The Dems: A party of self-destruction?

[Cyrano]

Diane Feinstein doesn't want Leon Panetta as CIA Director.

Harry Reid doesn't want to seat Al Franken.

The vast majority of GLBTs on DU are pissed at Obama's selection of Warren.

Who knows what's going to happen with the "new senator from Illinois?"

So what else is new? Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

In the meantime, Mitch McConnell and what's left of his band of fellow Republican pricks are sitting back and laughing at our incompetency, idiocy, and perhaps, lunacy.

There is no doubt that the collective "WE" could screw up a wet dream. After trouncing the worst fascist bastards to ever control this country, we are now viciously fighting among ourselves and telling any DEM who doesn't agree with our view of the Democratic Party to go fuck themselves.

We are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Obama is not yet in the White House, but we are already at each other's throats over issues that didn't even come near the top our list before election day.

I really believed that Obama could be another FDR and help save our country. I believed that any ReThug that tried to stop him would be crushed. But now, my biggest fear is not ReThug opposition. It's the insane irrationality, the single-minded agendas, and the diverging hopes/dreams/fantasies of the various and divided factions of the Democratic Party.

[NJmaverick]

1. Obama can and most likely will be another FDR

the question is will the Dems let him? It seems the Dems don't want him to be a leader, they want to lead him.

[bluestateguy]

4. and FDR did not preside over a unified party

Well, maybe in 1933-34, but after that the party was not unified behind all of FDR's initiatives, and of course civil rights.

[anonymous171]

5. That's why he stopped pushing Civil Rights initiatives.

Obama may have to do the same.

[tama]

6. What's with

the leadership cult? Why not start taking responsibility instead of hoping some Great Leader will do it all for you? What's wrong with people?

[NJmaverick]

10. When everyone tries to lead you get chaos and nothing gets done

America had a chance to vote for their new leader and it was Obama.

[Alcibiades]

39. The grassroots will play an important part

But we have tried having Congress take the lead in policy. Every time they do, they screw it up. If a party has Congress and the Presidency, there's a real policy benefit to presidential leadership.

Congress should unite behind Obama's agenda, and not do to him what it did to Clinton on health care or what Teddy Kennedy did to Carter.

[madfloridian]

2. You forget us women who believe we should get to make our own decisions.

The choice of Democratic chair shows that is not a priority with our party now.

[anonymous171]

3. Blame the DLC. They were an asset back in the 90s.

Now they are quickly becoming a burden.

[FLAprogressive]

7. bingo. The "Democratic" Liars & Crooks MUST be stopped.

[Warpy]

8. I keep reminding myself that FDR

was seen as part of the class that caused the Depression and that he surrounded himself with tired old party hacks.

Just as events continued to drag him toward the left, so might they drag this administration toward the left.

But now, nope, it's not looking good.

[closeupready]

9. Obama is in charge. If inviting Rick Warren to give a prayer at his inauguration is his way of pulli

ng everyone together, then I'm sorry, no, I will not remain silent. I will disagree and criticize.

The Democratic Party is not the Barack Obama Fan Club. It is a political party which consists of gays and lesbians, blacks, Jews, Catholics, atheists and any number of other groups.

So I disagree with your implicit message.

[anonymous171]

12. The one thing that unites us is the belief that Government should help its people.

[closeupready]

14. Yes, it should. Unlike what we've had for the last 8 years or so.

n/t

[NashVegas]

15. A Government Should Protect the People

From other governments
From their own government
From themselves.

#2 isn't looking too good.

[TheKentuckian]

26. Eh...#3 I'd disagree with generally

From other governments.
From their own government.
From entities to big for the individual to take on like the corporations.
From each other perhaps, but from themselves removes choice and therefore freedom. That is not the role of government, in my opinion that's the nanny state that leads to Big Brother.

You're right though #2 and my #3 ain't doing so hot.

[NashVegas]

35. Your Number 3 and Number 4

Would fall under my #3.

My #3 By using "each other" instead of "themselves," is like saying, "everybody else is a fiend" and denying one's own responsibility to not be an ass. I would not disagree it's slid too far into a dictatorial role, for instance: mandatory seat belt use, instead of mandatory access to seat belts.

[Winterblues]

33. Government's sole purpose is "To Maintain the Health and Welfare of the Nation"

In all areas...Domestic and Foreign, in Peace and War, It has no other purpose..

[NashVegas]

34. That's Pretty Vague

I like mine better.

[Winterblues]

36. Your's seems limited only to Defense.

I think Government's role goes much much further than that. I think maintaining the Welfare of the Nation includes roads and ports and dams and electrical grids and hospitals and schools and it also demands Protection of the people from the sources you mentioned.

[NashVegas]

38. You Can View It That Way

Maybe it's age, maybe it's changed, or maybe it's because I'm in the South now, but I've come to see a number of gov't initiatives as little more than a good way to funnel public money into hands of all the cool kidz. Subsidized costs, privatized profits and all that. After 8 years of Bush, I'm still in shock at the blatant corruption. I've lived through 7 presidencies now and have never heard of or seen anything like this.

[Solomon]

17. Glad you used the word "implicit" because you are reading far more

from the poster's message than is there.

[aquart]

11. Democracy is slow and annoying.

Especially when we've been used to the speed of tyranny.

It takes time to readjust.

[Cyrano]

16. Yep. It's always faster and easier to destroy than to build.

Damn, ain't democracy a pain in the ass?

[NashVegas]

13. It Would Have Helped If We Could Have Had a Little Honesty During the Election Year

But nope. It had to be all about Tuzla; about John Edward's dick (behind the scenes); about 3am; about Bristol and "I can see Russia from my house!"

I just saw that Gupta is going to be Surgeon General. Perhaps the new Party slogan can be: "we're just like Republicans, only more competent."

[Generator]

18. The Dems: a party with no leadership that stands for anything

But oh well, let's praise Israel and let Larry Summers have our economy. Rick Warren is praying for us. The new DNC head prays for me as well as I might have the temerity to choose abortion. We know the Christian right is the only America that COUNTS. (that Obama is always campaigning, god love him)

WE ARE DEMOCRATS and proud.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

19. so you've lost all hope for the obama presidency just because everything hasn't run perfectly?

I assume you're not lgbt, or you'd probably understand how it feels to be compared to perpetrators of incest. Yes, we're mad about the choice of Warren, but that doesn't mean we're abandoning ship.

[hfojvt]

20. What do you expect to be different?

Obama should have checked with Feinstein first, if he was concerned about her opposition. Why shouldn't he work with Democratic Senators who are the head of various committees? Why can't he adjust now and put Panetta at HHS which was vacated by Richardson? Especially since Panetta was not officially announced?

Franken cannot be seated until the lawsuit is settled, according to my understanding of Minnesota law. Hopefully that will not take more than a few weeks.

I am puzzled by Reid and Obama's opposition to Burris. Burris is certainly no more objectionable to me than Caroline Kennedy. If they wanted somebody else in the seat, then that's too tanjed bad. It's not up to them. It's up to the Governor. And Burris should be ideal in that way anyway since he has been beaten in several primaries.

Obama should think about his base before picking somebody like Warren. Was he clueless about how GLBT were reacting to Prop 8? We worked and donated so that he could give the middle finger to our enemies, not to our allies.

[I814U]

21. A fractured democrat party?

Everything was so hopeful during the primaries even though it was bitterly fought (I thought it showed Obama's fighting-statesman qualities myself) but even when we rolled over intot he general election we were told point-blankly that factionalization was in the future.

Thanks PUMA's, we owe you so much.

[Pastiche423]

22. I was NEVER a PUMA

What you are reading about the dissatisfaction of Obama's choices, has nothing to do PUMAs. She is just as bad, IMHO.

So can the bullshit, k?

[W_HAMILTON]

23. Or, you can look at the flip side.

Obama picks a anti-gay pastor to take part in his inauguaration.

Obama picks someone with little to no intelligence-gathering experience to be the CIA director.

And Harry Reid is a fucking idiot.

You're laying the blame in the wrong place. You can't fault Democrats when they speak up against poor decisions; you should fault the Democrats for making those poor decisions to begin with.

It's akin to the Republicans acting as one and supporting the pick of "heckuva job, Brownie!" to FEMA director. Would you prefer that? If the shoe was on the other foot, would you be saying we should stick together and support Michael Brown for FEMA director?

A bad decision is a bad decision. Democrats ARE self-destructive, but it's not because Democrats continually nitpick, it's because our leaders continually make poor decisions.

[Cyrano]

24. Ummm, sorry, but I don't see any "Hell of a job, Brownie," in any of Obama's choices.

We may not agree with every choice he makes to fill various positions. But I've yet to hear that he's picked some ex-industry-lobbyist to "oversee" that industry, or selected some screaming incompetent "crony" to fill some critical job.

But, come on now. This is a conversation we should be having six, nine, or twelve months from now.

I'm more than willing to give Obama a chance. And if you will do the same, my hope is that a year from now, we will begin to recognize that "greatness" has once again come to the White House.

And if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. But somehow, I really get the feeling that our country just got very lucky (or accidentally wise).

[W_HAMILTON]

27. Some people...

...prefer to complain about the problem before it becomes obvious it is a major problem.

As for what you think of Obama's appointments, it's all subjective anyway. No, I don't believe there is anyone on Brown's level, but some of his picks can be (and have been) questioned.

[Romulox]

29. Walmart cheerleader Jason Furman as economic adviser??? nt

[bluedawg12]

25. Panetta, Burris and Franken are Congressional leadership issues, gay civil rights

is like those three how?

[Romulox]

28. The Democratic Party in 2009 is very similar to George HW Bush's Republican Party

in both ideology and constituencies. It's a Center/Right coalition based on neo-liberal economics, authoritarian domestic polices, and opposition to expanding the social contract.

Almost every one of Obama's picks:

are FOR free trade
are FOR the War on Drugs
are AGAINST Universal Healthcare
are FOR a continuing military interventionist stance

etc. etc.

Poppy Bush would find much common ground with this lot.

[blindpig]

30. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

It is the internal contradictions, the difference between facade and reality, which are going to rupture this party. The coalition which won the election is crumbling as we speak, those who deny the significance of Obama's cabinet and other picks are whistling in the dark. The so-called moderates around here, they would be Republicans 30 years ago, are correct in pointing out that Obama is what he is and if you were besotted by the empty rhetoric of the campaign then it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. The left wing of the Democratic Party will now come to see the Democratic Party for what it is, the slightly kinder and gentler wing of the Money Party. They will come to see that all the Party has to offer is, "we ain't them". That is all the Whigs had to offer at the end of their run, we know what happened to them.

What will the left of the Democratic Party do? I don't know but I expect by this time next year that the ranks will be significantly diminished. People can tolerate only so much cognitive dissidence.

[justsomeguy1973]

31. I think he deserves at least a single chance if not more

He hasn't yet started running the country. He hasn't shown us whether or not he can control the agendas that all the people in his cabinet will bring to the table. The new "senator" from IL is a joke and will matter very little in the long run.

I think you made the important point yourself... people are arguing over hypothetical and nothings since Obama isn't yet in office. They are arguing about fears and concerns but not realities and facts. There's always going to be alarmists, but instead of heeding their rants lets just see what happens and discuss objectively the facts.

I for one am going to give Obama a chance to prove himself before I go about condeming him. Yes, some of his appointments concern me but I'm assuming he knows what he's doing and will keep those people in line. Benefit of the doubt goes to Obama, not to the alarmists.

[Cyrano]

37. My guess, (or hopeful thinking), is that over the next four (or perhaps eight) years,

we will have universal health care, our veterans will truly be cared for for the rest of their lives, virtually everyone who wants a job at a decent salary will be able to get one, our current "wars" will be redefined as issues best handled by diplomacy and/or the CIA, sexual orientation/identity will be reduced to an issue that only some lunatic-fringe, die-hard anal-retentive nuts will still be talking about, and our infrastructure will be well on the way to once again being fully safe and functional.

And, no, I don't believe that this will come about because we elected Jesus, Mohammad, Jehovah, Vishnu, or any other deity to the office of the presidency. I believe it will happen because the majority of people in our country want it to happen. And I believe that Obama either does or will realize this and will bring it about.

Perhaps I'm living in some Utopian fantasy and perhaps none of these things will happen. But maybe, just maybe, they will.

You've got to start by believing. This past November, we vanquished our the enemies of the American Constitution. (Yes, Republicans, I'm talking about you.)

So just for now, can we stop the war among ourselves, give Obama some time, support him, and have some patience to see how it turns out? One of our greatest strengths is that we don't march in lockstep (or Republican goose step). I have a feeling that we are all going to be pleasantly surprised by the transformation our country is about to experience.

[HamdenRice]

32. Great post! I see you've been observing Democratic DemolitionDerby Underground.com lately nt