"Don't Buy the 'Democrats Are Powerless' Myth"

[scarletwoman]

(hat tip to DUer Amborin, who posted this as a comment in another thread)

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/democratic_party/index.html?story=/news/david_sirota/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable

David Sirota: Don't buy the "Democrats are powerless" myth. Obama and his party cling to the familiar narrative that their hands are tied. They're wrong.

"Obama's aides say the president has a responsibility to explore policies that have a chance of passage, rather than merely making a political statement." -- Washington Post, 8/10/11

One of the most persistent memes in modern politics, perfectly embodied by the above quote, is what I've long called the Innocent Bystander Fable. It goes something like this: Democrats really want to do X, but they can't because it's "politically impossible" not "where the country is" and/or doesn't "have a chance of passing."

The idea is that even though Democratic politicians occupy the most powerful offices in the world, and even though X usually represents a policy 80 percent of rank-and-file voters support, Democrats are nonetheless powerless bystanders before political events rather than shapers of such happenings. In response, we are expected to nod our heads in agreement (as so many blind partisans do), somehow forgetting that these politicians are paid hefty taxpayer-funded salaries not to be bystanders, but to actually use the authority they have to make -- or at least seriously advocate -- change.

This Innocent Bystander Fable, of course, has long been the excuse the Democrats have used almost every time the party wants to avoid taking a stance on an issue.

<snip>

In every case, it's the same -- powerful Democratic officeholders would have us believe that while they really want to do the right thing, they are just passive bystanders to history.

Crude as it is, this fable has been deliberately created as a defense mechanism and a cudgel -- the media cites it to recast rank corruption as a noble "willingness to accept what is politically possible," while the political establishment uses it to bash critics as one or another form of lunatic...

(more at link)

Imho, this "innocent bystander" bullshit is the same kind of bullshit as "mistakes were made". It's incredibly offensive to me that the political class tries to shine us on by pretending that they have no agency to act.

sw
(edited to fix punctuation error)

[Octafish]

1. The leadership elects not to do anything, to their shame and our nation's detriment.

Thank you and thanks to amborin for putting it into words, scarletwoman:

Imho, this "innocent bystander" bullshit is the same kind of bullshit as "mistakes were made". It's incredibly offensive to me that the political class tries to shine us on by pretending that they have no agency to act.

We could make this a different country and planet. Whatever happened to the idea -- the Democratic idea -- that we can do anything?

Things now are like what Poppy the Caligula Elder said at his BFEE inauguration in '89:

"We have more will than wallet."

[scarletwoman]

9. Thank you, Octafish. I thought this piece really nailed it.

"Whatever happened to the idea -- the Democratic idea -- that we can do anything?"

Apparently they can only do what their masters, the Owner Class, will allow them to do.

sw

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

57. Good one...

... I have often thought of GW as a Caligula type, but hadn't thought of "Poppy the Caligula Elder", although I do call GHWB by the appropriate pseudonym of "Poppy" whenever I refer to him.

[Dont call me Shirley]

66. Poppy, The Heroin Czar

[OHdem10]

2. No truer words have been posted. This has been and continues

to be used as an excuse so they can please the
Corporate Masters and kick the Activists to the
side of the road. That hand wringing--oh poor
me, it is those Republicans is wearing thin.

When a wild and wooly bunch of Tea Partiers
knowing very little if anything about Governmet
come to DC and immediately get everything they
want just about and you expect people to believe
that you ultra experienced cannot do anything,it
requires a stretch to far to fathom.

In life you can do what you want to do if you
are in a position of power. Be honest you do
not want to rock the Republican Boat. It is
much more important to please the Corporatists.

Does anyone wonder now why the Media are more
responsive to Republicans than Democrats. It is
a thing called trust.

[scarletwoman]

11. Well said. Thank you.

[rms013]

51. the media

It is not a thing called trust. It is propaganda. The media is owned by corporatists. The Tparty is a small minority but it gets headlines when 30 people show up with signs yet when hundreds of thousands of Americans march for equality, or anti war there is barely a mention.

[The Magistrate]

3. Home Truths, Ma'am

[scarletwoman]

12. Indeed. I was very pleased to read this piece, which lays it out so clearly.

[woo me with science]

4. Yup. K&R nt

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

[Canuckistanian]

6. Of course they're not powerless

I don't think anyone ever seriously made that assertion. The problem is that powerful Democrats allow OTHER PRIORITIES to override what they SHOULD be doing.

Do you think for a second that Dems wouldn't use the same parliamentary tactics that Bush and the GOP used when THEY were the minority if they really wanted to?

No, there's a seriously fucked-up mindset in Congressional Dems today. And the message is: Don't rock the boat. Serve your donors. And for God's sake, don't get mixed up with those progressives in the party.

[scarletwoman]

14. "I don't think anyone ever seriously made that assertion." I don't know, I see it all the time

here on DU. It's a favorite theme of the "pragmatists":

• "They can't do that because they don't have the votes."
  
• "It would never pass."
  
• "It's the best they could do under the circumstances."

And so on...

I totally agree with you on this: "Do you think for a second that Dems wouldn't use the same parliamentary tactics that Bush and the GOP used when THEY were the minority if they really wanted to?

No, there's a seriously fucked-up mindset in Congressional Dems today. And the message is: Don't rock the boat. Serve your donors. And for God's sake, don't get mixed up with those progressives in the party."

Well said!

Thank you for a great comment!

sw

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Or worse yet, "Dem Congresscritter X had to vote for (that horrible piece of

Republican legislation) because it was going to pass anyway."

:wtf:

With that mindset, women wouldn't have the vote yet.

[hulka38]

71. Then there's

"stop bitching and give Obama a Democratic House and Senate."
"no one should have expected that he could completely turn the country around in two years"

[kentuck]

7. Words well spoken...

and unheard by so many.

[scarletwoman]

15. Thank you, kentuck!

[DirkGently]

8. Suddenly so many things are impossible (we are told). But what really rings hollow

is when those who say something is politically impossible, instead of encouraging the populace to create the political pressure to change anything, tell them to shut up and quit "whining." Which suggests that it's not impossibility at all, but political inconvenience, at hand.

[scarletwoman]

17. Exactly! "...it's not impossibility at all, but political inconvenience, at hand."

..."when those who say something is politically impossible, instead of encouraging the populace to create the political pressure to change anything, tell them to shut up and quit "whining."

They don't want the populace involved. They don't want to hear what the populace actually wants. The political class has their own thing going and they don't want the unwashed masses to interfere.

sw

[Hydra]

50. It's not political inconvenience

They have what they want to do, but they want to pretend that they're on our side while they do it.

The Repubs are better at it, IMO, and their base doesn't care enough to ask about it.

[Raine]

10. On point!nt

[unkachuck]

13. K&R....n/t

[MisterP]

16. it's no different from "the WMDs were just moved to Syria" or "Ortega wants to invade Harlingen"

it's just as wrong, and serves the same purposes
I might also want to add that many Dems were complicit in Iraq and Central America, too--so it's not surprising that the equivalent of those mendacities has worked its way into the party

[scarletwoman]

22. The political class serves the Owner Class. They HAVE to use mendacity to keep the proles in line.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. That's why my present inclination is to simply not vote.

Why even bother voting for a party that either can't exercize power and leadership, or refuses to do so and makes excuses. Why reward that kind of behavior? I just don't think I can keep doing it anymore.

[scarletwoman]

20. I don't have much of an answer to the "why bother voting" question.

The way I see voting is this: Voting in itself will seldom, if ever, accomplish actual change (c.f. Emma Goldman), only the building up of ground level pressure will do that. What it can do, to some degree, is provide a bit of mitigation to the worst actions of the political class.

So, the question then becomes, is the possibility for a bit of mitigation of the suffering being inflicted on the populace worth the effort of voting?

I think it is. It's not like the act of voting itself is any sort of huge ordeal. People manage to find time to stand in line for movie tickets and such, they ought certainly be able to manage to make it to a polling place once every two years.

As long as you realize that voting is pretty much the least you can do, it seems to me one might as well do that least. Get it done and out of the way and then figure out what really needs to be done.

sw

[amborin]

19. K&R

[scarletwoman]

21. Hey!

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

23. Bedtime kick. Good night, fellow travelers.

[sabrina 1]

24. I don't buy it, never have. To think we are supposed to believe

that a few Republicans in the MINORITY, have more power than Democrats in the MAJORITY. It absolutely makes no logical sense and never did.

Only the blindest of party loyalists would buy such a stupid excuse. I actually would have more respect for them if they just told us the truth, since most of us know it anyhow.

[hfojvt]

25. in which case, Obama IS making a political statement

He's making the statement that "I am not gonna propose and fight for good policies, instead I am gonna propose and fight for Republican crap that might pass."

Mr. President, to quote Joe Biden at the last national convention, "that is not change, that's more of the same".

[BzaDem]

26. It's pretty sad when a commentator thinks he is being sarcastic, but really isn't. The truth is that

the Presidents powers over domestic legislation are extremely limited, and that the Constitution was written precisely to limit the domestic powers of the President.

To the extent anyone disagrees with the above statement, I don't blame them personally as much as I blame an educational system that doesn't calmly explain why the contrary narrative has no relationship with reality. People grow up thinking that the President somehow actually has significant power to shape legislation (without the cooperation of Congress), and the only thing that really solves the problem is a passing knowledge of political science (which unfortunately far too many people lack).

Basically everything Sirota is saying is false, delusional, or both, and Chait recently pointed out, Sirota's narrative seems constructed precisely to annoy anyone with even a basic knowledge of political science. It is quite literally the stuff that would cause someone's grade to tank in any class about Congress or the Presidency. It is rank demagoguery, meant to confuse people who (due to our educational system) don't have this knowledge, and it is sad that it goes unchallenged by so many.

[TheKentuckian]

27. Pretending he doesn't have formidable influence on legislation by hiding behind enumerated

powers in order to dodge responsibility is silly. Reality doesn't match up in modern politics and you guys know it doesn't or you wouldn't give much of a shit about who was President as long as they represented the country well, got good trade deals, and you agree with their military posture.

Sure, Congress COULD freeze a President out legislatively as long as they didn't have concerns about vetos but here in actually reality, Presidents drive the agenda and cobble out bargains. You can fall back on 8th grade civics all you want but it does not change the real world action. Nobody is cutting deals with Reid or Shumer or Durbin or Pelosi or Clyburn or Hoyer they deal with the President and the deals happen.
While Congress is accurately described as ceding its authority and shirking its responsibilities and the Presidency can be said to be operating in a perpetual state of overreach quite inconsistent with our framework and system of checks and balances but it doesn't stop the dynamic from being a solid and functional actuality.

That is essentially an aside anyway. The meat of the entire deal is you believe that you do things when they can be done (count the votes) and other believe what is possible is not always or even usually what is was possible yesterday and you bridge that divide by fighting the status quo even if it means you get knocked down a few times along the way.

The vision comes first and people are led to it and attracted to it, consensus follows vision. Vision does not spring forth once the consensus is reached. Crying about not having the votes rather than even express the vision and setting a path for it is leadership. Trying and failing is one thing but failing to try is in a whole different zip code, it isn't acceptable. You can't wait until the moment that you can achieve your goals to articulate and work toward them, it is an ass backward cop out and quitter's logic.

What is being obscured is that the real deal is the President is a heavy hitter and is getting nearly exactly what he wants on about every piece of legislation that has made it to his desk. No vetos. No bitter signing statements and damn close to what he claims to be his proposals.

[BzaDem]

29. Concern about vetoes? Seriously?

In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans don't want most legislation to pass. If some legislation accidentally got out of Congress, they would like nothing more for the President to veto it.

The Republicans want no (or little legislation), because they would rather allow the economy to tank so they can later write and sign the legislation when they get the WH back.

The key point you are missing is that the President doesn't "cobble out bargains" unless the other side feels it would be better off if a bargain is cobbled out. Most of the time, that is not the case.

The rest of your post is filled with rhetoric about rhetoric, and it's supposed large influence on the national debate. Most political scientists think that is nonsense, and that legislation is driven by Congressional majorities and the state of the economy. At this point in FDRs presidency, he had MUCH larger majorities than Obama ever had, and the economy was growing significantly from the low point in the depression. All this nonsense about "vision" and "rhetoric" affects legislative outcomes very little.

To be sure, IF Obama had FDR-like majorities and a similar growth rate, bad leadership could still doom legislation. But that means that rhetoric and "vision" might be (at most) necessary conditions -- not sufficient conditions by any stretch of the imagination. The necessary conditions are FDR-like Congressional majorities and FDR like growth rates, and Obama isn't close to either right now.

[TheKentuckian]

75. The votes will never be there for an idea that doesn't see daylight until the votes are there

This similar to Kennedy waiting for the rockets that can take people to the moon before making a mission to the moon a goal.

Or like waiting till the votes were all lined up before pushing the voting rights act. Instead, it was put out and voted down, resubmitted and voted down until it passed years later.

Reagan didn't wait till he had the votes in hand before not only laying out his nightmare but actively pursuing it.

The vision and the mission come before the votes all the time. There is no spontaneous eruption of vision, it struggled toward often with set backs. You propose and struggle for policy aims long before the votes are there.

[BzaDem]

78. Again, the "vision" and "mission" may be necessary, but they are far from SUFFICIENT.

LBJ had TWO THIRDS of the Senate, and a bunch of liberal Republicans on civil rights issues. His "leadership" might very well have turned potential votes into actual votes, but that was only possible because of the previous Congressional election installed the potential votes in the first place.

Reagan had a quite conservative Democratic party on taxation matters (which isn't really that unheard of -- even our current congressional Democratic party isn't unified around letting the Bush tax cuts expire). On the other hand, the Democratic Congress was fiercely protective of spending, and voila, spending increased dramatically under Reagan.

Anyone who thinks that there might be even potential Republican votes for progressive economic policy in today's Congress isn't thinking it through. Your argument is basically like

"Kennedy was able to lay out a vision to go to the moon, and he succeeded. Therefore, if Obama were to lay out a vision to make gravity a repulsive force, he might have a non-zero probability of succeeding too."

[TheKentuckian]

102. You have admitted the necessity of vision and mission, I'll take that as a win.

You are right that these kinds of elements are not sufficient. Few if any argue they are but without them the votes are never, ever, never going to be there.

I've never argued that someone can just pound a podium and holler our wishes into reality but rather aims must be pursued even when they cannot be achieved right now because building the case, selling ideas, building a following, and changing the dialog and perceptions happen that way. It is not permissible in politics, especially our politics to refuse to advocate for policies, proposals, perspectives, and most certainly directions until such time as one is reasonably sure they can be passed. I honestly don't get the debate.

The Republicans hammer away at what is seen as crazy talk for decades and slowly but surely political reality bends and the absurd is the new beltway common wisdom. I find it funny that those that talk about being eleven moves ahead and "the long game" are the most hand to mouth folks when it comes to just selling what we believe and working toward goals.

I think many actually understand what is being asked for and why it must be done and just don't want to deal with the fact that our guy is not going to even advocate for our ideals or even attempt to change the terms of the debate. It is understood that in addition to managing today we must lay foundations to build on and inspire people to get behind and in front of a movement that changes environments and makes new political realities.

No shit you got to have the votes but you get them by getting voters to put them in place. You aren't going to get them shuffling along with the same old failed nonsense and crooked new scams based on the counter-productive principles behind the failed nonsense.

[BzaDem]

107. If all you are saying is that Obama needs to push hard for policies in order to change the

membership of Congress, I completely agree with you. I suspect he will as more and more voters start tuning in, and to the extent he doesn't do so, I would agree he would be making a mistake. I don't think the effects of this on the voters will be particularly high, and I think rhetoric is far less important than the state of the economy in elections, but it might at least have a marginal effect. So he should do it. (I do not think he should publicly push for the massive spending program we need if he knows he won't get it, since voters believe spending does not help the economy by a margin of something like 5-1 and have believed this since the time of FDR (who was NEVER able to change public opinion on that point.) But he should push for expansionary fiscal policy in any way that does not sound like a massive spending program. He should propose and hit Republicans for not supporting an infrastructure bank, hiring tax credit, payroll tax credit, unemployment insurance expansion, etc.)

But that has NOTHING to do with the premise of Sirota's article. Sirota was saying that Obama could have gotten different policy outcomes with a different vision and plan. THAT is what is nonsense. Republicans want the economy to contract (not expand), and they are not going to pass any spending program that would help the economy (in the absence of long term conservative policy concessions that they feel make increasing Obama's election chances worth it). That is how they are. No amount of campaigning is going to make the current membership of Congress vote for the massive spending program we need. Republicans know that keeping the economy depressed is far more helpful to them than any political flack they might take.

[scarletwoman]

87. "You propose and struggle for policy aims long before the votes are there." Exactly!

I totally don't get this mindset that says you can't do anything unless the stars line up in precisely the right configuration. What nonsense!

Eons ago I once had the notion to start a small business. I researched what it would involve to get start-up money and of course the first step was to write up a business plan. And the very FIRST part of the business plan required that I lay out my vision and my goals.

You need a clear idea of the direction you want to go and the goals you want to achieve, and then you do whatever it takes - whatever it takes! - to keep moving in that direction.

In the political sphere, you spell out your vision and your goals to the voters, and keep working at it until enough of them back you up. THEN you have some pressure to bring to bear on the system.

This half-assed passive nonsense that Dems seem to be stuck in accomplishes nothing. "Oh well, there just aren't the votes..." You MAKE there be the votes, dammit! By the power of the vision and the goals you've set before the American people.

sw

[BzaDem]

93. More "if you want it, it will come."

As I said, until this fantasy vision of politics is thrown in the trash bin by our educational system, people are going to wonder why they are always disappointed in every elected Democratic candidate that has ever been nominated in their lifetime and will ever be nominated in their lifetime.

[scarletwoman]

96. If you don't know where you're going, you'll never get anywhere.

[BzaDem]

99. What you are missing is that you could know EXACTLY where you want to go, and STILL not get anywhere

Someone might really, really, really want to travel faster than light across the galaxy. He could build a vision and a plan and go on the road and sell it. He could be like Kennedy, and say "we choose to go to the Orion belt. We choose to go to the Orion belt." He could even raise his voice and say the same thing five more times. Heck, he could even repeat it 10 times.

But NONE of that changes the fact that this isn't going to happen, REGARDLESS of how much anyone wants it to happen.

[scarletwoman]

38. Sarcastic? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. So it doesn't matter who the president is and he can't persuade Congresscritters to

introduce the legislation he really wants?

The Senate can't change its own rules and require would-be filibusterers to actually get up and talk for hours?

Dems have to vote for Republican legislation "because it's going to pass anyway?"

The myth of Democratic helplessness embodied.

[BzaDem]

76. Question one is an unequivocal yes, question two has nothing to do with the power of the Presidency,

and question three similarly has nothing to do with the power of the presidency.

As for question one, anyone who thinks that FDR could have gotten his program through without FDR-like majorities is dreaming, and would do well to take a political science course on Congress or the Presidency.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. And anyone who thinks that Senators Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse

should have just gone along with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution "because it was going to pass anyway" has no moral compass. (You may not even have been alive then--I was--but that would have been the DLC approach to this resolution.Is that the advice you would have given them?--because I have seen DLCers excuse Blue Dog support of absolutely evil bills by saying "It was going to pass anyway, so opposing it would have just been grandstanding.")

Yes, sometimes it is impossible to get legislation past, but it is definitely impossible if you roll over and play dead instead of fighting for your principles over the years.

[scarletwoman]

97. I'm beginning to suspect that for some people, the idea of "having principles"

is like garlic to vampires.

Glad to see you on this thread, thanks!

:hi:
sw

[chervilant]

73. hmph...

I am deeply offended by your not-so-subtle derogation of those of us who decry Obama's overall performance as POTUS. Obama's appointment of Arne Duncan as SecEd, ALONE, put a huge question mark in my mind about his integrity. Then, his casual dismissal of teachers as 'resistant to change' provided an accurate, if disheartening, picture of his attitude towards a profession that is VENERATED in nations that excel at educating their citizenry. As a chronically unemployed teacher, I don't need Obama's paternalistic condescension, I need a JOB!

Now, a growing number of us are appalled at Obama's glib performance in the debt ceiling theatrics. You can call our concerns "delusional" until the cows come home; you won't change the fact that our concerns have merit.

You will, however, come across as a crass, inflexible Obama sycophant. Actually, I'm surprised you're not trotting out *The Hallowed List* of all the wonderful things Obama *has accomplished* in the last two years...

Beware ye idols, with their feet of clay...

[joshcryer]

28. I fail to see how this is substantiated in the article. Simply stop pretending to be powerless...

...won't magically make the Republicans stop using the entire government as a hostage.

[BzaDem]

30. It isn't substantiated. There is actually a segment that believes this nonsense, and nothing people

knowledgable about political science say is going to change their minds. As Joan Walsh said recently, people are using this nonsense as a coping mechanism, since if they identify Democrats as the problem, they feel they have more control (when in reality they have none).

A good debunking of Sirota's general "if you want it, it will come" theme is here:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/93323/drew-westens-nonsense

[joshcryer]

32. The entire article is effectively repetitious platitudes. I'm sure it garnered a lot of hits.

Otherwise it fails hard. Seriously, he sums it up to "If the President doesn't act powerless he won't be powerless."

Tell that to the fascist tea baggers who would, 100%, certainly, end the entire government in one fell swoop.

[Bonn1997]

35. You are correct

[muffin1]

42. If Obama was fighting his ass off, I would still be fighting with and for him.

But he isn't. He uses their talking points (shared sacrifice!!). He's the one who started with the Public Option, leaving us nowhere to go. He's the one who put SS and Medicare on the table. He's calling important social programs that we all paid into "entitlements". He's the one who says Marriage Equality "should be left up to the states".

It's not that "we didn't get EVERYTHING we want". It isn't that he can't overcome the opposition party. It's that he isn't TRYING.

[Myrina]

60. +1M

Thank you. :applause:

[Number23]

84. That is an awesome read. I found it so hilarious that when the Westen piece was posted here

so many of the main ones here kicking and rec'ing seemed to have no idea what the article was actually about.

When I made the comment that the piece was about the author's "disappointment" in Obama for not changing the narrative by tooting his own horn and blaming Republicans enough, half the people in the thread tried to come down and tell me that I was misinterpreting. Every single analysis of the piece came to the same conclusion as I did, but this passage:

"In Westen's telling, every known impediment to legislative progress -- special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion -- are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama's failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon."

is the God's own truth. It's become incredibly embarrassing. Every time I see some "liberal" screaming about the "bully pulpit," I just cover my eyes and pretend that there are not people in this world who believe that the clueless, ignorant and outwardly racist people in this country (on BOTH sides) including elected officials, who oppose this president's every trip to the bathroom will somehow be cowed by a really powerful speech.

Would love to see this piece as an OP.

[Number23]

85. You do know that this is a rebuttal of Weston's piece, not Sirota's?

But this is a hell of a quote nonetheless:

"I would argue that both the legislative record of 2009-2010 and Obama's personal popularity level exceed the expectation level -- facing worse economic conditions than the last two Democratic presidents at a similar juncture, Obama is far more popular than Jimmy Carter and nearly as popular as Bill Clinton, and vastly more accomplished than both put together."

[BzaDem]

95. Yes, but both are spreading the "if you want it, it will come" fantasy. n/t

[no limit]

55. Why did the Democrats refuse to have the battle for Bush tax cuts before the 2010 elections?

When 70%+ of voters agreed with them?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Just for instance

:-)

[BzaDem]

77. Nancy Pelosi didn't have the votes to do it before the election. Until there is actually a

progressive majority in Congress (which there never was), people are going to continue to misidentify the problem.

[scarletwoman]

80. Oh, we'll get pie in the sky when we die. Yes, indeedy.

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die

[no limit]

109. Pelosi didn't need to do anything. The tax cuts were going to expire on their own

and you didn't really answer my question, did you? Even if you accept the bullshit premise that she needed votes to do this you didn't explain to me why they didn't fight for this before the election when atleast 70% of americans agreed with them. It was such an unpopular political position that republicans took that even John Boehner said that if he wasn't going to get the Bush tax cuts extended he would be forced to support a tax cut for 98% of americans.

[BzaDem]

113. She didn't want a family at the poverty line losing a 2000/year refundable tax credit.

Good for her.

She did not have the votes to pass any tax bill before the election. Fighting for something would be pretty ineffective if she lost a floor vote, wouldn't it?

[no limit]

118. Again, you are not answering such a simple question

70% of americans were in favor of the Democratic position on this issue. Why would they not use that to their advantage before the election? As I said above even John Boehner signeled he would cave. The fight was going to be had anyway, so again, why did they wait until after the election?

[defendandprotect]

31. Corporate money buys a lot of standing down and a lot of silence -- !!!

[EFerrari]

33. K&R

[scarletwoman]

37. Thank you!

[tomp]

34. they are most certainly not innocent bystanders.

that meme is foundational in the delusion that helps democrats get away with representing the rich while seeming to represent poor working and middle classes.

the truth is that the impossible is impossible only because the dems have convinced enough people that it is.

i am here to smash that delusion. they lie.

[scarletwoman]

36. "...the impossible is impossible only because the dems have convinced enough people that it is."

:thumbsup:

[nc4bo]

39. I always had trouble with the idea that D's are so powerless. It is BS

and it makes the entire party look weak and ineffective. They're compensated well for their empty statements and inaction, it's part of the problem that has yet to be addressed by anyone in Washington.

Not many in D.C. talk about their huge campaign donations nor the number of lobbyists and insiders infesting our political system. In this, too many are guilty of the same behaviors. I do believe it's for a very selfish reason that has nothing to do with doing what's best for this country or it's people.

[muffin1]

40. K&R

:applause:

[blindpig]

41. We should be happy, the scales fall from the eyes...

There's a lot to be said for clarity, to really know who your friends and enemies are. From there correct action can be discerned.

We, the people, are on our own. Nothing to do but organize ourselves.

k&r

[scarletwoman]

92. "We, the people, are on our own. Nothing to do but organize ourselves." Hear, hear!

Great post, thank you! :thumbsup:

sw

[Zorra]

43. Innocent Bystander Syndrome. Commonly known as I BS...

it's perfect.

[myrna minx]

44. K&R

:applause:

[florida08]

45. if it isn't obvious by now I don't know when it will be

Asside from a few real democrats the majority does lean toward republican policy..of course crying and whining all the way. I hear Obama stumping now the same rhetoric he did in '08. It got him elected them but it's a bit iffy now about the turnout. Where are the jobs? Why do we still have the Bush tax cuts? Why was the financial reform watered down? Why do we still have extraordinary rendition....it's the best we could get. Not good enough. We threw out republicans because we didn't want their policies right?

thanks for posting :thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

46. David Sirota: automatic unrecommend n/t

[FredStembottom]

47. Educate. Advocate. Refute.

This marks about my 1,000,000th time saying it:

The Republican lies are so ridiculously easy to refute that NO Democrat has an excuse to not refute them! And to base policy on the lies is unexplainable. Loony!!

D.C. Dems, it's your god-damned JOB to refute the lies. Then, explain the real possibilities and advocate for them.

So you don't pass a single thing. SO WHAT?!?!

Holding your ground is action. You are there to do that as much as anything.

Thank you, David Sirota!

[Lorien]

53. Exactly. The GOP position on the issues and GOP talking points are all that we hear in the media

because Dems never take a stand and get "on message" in any way...they simply stand by and play the victim card. That's NOT what we elected them to do!

[scarletwoman]

98. It seems to be all we hear from Obama, too. Did you see his latest statement about unions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1753000&mesg_id=1753000

[FredStembottom]

105. They work for us.

We are the employer.

[scarletwoman]

100. DC Dems don't refute Republican lies because they essentially represent their own worldview, too.

The DC political world is set up to protect the Owner Class. D or R, they're pretty much all in accord on that point.

sw

[Uncle Joe]

48. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, scarletwoman.

[bvar22]

49. ...But its ALL Joe Lieberman's Fault!

The Presidency is WEAK and POWERLESS.
He can only do what Congress lets him do!!!! :cry:

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

Can you imagine wimpy Joe Lieberman stamping his foot telling LBJ, "NO!!! I'm NOT going to support your Health care Plan?"
:rofl:

Many on this site will tell you that the Presidency is weak and powerless, and can only do what Congress lets him do.
THAT is a pathetic excuse...and just plain BULLSHIT!!!!

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

Solidarity!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[russspeakeasy]

52. If it weren't so damn serious, this could be comedy.

"mistakes were made", "we need to move forward"....is bullshit speak for I don't know what the fuck to do...guess I'll go play chess..:argh:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. The Delicate Flower Democratic helplessness has worn itself out.

It's time they took their hands out of the lobbyists' pockets and have someone teach them how to make a fist and say "no". However "partisan" that may be.

[scarletwoman]

94. They have a status quo to protect. (nt)

[treestar]

56. The Constitution is a fable?

And no one says they are powerLESS.

What dishonest arguing.

[Desertrose]

58. They seem to have plenty of power when it comes to covering their own asses.

Good post sw.


:loveya::hi:

[scarletwoman]

81. CYA is a high art in DC. I suppose we ought to be impressed by their mastery.

:D

:loveya: :hi:
sw

[swilton]

59. They've been acting out this charade since Clinton at least

This notion that their hands are tied is an excuse to protect the status quo - while we're at it here are another few memes 'that keep us locked into our places....I would like to dispell with the observations that we have moral authority, we have numbers and we have ingenuity on our side....Here is my list of memes -

'We don't have the MSM' - until we have the MSM a progressive candidate can't win -

'Until we have finance reform, corporations will run the elections'

'Until we overturn corporate person-hood - we won't be able to run viable candidates'

Etc. etc.

[polichick]

61. K&R - Yes, this fake story covers their asses...

...and allows them to answer to their real masters.

[fascisthunter]

62. I'm Glad there are really intelligent, decent people here

great post!

[defendandprotect]

63. LATE K/R --- Can't wait until the Dems are the minority again so they can run everything -- !!!

What a joke but how sad so many believe this myth of the impotent Dems and

impotent prez Obama!!!


:rofl: -- if it wasn't so sad!!

[bbgrunt]

64. so very true. Time to take the scales off the eyes!!

[DeSwiss]

65. Exactly.

We shouldn't confuse the difference between ''weak'' and ''bought and paid for.''

- K&R

"Lately though, I don't hear so much outrage. In fact, the readers seem to be suffering from what someone aptly called "rage fatigue." Which is another way of saying the bastards have simply worn us out. And it's true. I am not kidding when I say rage fatigue victims have fallen into an ongoing mid-level depression. (Looks to me like the whole country has, but then I'm no mental health expert.) The less depressed victims can be found lurking near the edges of the Obama cult, consoling themselves that a soothing and/or charismatic orator is better than nothing.

Obama may yet be borne through the White House portico by a Democratic host of seraphim, but he cannot do much without the consent of a bought and paid for Congress. Only George Bush can do that, and we can only hope God broke the mold after he made George. And like whoever else wins the presidency, Obama can never acknowledge any significant truth, such as that the nation is waaaaay beyond being just broke, and is even a net debtor nation to Mexico, or that the greatest touch-me-not in the U.S. political flower garden, the "American lifestyle," is toast. But then, we really do not expect political truth, but rather entertainment in a system where, as Frank Zappa said, politics is merely "the entertainment branch of industry."

Still, millions of Americans do grasp at The Audacity of Hope, a meaningless marketing slogan of the publishing industry if ever there was one. At least it has the word Audacity in it, something millions of folks are having trouble conjuring up the least shred of these days. And there is good old fashioned "Hope" of course -- that murky, undefined belief that some unknown force or magical unseen power will reverse the national condition -- will deliver us from what every bit of evidence indicates is irreversible, if not politically, then economically and ecologically: Collapse.

Compounding everything is the fact that it is quite human and even pragmatic to passively accept reality as it is. Until it's too late to do anything. As my late friend Virgil the philosophical backhoe operator summed it up: "If we fucked everything up so bad tryin' to do our best, maybe we oughtta just leave'er be for a while. Quit thinking about it so much."

~Joe Bageant, from http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/04/the-audacity-of.html">'The Audacity of Depression' April 2008

[scarletwoman]

79. Thank you for bringing Joe Bageant to this thread. Man, I miss him!

[DeSwiss]

101. Here ya go:

[scarletwoman]

103. Wow! Okay, if George Carlin is gonna come back next century, I definitely want to come back, too!

Thank you so much, DeSwiss! What fun!

:applause:
sw

[hulka38]

67. Outstanding and thank you.

[JoePhilly]

72. D's are not powerless, they are YIPPY DOGS.

We have a shorter attention span then an ADD kid who needs to wear a helmet.

We think that every issue is the most important issue ever, thus ensuring that we can't focus on even a small set of issues.

The second something good happens, we lament the fact that some other good thing has yet to happen.

At least here on DU, we must predict defeat and failure. And when that doesn't happen ... we need to predict that it WILL happen at some point in the future.

I used to think that Democrats were optimistic people. People who saw more nuance and complexity in the world, not just black and white.

DU has been teaching me otherwise.

And so apparently, according to this OP, if a Democratic President doesn't see himself as a dictator, then he must think that he is powerless.

[A Simple Game]

74. You may be confusing Democrats with Liberals.

Used to be that most Democrats were Liberals.

Doesn't seem to be true now.

[bowens43]

83. they're not powerless

they're gutless or they have been bought...

[personman]

86. Never bought it. They are half the machine. nt

[WillyT]

88. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[scarletwoman]

91. Thank you!

[OwnedByFerrets]

89. Not powerless, just spineless when it comes to helping

average Americans.

[bengalherder]

90. I saw that at the other link this morning.

Thank you for posting it, you were right, it need to be seen.

K&R

[Rex]

104. I don't. Never have.

[upi402]

106. Pulled back the curtain on Oz in the early 90's

Took me a whilke to accept the fact that we'd lost our party. Now I can't help but get frustrated when people still cling to the charade.

[Major Hogwash]

108. Does Sirota know the Republicans control the Senate??

Probably not, he's too busy sucking up pina coladas on the beach.

[suffragette]

112. And yet Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. Yeah, somehow Reagan managed to get everything he wanted with a

Democratic-controlled House for his entire two terms.

[scarletwoman]

111. Funny, that. It's as if presidents actually DO have the power to push an agenda!

Who'd have thought?

[Major Hogwash]

114. For the first 6 years, Reagan had a Republican Senate that complied with everything he wanted

That's why he got most of what he wanted!!

The Senate is where bills go to die!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. But that was also the era in which the DLC Democrats in the House started blathering

about how they had to be "bipartisan" and support all his evil programs.

A bill has to pass BOTH houses of Congress.

[Major Hogwash]

116. The Democrats that were elected to the Senate in 1986 stopped Reagan in his tracks.

The news of the Iran/Contra scandal didn't come out until 4 days after the 1986 mid-term elections, so that issue had no effect on the elections that year.
If the NYT would not have sat on that story as long as they did, there would have been even more Democrats elected to the House of Representatives.

The DLC didn't start until 1988.

I know how a bill becomes law.
I watched a movie about it in the 4th grade, along with "Hemo, the Magnificent."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. The DLC was founded in *1985,* and its predecessor was Scoop Jackson's group

And I distinctly remember people like Sam Nunn, Al Gore*, and Dick Gephardt going on and on about how they had to go along with Reagan in the spirit of bipartisanship--while a few valiant souls, such as the much under-estimated Henry Gonzalez of Texas continued to fight the good fight.

*I have never been gaga about Al Gore the way some people here are. I am old enough to remember him as one of Reagan's enablers and an advocate of the military buildup and support for right-wing dictators in Central America.

[Major Hogwash]

119. What was the 1984 Presidential election result?

How many electoral votes did Mondale get?
I forget.
Oh, yeah . . 13.

The first DLC candidate ran in 1988, although they "founded" it earlier than that.
They met in a coffee shop in 1985, probably.
They had no impact on the 1986 elections.

I'm glad that you disctinctly remember something from those days.
Maybe you remember how the mainstream media treated liberals in the mid-80s.
Maybe that's why they talked about things like "the spirit of bipartisanship."

I don't care if you were gaga over Al Gore or not.
I don't care if you vote for Obama next year or not.
Obviously, the Democrats haven't entered a candidate for President that's been to your liking since 1976.
But, you probably weren't gaga over Jimmy Carter either.

How's the media treating Obama now?
What, you don't care?

Because that's what I was talking about, not whether you were gaga over Democrats or not.

Is there ANYBODY good enough to be President, in your opinion?
Who would you like to see run next year?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

120. Who knows what would have happened if the Dems hadn't wimped out?

The proper response to MSM slamming of liberals should have been?

"Liberal? Damn right! And here's why I wouldn't be anything else!"

Not what actually happened, which was, "Liberal? Really? Oh, I'm sorry. I'll try harder not to offend you."

Oh, and by the way, as a Minnesotan, I like Fritz Mondale, but damn, he ran a lousy campaign, as did Dukakis. The more time passes, the more I think the Dem establishment types deliberately gave them bad advice so they'd lose. It was their way of purging liberals. Dukakis lost in the same year that Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary. Not that I'd want Jesse Jackson as president (too much of a loose cannon) but his message was unabashedly liberal.

[Major Hogwash]

121. Who's good enough for you?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. That's the problem

The Dem establishment has made sure that the real liberals remain in obscurity, in "harmless" little Congressional seats. They don't get sent to the talk shows, where they would make an impression. The Dem establishment disses them continually. The Dem establishment for the past 30 years has accepted the Republican meme that being "too liberal" or "far left" is a bad thing.

There were six people in the Dem nomination race in 2007, but the Dem establishment made sure we heard about only two of them. Starting in 2007 before a single caucus vote had been cast.

That's when I knew that we were going to get a corporatist, like it or not.

It confirmed what I had learned working on the Kucinich campaign. In Minnesota, where a strong volunteer group worked its collective butt off campaigning, he got 17% statewide and 27% in the Twin Cities. Now we did not expect to win. But we never thought it would be so hard to get publicity. We had to PRESSURE the local newspapers to cover his appearances, in which he spoke in front of up to 2500 people, and yet when Edwards spoke to 25 contributors, he received a half-page article.

I didn't expect him to win. But I wouldn't be so angry if I felt that he had been treated the same as the other candidates.

The Kerry nomination puzzled me. When I was in Iowa, I saw NO indication of support for him. Judging from the campaign signs, I would have guessed Edwards, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Kucinich. I went to see him both times he appeared in Minneapolis, once before a crowd of veterans and once to a general crowd, and both times he seemed to be going through the motions. In fact, both Max Cleland and John Edwards were able to elicit a more enthusiastic response from the crowd of veterans than the wooden Kerry was.

Sure, I campaigned for Kerry, went door to door in the weeks preceding Election Day and all day Election Day, but when he conceded before everyone in Ohio had even finished voting, I was through. He seemed to want to win less than his supporters wanted him to win.

If I had my way, we'd have multiparty elections in this country. The current two-party system is dysfunctional, with the complete loonies and greedheads in the Republican Party and everyone else crowded into the Democratic Party, which therefore has no clear direction--but in any case, has long failed to articulate a clear vision that the voters can grab onto.