

Every day that the opposition refuses to impeach, they legitimize the Un-American and Unconstitutional acts -- horrific acts. Abductees held in secret and tortured in CIA-run prisons oversees. Americans now "fair game" for capture and torture because we have no standing to object. Willful violation of Geneva at Guantanamo merely because they say so, and because no one is stopping them. Forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act declaring all U.S. Officials immune to prosecution for War Crimes in any Court within the U.S. or it's territories (another confession to committing war crimes, else why do they require immunity?).

The ONLY possible way to stop them is to impeach them. It could be done in a week. They wrote the case against them themselves.

Hey, Reid! Hey, Pelosi!

Choose:

Duty or Complicity

Courage or Cowardice

Impeachment or Impotence

[pat_k]

23. <deleted dup>

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. stoooopid policy, Senator. Bush has no shame.

Embarrassment is not in his vocabulary.

What a major league disappointment Reid is turning out to be.

[cassiepriam]

26. There is nothing that will embarrass Bush. Nothing. He does not have normal feelings

of shame or guilt.

[lebkuchen]

27. True to a degree but

Bush can't stand to be called "a failure." That's why he surrounds himself with yes-people. He is very thin-skinned. All bullies are.

What Reid et al must call him time and again is --a failure. Not "a little impaired" but "a failure."

Bush feels he's close to nailing the deal on his legacy as we near the end of his 2nd term. "A failure" needs to be repeated ad infinitum. "The worst president in history" will work, too.

[pat_k]

29. Sorry. Won't cut it.

The only way is to impeach and make him a "failure"

Force is the only language understood by Bush and Cheney.

As long as they are applying more military force, they are "winning" -- or at least not "losing." They're happily showing the world that their dicks work as they show up the impotent Dems.

Impeachment is the only force that can possibly stop them. It is the only loaded gun in Congressional arsenal.

[lebkuchen]

31. I agree, but isn't that why there are so many investigations going on now?

How many investigations has the 110th congress started against the Bush administration? All the damaging info that will force Congress, particularly the titular heads of the GOP, to head up to the WH and give Bush the bad news isn't going to come out over night. Look how long it's taken to get Fitzgerald's trial against Libby underway.

So, while the investigations are going on, I believe it's worth while keeping the pressure on Bush's fragile ego. Then there will be no love lost on behalf of the public when he's finally forced to resign by his own party, because it will be a foregone conclusion that Bush is "a failure," and not just by "a little bit."

[pat_k]

37. Investigations say one thing: "We don't have a case. We're fishing"

Bush and Cheney are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. Every time they invoke the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive that is above the law they confess to willful nullification of the Constitution.

There is nothing to investigate

Bush and Cheney have proven themselves impervious to the law, the will of the people, political pressure, and exposure. For them, getting "caught" is meaningless when it is not backed by the threat of removal. Investigations amount to nothing but impotent finger-wagging.

In addition, the public isn't paying attention to their toothless "oversight" -- they aren't idiots. They know reality. They know that investigating is a waste of time with these people. Sure, investigations can be effective, but only when you are investigating someone who gives a crap about getting caught breaking the law.

Open-ended investigations and "oversight" while impeachment is "off the table" is actually counter-productive because it says "We don't have a case for impeachment."

The only way to grab the attention of the media and the public is to draft articles of impeachment and hold impeachment hearings to make the case.

If Members believe Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution they are duty-bound to accuse/impeach to fulfill their oath to "support and defend." As long as they refuse to impeach they are telling the elected bodies, good government organizations, experts, and countless individuals who have accused and called for impeachment that they do not believe Bush and Cheney pose a threat to the Constitution. As long as they refuse, they need to be prepared to back up that refusal by making the case that:

• the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive is not an attack on the Constitution;
• ordering war crimes to be committed at Guantanamo isn't a subversion of the Constitution -- even though SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan that they are Constitutionally bound to enforce Geneva.¹
• ordering the NSA to conduct a criminal surveillance program is not an intolerable abuse of power;
• conspiring with other countries to establish CIA-run prisons, where abductees are held in secret and tortured, is not a violation of both U.S. Code Title 18, section 2441 (War Crimes) amd international law;^{2, 3}
• crimes that are punishable by death are not grave enough to demand impeachment; and that
• it's fine with them that Bush and Cheney put torture "on the table" and thus removed our standing to object when parties to armed conflict capture and torture Americans.

__________________________________________

1. "We thought we were above the law" is no defense. There is no "unringing the bell" when it comes to war crimes. There's a reason that parties to armed cnoflict who violate the conventions are subject to the penalty of death -- to deter leaders from going anywhere near "the line" much less "push the envelope.


2. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6360817.stm">EU endorses damning report on CIA, BBC 2-Feb-07


3. REPORT on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/tdip/pe382246.pdf">Final Report, 26-Feb-07)

[lebkuchen]

46. I suppose that's why we're close to a military coup d'état now

Let's see what happens when the Libby verdict comes in. I predict guilty, which will leave Bush to mull whether he wants to fire Fitzgerald, as per the current purge of his US District Attorneys. (Bush doesn't want a draft in order not to repeat the mistake of Vietnam in inciting public outrage. I'm wondering if he'll learn from the Sat. Night Massacre.)

I think there is plenty to investigate. Isn't that why Rummy has a tax-payer-paid office staff and a shredder?


On edit:

Living in Europe and seeing Bush destroy the US has been very discouraging. If any country in western Europe had a leader like Bush, there would have been huge protests constantly. I'm grateful for the protests that have taken place in the US--hey, it's a big country. But still, there is a general lack of public outrage that appears to be keeping the dems from playing hardball. It's as though they don't want to embarrass the voters about their dumb-assed political choices of the recent past.

A co-worker who was a Bush supporter but now isn't told me recently, "Nobody knew Bush was going to be this bad." That's your standard "in the dark" voter...slowly waking up. The dems don't want to alienate these voters now that they're exhibiting a degree of cognition.

[pat_k]

50. Actually, the public has been way ahead of the beltway.

Despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda that has been coming from all quarters of the beltway establishment for years (Repubs, Dems, pund-idiots, "strategerists"), they've only managed to get 44% of the electorate to say "impeachment should not be done at all." And 51% said they want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress. (Newsweek Poll, http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">21-Oct-2006).

More recently, Newsweek found that a whooping 58% "personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over."¹

If, before they even started any other undertaking they had so much support, and so little opposition, they would be jumping for joy. To have such numbers despite relentless efforts to suppress support and increase opposition puts the lie to any claims that there isn't enough public support. If they lift the ban on impeachment and actually make the case for it, support for impeachment has only one way to go: Up.

Over and over we hear that "it's all about the war" and impeachment would be a "distraction" from "doing something" about Iraq. Tragically wrong on both fronts.

1. The public's outrage is not "all about the war"; it's all about Bush. Sure, the war is part of the "gestalt"² -- but only part.
2. Impeachment is the only possible route to "doing something" about Iraq.

The reality of their impotence is sinking in (e.g., Today's "Democrats in Disarray" segment on the Situation Room or Craig Crawford's http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=274624&mesg_id=274624">Impeachment or Bust). The big question is whether they have the courage to see, and take up, the one effective weapon they do have. So far they refuse to even utter the word "impeach", and continue to jump all over anyone who does -- http://voiceoutrage.com">even telling their own constituents to shut up.
_____________________________________

1. Newsweek Poll, http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=">27-Jan-07
   
   "At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?
   
   58% Yes, wish it was over
   
   37% No, do not
   
   5% Don't know/refused
   
   Note: The question, "do you personally want it over" strips out all the impeachophobic rationalizations, and thus captures the actual level of support for impeachment.


2. Curtis Gans, Director, http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate
   
   On Politically Direct with David Bender, November 10th
   (http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">MP3 -- Interview start time approx 18:30)
   
   
   Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .
   
   Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.
   
   Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.
   
   Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.
   
   Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .

[cassiepriam]

36. I agree that the only way to crack thru the denial system is with the reality of his failure.

That has to be brought home to him over and over.
It may or may not get thru to him.

[lebkuchen]

45. I'm reading "Bush on the couch"

Am early on in the book but from what I read, Bush has had a sense of failure/rejection since childhood, and that's why we have a problem in the WH today.

[cassiepriam]

47. That is a great book. *'s pathology is quite complex.

He has never had to experience any sort of failure in his life. Family always covered from him. And none of his fame was earned by him. Always given to him because of his name and money.

Real self esteem is based on actual accomplishment. Which he has never had. And he is also impaired due to the many years of substance abuse.

So we have someone who covers his damaged self by over valuing himself. By being grandiose and narcissistic. And when others question that view, he becomes paranoid.

Really very crazy.

[lebkuchen]

48. John Dean's "Conservatives without Conscience" is great, too.

He deconstructs social psychologist Bob Altemeyer's study on authoritarians and the psyches of those in need of an authoritarian to follow. I bought the actual study and hope to get into that after "Couch."

I'm not sure if Bush gets embarrassed, but he certainly becomes frightened easily--paranoid, as you've said.

[cassiepriam]

49. THe Altmeyer work is good too. Shous why many admire a mentally ill leader

who talks to God and has all the answers.

PS And Bush doesn't get embarrassed in the way normal people do.
He gets more threatened and alarmed on some deep level when reality intrudes too close to home.

[cascadiance]

28. Time to change the guard! Russell Feingold, PLEASE take over now!

[bigtree]

32. he has even less support in the Senate for his proposals

[cascadiance]

39. Oops, I forgot the Senators are there to serve their lobbyists interests...

... of "We the Corporations", not "We The People". Thanks for reminding me! :sarcasm:

[bigtree]

41. the point is that critics of Reid and the leadership are playing a shell game of opposition

We all know that the republicans are the main obstacle to an end to the occupation, but some are pretending that Democrats can just dictate action in the Senate with partisan initiatives.

It is widely recognized that there is likely no foolproof legislative rebuke of the occupation which would rely on Democratic votes alone - even if they all voted in lockstep behind what *folks say they want. Every action they take which is successfully obstructed amounts to nothing at all, in the end, outside of a protest.

[cascadiance]

43. But most of the people want opposition to the war like Feingold does...

... and Reid doesn't seem to be leveraging that chess piece as much as he should, or Feingold might, in forcing a bit more towards a position that the people would support.

It's kind of like the fillibuster of Alito. Reid's heart wasn't in it like another senator who really wanted to try and lead such an effort. That's why it didn't happen. There wasn't the leadership, even though there was the votes (as the general vote showed there was enough votes for a fillibuster, if all of the senators were truly voting their conscience, and not just voting "for show" in the general vote).

[bigtree]

30. well, the funding pull is a non-starter

there isn't enough support in the party and elsewhere for a cut-off of funding and Reid isn't a dictator in the Senate.

It's more than revealing that the critics of Reid's approach were arguing for binding legislation which would do just what you decry as their efforts would face certain vetoes and filibusters, making the entire effort nothing more than a protest vote, an embarrassment of Bush.

Even the funding pull would face legislative hurdles (points of order and otherwise) which I don't believe would be overcome by even total unity among Democrats alone.

Every action that they undertake in a partisan manner is subject to a check by the minority. To pretend that Reid or any other Democrat can just roll over the minority and Bush, is dishonest, and, at the least, misinformed.

[Xenotime]

33. Agreed..

"Pull the funding you fucking coward! PULL THE FUNDING. Anything less makes you part of the problem. Thinking you can embarrass George Bush is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party."

1000%

[bigtree]

34. pull the funding?

why don't you outline the legislative path to that for us?

Otherwise the juvenile name-calling is just bloviating nonsense.

[Beelzebud]

35. Let me know how that "embarrass Bush" strategy works out.

[bigtree]

38. typical to attack me (and Reid) without providing an effective alternative

BTW, the strategy of confronting Bush with a binding resolution was what we were debating for the past few months. Now, all of the sudden, it's an act of 'cowardice' to confront Bush with a resolution which he'll certainly veto.

And, GODDAMNIT, the line about 'embarrassing' Bush came from the AUTHOR of the article, NOT REID.

[Occulus]

40. I thought you couldn't embarass a sociopath..... n/t

[AzDar]

42. First the 'dry powder' strategy, now the 'let's shame them' tact.

Harry Reid does NOT HAVE WHAT IT TAKES to reign in Bush and the Republicans.
Sadly, he's just as ineffective as Majority Leader as he was as Minority Leader.

[MoonRiver]

44. Tom Daschle was the same.

Why, oh why, won't our Democratic MAJORITY elect a leader who will make bushco accountable?
:argh:

[EFerrari]

51. Yeah, like trying to elicit shame from these felons will work.

Try again, Harry. :eyes:

[ncrainbowgrrl]

52. Locking.

This thread is flamebait- third party advocacy isn't for DU.