Facts Not in Evidence

[NanceGreggs]

As we headed into the lead-up to the 2008 elections, there was one question paramount in my mind: How would the Republicans attempt to slip out of the noose that the Bush administration had so tightly twisted around their necks? It was a rope too strong to break – the debacle in Iraq being of such magnitude, it would inevitably weigh down its wearers like an anchor as the Ship GOP went down.

It seemed their only chance of survival was to convince voters that the Democrats were actually guilty of BushCo’s crimes, a notion that once seemed too far-fetched to even be considered as an option.

But after reading comments by some of my fellow DUers of late, it seems the Republicans need not have concerned themselves with trying to find ways to saddle the Democrats with responsibility for Iraq, or indeed for any of the Bush administration’s wrongdoing; apparently, some Democrats are more than willing to do the job for them.

I have seen comments like, “The Democrats now OWN this war.” In other words, the fact that this administration lied about WMDs, presented fabricated evidence to the citizenry and to the UN, refused to seek a diplomatic solution, funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into no-bid contracts with war-profiteering companies controlled by family members and political cronies while sending our troops into combat with insufficient equipment – all of that is now, according to some, a burden of blame that should be shared equally by Democrats who have not done the bidding of their constituents in ending this war full-stop.

The constant cry seems to be that the Democrats were given their majority by the voters for the sole purpose of ending this war, and anything short of that is a betrayal of the mandate they were handed. That is assuming a fact that is, like it or not, not in evidence.

There is no doubt that the war and its conduct are uppermost in the minds of most Americans, and were a driving factor behind many of the votes cast in 2006. However, to assume that every voter cast their ballot on that basis alone is naïve, at best.

There are those who voted for a Democratic candidate based on other criteria; his/her ability to do what was in the best interests of their state or district, their commitment to education, the environment, the economy – the list is endless in terms of what was important to each individual as they decided that Democrat A was preferable to Republican B.

And yet we are led to believe by many that there was no other factor other than Iraq on the minds of voters across the nation. A large factor, yes. The only factor? Not by a long shot.

I remember the howls of derision when Bush, after his marginal victory in 2004, strutted around talking about his clear mandate, his political capital – and yet we now hear that the Democrats, with their paper-thin majority (who are still dealing with a Republican president) should be fulfilling their clear mandate – a mandate that is assumed, but has not been established as fact; a supposed mandate that totally ignores votes cast by anyone whose priorities might have been different than those who insist that their priority is the only priority that warrants consideration or attention.

The other night, I came across a thread that really set me off, suggesting that the children who are about to suffer the consequences of Bush’s veto of SCHIP will do so as a result of Nancy Pelosi’s failure to put impeachment on the table. Again, this assumes facts not in evidence.

It assumes that had Pelosi initiated impeachment proceedings back in the early days of her tenure, Bush and Cheney would now be banished from the White House and all would be right with the world. Of course, in this rosy-but-flawed scenario, one has to assume that said impeachment proceedings would (a) be completed by now, and (b) would have produced the result that the Democrats crave.

It does not take into consideration the idea that such proceedings might have resulted in a complete exoneration of the Bush administration, with the attendant consequences of an emboldened Bush and Cheney, and a swelling of support for the GOP candidates who would make political hay of such a verdict. It does not dare address the ramifications among Republican voters who would view such a finding in terms of, “Well, I thought the president was guilty of all kinds of things. But I guess I was wrong.”

And we here, of all people, should know how easily manipulated a lot of ill-informed voters are – the ones who would tune-in to FOX News, read the headlines about Bush/Cheney being found blameless of any wrongdoing, and reconsider their current decision that the Republicans do not deserve their vote come next November.

But let’s not take Bush’s decision to ignore the needs of our nation’s children and beat the Republicans over the head with it as we move into the 2008 elections. Let’s take that stick and beat the Democrats with it – and by so doing, give the Republicans a complete pass. Yeah, that sounds like a good plan. Why blame Bush for a decision that will anger Republicans and Democrats alike, when you can pin the entire thing on the Democrats. Yeah, great plan.

Along the same lines is the idea that the votes not being there is simply an excuse; as several posters have framed it, “If Pelosi was serious, she’d find the votes.” In other words, let’s not bother ourselves with the reality of the situation that the Republicans, for better or for worse, have dug their heels in and decided to stand by their man no matter what. Let’s just assume another fact not in evidence, that those pro-impeachment votes are out there, and it is only the abject laziness of the Democrats that have resulted in their not being found and used.

If we’re going to place blame on the grounds of facts not in evidence coupled with a host of what-ifs, why not pile our anger on Al Gore? If he had stood his ground and not conceded in 2000, we might not be where we are today. And what about Jack Kennedy? If he hadn’t insisted on riding in a car that wasn’t equipped with a bullet-proof shield, things would have turned out differently, wouldn’t they?

If we’re going to assume all facts not in evidence, why not go whole-hog instead of limiting ourselves to the events of the past few months?

I’ve read a lot of comments about public perception, i.e. if the Democrats talk about compromise with Republicans, they are perceived as being spineless. Again there is no consideration given to the concept that the public might perceive compromise as signaling the end of partisan bickering that accomplishes nothing, as opposed to both sides sitting down and negotiating bipartisan decisions that might lead to the betterment of the nation as a whole, and not the advancement of the political agenda of one party to the detriment of the other.

How many of us bitterly decried the partisanship of the GOP when they had the majority? How many of those same people now endorse partisanship now that the shoe is on the other foot? Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s not establish the fact that American citizens agree on all kinds of issues, something the GOP have worked long and hard to convince the populace is a fallacy rather than the truth. Let’s get in there and divide the citizenry – the Republicans did it, so why shouldn’t we?

There also seems to be an existing attitude that not blaming Pelosi/Reid et al for everything from the Civil War to Britney Spear’s loss of custody of her children is equivalent to not holding them responsible for anything – the ol’ you’re with us or against us mentality that we here, without exception, dismissed out-of-hand as the ravings of lunatics who had neither the intelligence nor capacity to understand that not every issue is as black-and-white as those who have an agenda to sell would paint it.

There is blame to be laid at the feet of our elected representatives who have heard our desires, and have chosen to ignore or circumvent them. There is finger-pointing that is well deserved when constituents feel their cries are falling on ears that are being deliberately deaf. That does not, however, IMHO, equate to the concept that if you don’t listen to what I have to say now, you are exactly the same as those on the other side of the aisle who didn’t listen to me either.

In my lifetime, the Democrats have never been this well-positioned to take complete control of the governance of our country. The Republican party has been losing supporters on a unprecedented scale; their rhetoric is now known to be empty, their promises to accomplish anything of value are falling on deaf ears even among their most ardent former supporters. Their corruption and greed is no longer a whispered rumor, but a daily headline. And yet this situation is not greeted by optimism by some of our own, but is rather met with a constant reminder that we are no better than them.

My view of the immediate future is a simple one: Put a Democrat in the White House, and a Democratic majority – a large, sweeping majority – in the Senate and the House in January 2009. That is where the true battle will be engaged.

Once in power (and I mean real power), the Democrats in office will have no choice but to do the bidding of We the People. There will be whips to be used to beat the horse – petitions, phone calls, emails, the threat of withholding support during their individual re-election bids, the threat to withhold our dollars from their campaigns to maintain their seats.

The other side of that coin is the option of whipping the Democrats down now, thereby smoothing the way for another four (or, heaven forbid, eight) years of Republicans in control.

I, for one, would prefer to have a live horse in this race, which means the potential for using whatever means necessary to steer it, no matter how stubborn it may be, in the direction I want it to take.

I find that preferable to going back to whipping that in-the-minority horse who is never going to move a single inch, simply because he is incapable of doing so.

The live horse’s direction can be changed at the behest of its rider. The dead horse, on the other hand, no matter how hard you beat it, isn’t going anywhere.

As I hit the post button, I realize that what I have said will render me extremely unpopular among many here. I will be flamed; I will be called an excuse-maker for the Democrats in office. I will be told-off in no uncertain terms by people whose opinions I have come to respect, by fellow DUers who I have come to love and consider friends.

And I am prepared for that. There comes a time when you have to stand up for what you believe is right, to speak the truth as you see it, or forever regret not having done so.

I choose to speak up. I will live with the consequences - a fate which, for me, is far preferable to living with the regret of not having done so.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. K & R, thank you, thank you, thank you.

:kick:

MKJ

[emilyg]

2. Bravo!!!!

:applause:

[TwilightGardener]

3. Excellent post--I am in full agreement. Just pure common sense here.

[Mythsaje]

4. To the Greatest Page with you...

Well, I'm sure you'll have the 5th Rec by the time I'm done typing this...or soon after.

[NanceGreggs]

5. Oh ye of GREATEST page faith ...

Thanks, my friend.

[Mythsaje]

7. It would be "inconceivable" for you not to make it there...

:D

Have you seen MY latest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1979664&mesg_id=1979664

[Vickers]

6. Your pragmatism is breathtaking.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Trajan]

8. GREAT Post ....

The Anti-Democratic nominee rhetoric is understandable, but suicidal .... The circular firing squad : IN formation ....

First: HAVE power ..... THEN: demand a voice in wielding it ....

I will support ALL the Democratic party candidates ..... I have no other choice ....

[NanceGreggs]

11. And there you have it.

"First: HAVE power. THEN: demand a voice in wielding it."

Oh, to have the talent to say in ten words what it takes others (like ME) a thousand words or more.

Thanks.

Edited to add: I just re-read this, and realized how it could have been taken the wrong way (hey, am I paranoid tonight, or what?!?)

I admit that I often remind myself of someone I knew many, many years ago. Her husband lovingly described her as a woman who could turn Reader's Digest short stories into full-length novels. That's me.

[NancyBreen]

9. Thank you again, Nance for sharing your wisdom.

You speak the truth and are a great teacher. I'm sure there will be those who disagree but you'll always have our respect and admiration. You are such a treasure and have touched many of us with your rants. Thank you again.

[eridani]

10. If you have the power to decide what legislation gets to the floor--

--does it matter whether you "have the votes?"

[truedelphi]

40. Or of nine year olds in protest against a war carry signs

About Hans Blik - how is it that Hillary et al had no idea - ABOSLUTELY NONE - that the evidence of WMDs was fabricated?

[Usrename]

12. I think you are cherry picking your reality. It is nothing like mine.

Do you recall the YouTube debate? It was promoted as a chance for the people to finally get to ask our own questions of the Democratic candidates?

Until the most popular question turned out to be: "How do the candidates feel about impeachment?"

What happened? Not just WHY did they kill that question, but HOW did they kill it?

I wish I lived in your world where this never comes up, where there doesn't need to be an explanation.

In my world it is necessary to explain it somehow, because I KNOW it happened, and I am unable to just bury my head in the sand.

And then there is the Alito question. It has never been answered on this board, although I think I've asked it dozens of times.

41 votes were needed to stop the Alito nomination.

42 senators voted that he is unfit to be on the court. Yet there he sits.

I wish I could live in your world. I used to live there, but I can't seem to make myself forget these things that I see.

[NanceGreggs]

13. No one is asking you to forget what you have seen ...

... I simply ask you to foresee what could be.

I believe that what could be is more likely under the Democrats than under the Republicans.

That's why I'm here.

[Usrename]

17. The problem comes when you actually try to find answers.

Those are not just rhetorical questions. It's the act of trying to sort out the answer that will change a person's view of our party.

How did the question about impeachment get killed in the YouTube debate? There is no answer to that question that fits your reality. None. An answer does not exist in your world.

That's my point. Also, there is no answer to the Alito question that will fit with your reality.

Your reality has to be skewed off of center somehow, since those two things did really happen.

One answer could be that the same dark forces you so easily see at work in the Republican party are at work in our own leadership.

Or, I guess it could be that our party leaders are so stoopid, with their little monkey hind-brains, that they let those evil Republicans easily trick all the good-intentioned Dems into dropping certain questions from the YouTube debate; and also, somehow, they also let them get tricked into a failed filibuster, even though they had enough votes.

[RonHack]

21. ... and yet......

.... I could not help but think about how the Democrats
could've denied Bush the extra money for this stupid war, but
went ahead with it.

.... the recent posts point to the fact that they're
considering expanding Bush's spying powers indefinitely, even
though those are set to expire shortly.

.... those Democrats, who we elected because we're tired of
the "rubber stamping" Republicans, are planning to
indemnify the telecommunications companies for their role in
the illegal wiretapping.

Don't you see? Sure, they MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH BILLS
TO STOP THE WAR, but by not acting on them, they also COULD
STOP THE MADNESS BY NOT DOING ANYTHING.

That's why I feel so helpless and lied to by the Democratic
"majority".

[NanceGreggs]

46. I hear ya!

And I have NO PROBLEM with dissin' the Dems - loudly and often - for their own actions, or lack thereof.

What was getting to me, though, was reading posts about how the Democrats now 'own' this war, because they haven't stopped it. I always hoped that no one would forget that Bush & Cheney chose this war, they lied us into it, and they have now totally f*cked it up.

Passing any of THAT blame onto the Democrats is, IMHO, equivalent to lessening the burden of BUSH/CHENEY'S responsibility for the crimes that they have committed against this country, against our troops, and against the Iraqi people.

[specimenfred1984]

16. Welcome to ignore

I ignore people who hate the democratic party.

[Tigermoose]

38. Ignorance is Strength (nt)

[TheMadMonk]

48. I see no evidence of hatred of Party. Merely of what that party has demonstrably done.

Mindless support is what got the Republican party into power.

It might too work for the Democratics. But I doubt very much if anyone will really like what they get.

American politicians bank on two things for the most part, incumbency, and ideological opposition to the "alternative". Far too many then vote the wishes of who PAID the bills, and ignore the wishes of those who VOTED to put them there. THIS IS A FACT WHICH IS IN EVIDENCE Nancy.

I have done no such analysis, but I would not at all be surprised to learn that the vast majority of halfway honest politicians hold marginal seats. And that politicians in safe seats are far more likely to chose to vote the will of their financial backers over the will of the constituents who voted to put them into power.


The law and the Constitution demand action when certain criteria of mis/malfeasance on the part of elected officials are met. Those critera have been met again and again and again. And worse than no action at all, are the deliberate moves to block such actions when an actual attempt is made to call demonstrably corrupt officials to task.


I don't often disagree with Nance, but this time I do. OUR RASCALS might be a bit better than their's, but rascals they remain nonetheless.

Their track record strongly suggests that given a choice between morality and expediency, expediency will win out far more often than not.

Nor is it likely that they will make any great efforts to fix what is broken. Not when they can benefit (personally) so greatly when it's their turn at the reins. Oh a few of the worst excesses will almost certainly be reversed, but what of lesser "more useful" ones. Count, amongst "our rascals", who opposed those excesses, who abstained and who voted in favour of allowing those excesses to be written into law.

Who amongst "our rascals" have voted in favour of illegally overriding the Constitution? Not just once, but many many times. And you want to put them into the driver's seat, because they're still better than the other guy. Sorry to tell you this, but all evidence suggest that they are "OWNED" by exactly the same people who own the other guy.

[creeksneakers2]

55. I think the opposite is true of this point:

You write: "I would not at all be surprised to learn that the vast majority of halfway honest politicians hold marginal seats. And that politicians in safe seats are far more likely to chose to vote the will of their financial backers over the will of the constituents who voted to put them into power."

I'm assuming that you believe a more liberal voting record is preferable. The members of Congress who have the most liberal voting records are often big city Democrats from 9 to 1 Democratic districts. The Blue Dog types generally come from mixed districts or even GOP districts. The safer the seat, the more the politician is able to take risks, like bucking big money.

The best example is the Democrats in Congress from 2001 to 2004. Having been betrayed by the Green Party, the Democrats scrambled for the middle. Those years, years when the base couldn't be counted on, were the most cowardly I can remember for Democrats. After the base came back in 2004, the party improved somewhat.

[NanceGreggs]

59. I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said ...

But let me use an (admittedly dumb) analogy for what I think needs to be done (and this is just MHO):

You have some soldiers you're pretty sure are lazy, in-it-for-themselves, or a little too cozy with the enemy. Do you thin your troops BEFORE you engage the enemy in a decisive battle, or do you WIN the battle first, and then replace your not-so-loyals with people you can trust?

I say it's the latter. Unhappy with people like Pelosi and Reid? Plenty of time to deal with them AFTER we have the WH and a substantial majority. Everybody has to face re-election, sooner or later. And THAT'S the time to rid ourselves of those who weren't supporting US when we had no choice but to support THEM.

And yes, I DO want to put them in the driver's seat because THEY ARE better than the other guy.

[some guy]

14. eh, some one will start...

so it might as well be me. :)


" Once in power (and I mean real power), the Democrats in office will have no choice but to do the bidding of We the People. "
This too, is a fact not in evidence.

Nice post, overall. I do generally like your threads.

:hi:

[NanceGreggs]

15. By "no choice" I mean ...

... that re-election is a sword that hangs over every politician's head. And it is powerful sword indeed.

[some guy]

19. I don't think it's that powerful

I went looking for some stats, and I didn't search exhaustively, nor do I know how credible this site is, but for 2008, at present they are calling 11 of 33 Senate seats "safe." 3 as having current holder retiring (YAY - I hadn't realized Wayne Allard was retiring.) and only 3 seats as having "no clear favorite."

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2008_races_senate.html

The same site is claiming (9th paragraph) "The remaining 357 House districts, or 82 percent of the total House membership, appear safe at the moment for the incumbent party — although those figures may and are likely to change, as strategists of both parties intensify their recruiting efforts and unexpectedly strong candidates emerge for upset bids."

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/cqpolitics_analysis_house_demo.html

Incumbency has been powerful for a long time. I do think, as a nation, we are in the early-midst of powerful changes occurring over the next half dozen years. I'm not so certain politicians realize that though. I would be happier if I thought the sword of re-election was sharper, and wielded more often.


As always, I plan for and expect the worst, yet still hold a slim hope for the best. :)

[blondie58]

30. and that sword

also prevents them from accomplishing anything, as they have to raise money and work on getting re-elected for next time. We need to make public financing of elections a reality. And THEN, we will have some people who will work for their constituents, not for the corporations.

Funny, Nance- I don't see anyone flaming you here? Perhaps your words ring true. Thanks.

[bleever]

18. Wea culpa.

We're responsible for how we see the our place in the world, and our power or powerlessness.

Give it up, and it's gone.

Don't be fooled into thinking it belongs to someone else, and it can't leave you.


At this point in American history, nothing can defeat us but defeatism.

[dugggy]

20. My fear is that there will be a serious terror attack before

the election 2008. Then all bets are off. I hope mine is
just a nightmare which will end upon awakening.

[BR_Parkway]

22. No flames here - this is spot on for the situation as it stands today

That's not to say I don't crave a different result, and call my congresswoman's office (Virginia Foxx, ugh) almost daily trying to pressure her to get on the side of Right vs standing with the Right. But once again, you've captured with words what many of us do know about the practical realities of life as it is right now.

[emanymton]

23. I Like What You Say. Like The Way You Say It.

.
Your points are valid. A great difference exists between 'us' and 'them.' Regardless, we must admit that many more than just GOP have to be held accountable for their actions and _willingness_ to compromise over the past seven years.

More than a year exists before 'we the people' go to the polls. _Now_ is the time to bring out the whips on all of our candidates so as to get the anger and frustration out of our systems. Then it is off to the barricades to take back our country.
.

[FloridaJudy]

24. Nance: How DARE you

Resort to underhanded tactics like logic and reason? Don't you realize that there's an ideological war on? :evilgrin:

Brava. You're one of the reasons I stick around DU. Sometimes it's nice to be reminded that there are grown-ups in this world. And when I encounter one that can write, it's a double blessing.

[FraDon]

25. K&R ::: Common sense clairity ...

once again, Nance, rings like a 3,000 pound bell.
Pause not, truth to power.

[MadHound]

26. This will be an interesting thread to bookmark and come back to in a couple of years

For I truly believe that if the Dems get what you wish, it truly won't change a thing. We'll still be in Iraq, possibly Iran. And the Dems will still be as corporate friendly as they are now.

I don't blame solely the Dems, nor solely the 'Pugs for where we are today. What a blame is the corrosive corporate corruption that has insinuated itself throughout both parties. It is the nature of the two party/same corporate master system of government.

I think that you are shooting for pie-in-the-sky here. I'm willing to predict that two years from now, even if your wildest dreams come true, we'll still be in Iraq, possibly Iran. We'll still be suffering the effects of the Patriot Act, NCLB, and the general shredding of the Constitution. Religion will still have an unhealthy hold on our government. And people like yourself will still be making excuses for why we're still sinking into the quicksand that we're in.

I would love to be proven wrong, but I doubt that I will be.

It isn't the Dems, it isn't the 'Pugs, it is the corporations that run our government. Until people wake up to that fact, and do something about it, our country will continue to decline.

[caseycoon]

27. EXCELLENT! Thanks, Nance! n/t

[Perry Logan]

28. I'm proud to be on the same page with you, eloquent lady.

Let's face it, we liberals take the virtue of self-criticism way past the limit. It just seems to be part of our nature.

Reading the posts at DU, one would hardly know we'd just enjoyed a smashing victory over the Republicans. I spend a lot of my energy decrying this tendency we have to attack ourselves.

I would add, however, that we Democrats are recovering from some twenty years of biased news and rigged elections. I don't like the negative rhetoric--but we should remember that it's been a rough time for all of us. And of course, the mainstream news is still basically enemy propaganda.

After such a lousy period of history, it's not always easy to become a cockeyed optimist all of a sudden. So maybe the "whipping down" of Democrats we do here is at least understandable, and possibly forgivable.

[Autonomy]

29. My first DU post in many months

Thank you for making sense. I've not seen such a well-reasoned post on this website in a long time. Of course, I don't think it will have any effect on those who think with their hearts first, and react accordingly. But at least it's nice to see.

[Zandor]

31. Your best piece yet, by far

Persuasive, insightful.

K & R

[Odin2005]

32. Recommended!

I've fucking had it with this bashing of the Democratic Party. I'm especially pissed off with DUers parroting the false "the Dems won the 2006 election on ending the war" meme (the economy and scandal-laden Republican politicians were the top issues IIRC) created by the Pukes so the MSM can yap about a "do-nothing Democrat Congress." Some posters are part of the problem.

[Yael]

33. Way to frame the debate!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[John Kerry VonErich]

34. Do you think Green Party is the only hope?

nt

[bluescribbler]

35. What about Bobby?

If he'd used Whitey Bulger as his bodyguard, he'd have kicked Nixon's butt from here to Ho Chi Minh City.

And Jimmy Carter? He should have sent Blackwater to free the hostages in Iran. We never would have had to suffer through 8 years of a senile B movie actor.

Another great rant from Nance Greggs. I tried to make a similar point months ago, but not as well or as forcefully as you do.

Another rec for Nance.

[redqueen]

36. Like they were forced to during Clinton's first two years?

The two years when we didn't get any legislation to protect the fairness doctrine that reagan had killed, like clinton claimed he'd do while he was campaigning?

Sorry, Nance, but I don't trust middle-of-the-road dems anymore. I do trust them to be better than a repuke. That's about it.

[Senator]

37. It Seems Torture Is "Not In Evidence" In Your Post

I wonder why that is?

Impeachment is not partisanship and there's nothing "in evidence" to show it will be divisive (unless you count dividing the neofascist 25% from the rest of us). Nor is it beating dead horses -- which btw, don't reanimate "once in real power."

It is simply our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

And there will be no large, sweeping majority coming from the display of weakness that is failure to impeach.

People don't "sweep in" the complicit.

---

[MasonJar]

39. Thank you, Nance. I have been trying to get the DUers to stop

bashing our candidates for months. We should be bringing out the horrors of another PUG, especially in relation to the Supreme Court. Come on, DUers, rise to the challenge to get the dems in control and stop this destruction of our country and our Constitution.

[puebloknot]

41. In days of yore, a subpoena was a very effective whip to "beat the horse" ...

... up until Richard Nixon decided to ignore such a whip. Today, ignoring subpoenas is all the rage! And the Dems are sitting on their hands, "continuing to engage in oversight," instead of using the tools of inherent contempt to actually enforce the subpoenas they've issued.

The Democrats have shown little inclination to honor the will of We the People with the power they have right now, to stop funding an illegal war. No less a light than John Dean insists that the Dems are not using the power they *have* to end the occupation of Iraq. The cry goes out that if the Dems withhold funds for the war, Bushco will simply find some other funding source to continue the war. So be it. To say there is no point in stopping *this* robbery because the thief will just go on to rob another house is skewed logic, and skewed morality.

Nancy Pelosi's laundry list of things to accomplish in the first 100 hours of Dem control is the closest thing to "let them eat cake" I've seen. Any rational society takes care of education and health care for their citizens as a matter of course. I have to wonder in what fantastic universe Nancy Pelosi found her assertion that the American people "want us to *work with* this President." Those who lie down with dogs, etc.

*The* most important issue for this country is ending the illegal occupation of Iraq, and avoiding an attack on Iran. From that issue, all else flows. We cannot *afford* this illegal war -- either fiscally or morally, before the eyes of the world. To allow it is to allow every other assault against our Constitution. Our economy is in trouble, and we have *no* rights any longer.

Even if Exhibit A were in evidence to prove the main point of this OP -- that not all the people who voted the Dems in, in 2006, did so with an eye to ending the war, and preferred instead to focus on education, the environment, the economy, such a preference flies in the face of the rule of law. People in the Deep South in the '60s preferred to keep their "State's right" to hang black men from trees. Elected officials have a duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, not govern with a damp finger in the wind -- number crunching instead of engaging in that lost art -- Leadership!

In evidence is that this is not the America we have always known -- for those with eyes to see. Nor is the Democratic Party, as currently constituted, the Grand Old Party we've all known and loved. It's time for an intervention!

[understandinglife]

42. "There comes a time when you have to stand up for what you believe is right, to speak the truth ...

... as you see it, or forever regret not having done so."

Agree.

So, I do not think calling out Hillary for the neocon she is, is in any way "smoothing the way for another four years ..." of neoconster rule in the USofA.

As for Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Gore ... any one of them would be an outstanding President and we should do everything possible to ensure that one of them is in the WH in Jan 2009.


Peace.

[Kermitt Gribble]

43. This should be put up, in its entirety, on the greatest page

Wonderful post! The Dems in congress deserve a little prodding, but not the beatings they've been taking here lately. Same goes for our Presidential candidates. We need to stop beating each other up and direct our anger at the republicans, where it belongs.

[ooglymoogly]

44. There are things to consider here for which an answer has

not been readily available. How long can articles of impeachment be dragged out. In other words how long can they be used to thwart (as some are predicting) the possibility of marshal law? Has Nancy weakened her (our) position by so vociferously taking impeachment off the table? Why can't it sit on the table like a very noticeable pot of stinging nettles...kinda like a warning. Why has Nancy not used her powers to gate keep what is allowed on the floor for vote? and that goes for Reid as well, after all that is the argument for allowing the blue dogs to keep biting our asses and yet these formidable powers seem to have evaporated allowing whatever skulduggery to pass quietly as a ship in the night.

[avrdream]

45. Thank you for being a voice of reason this week on DU.

I have the same observations and hopes as you but cannot submit them to paper as eloquently as you.

[stimbox]

47. More cheerleading, yawn.

[NanceGreggs]

51. More cheerleading for the concept of ...

... putting blame where it's due, instead of passing the Bush/Cheney crimes over to the Democrats?

Damned real.

The next thing I'm expecting to hear is that it was the Democrats who insisted that Colin Powell present his little dog-and-pony show to the UN, while they were conspiring to blow Valerie Plame's CIA cover.

[stimbox]

54. How about holding complicit Dems accountable too?

As Democrats we also need to do that.
It's a no brainer that Bush/Cheeney are ultimately at fault/responsible, but the Bushdog DLCers aren't getting off that easy.

[NanceGreggs]

57. Don't you see that we agree?

Hold the guilty responsible for their own failings, false promises, inaction, etc. But DON'T allow the right-wingers to pass the ultimate buck by saying, "Well, it looks like the Democrats are equally responsible for Iraq now."

With all of the crap that's come out about people like Vitter, Foley and Craig, have you ever heard a Republican say, "You know, we're going to have to get off Clinton's back about the BJ thing, because our people are EQUALLY guilty. Let's just call it a draw."

Hell, THEY don't even accept blame for their own sins - no less accept guilt for things the OTHER side did. Why should we - unless we just WANT to lose elections and moan-and-groan about where it all went wrong after-the-fact?

[Baby Snooks]

49. Sorry but I agree with Helen Thomas

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4352/

Hold their feet to the fire. And then roast 'em and toast 'em and then toss 'em out at the polls if need be. But do not make excuses for them.

[crud76]

50. Makes Sense

Thanks.

[applegrove]

52. I agree with most of what you said. We have to stand behind our Dems

and back them up when they fail to use power because they don't have the veto free count in the Senate. They are also the victims of regular "Sophie's Choices" where legislation is forced on them with nothing but two horrible outcomes. If we understand that these "sophie's choices" ie: either vote for more funding or vote to defund the troops on the ground that Bush will never redeploy, these sophies choices will be our lot until the Dems get the Presidency and/or a veto proof majority in the Senate. The first is much more likely than the second.

Thanks for this post.

[L. Coyote]

53. BRAVO! Simply put in just 5 words, the Whiners are Repub tools! Grow up kids.

[creeksneakers2]

56. I agree with you about assigning responsibility

I've often read the irrational notion on DU, "Failure to stop makes Democrats equally guilty to Republicans who perpetrate."

That idea doesn't exist in law or common sense. If a man stumbles from a bar drunk, gets into an automobile and kills someone, we don't hold patrons at the bar criminally responsible for the death under the theory that they saw the drunk and should have called the police. We can only be responsible for our own actions.

The bartender and the bar owner might be in some trouble if they ignored a duty to cut off and stop the drunk. They overtly took responsibility up front for preventing excessive drinking and drunken driving.

Failure to prevent only makes one culpable when a duty is ignored. So morally, I look at what duty members of Congress have. Critics of the Democrats from the left say Democrats have a duty to prevent war and death. But, by that same standard, don't the Democrats then have a duty to prevent any deaths that might occur because of our exit from Iraq? What if there is a blood bath? Would Democrats be responsible for that? Either way, death will occur. Nobody is sure who might die or how many might die. Its a political question. Members of Congress are not bound to either view point.

Running and getting elected on promises does create a duty for members of Congress. But, only some of the Democrats who ran against the war advocated an immediate withdrawal. I don't remember any advocating cutting off all funding for the war. If any single member violated his promises then I'd say he's culpable. What we have though is a general trend toward favoring a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Most Democrats have voted for this.

I blame the war on the folks who started it, not the folks who got stuck with it.

[NanceGreggs]

58. "I blame the war on the folks who started it ...

... not the folks who got stuck with it."

Exactly my point. Thank you.

[danhan]

61. Great post but......

Although I agree with you, a "sweeping majority" in either party scares the hell out of me. In the rest of the country it may be ok but in Washington? No way. The track record sucks on both sides.

I would like to see the Dems with a "comfortable majority."

I would also add that in spite of the fact that they hold the majority, they are not veto proof if the repubs hang together. Even so, I do not feel they have done enough. They have not said enough. They have not acted enough. They could keep throwing things up and take the veto over and over to make their point.

Or, here's an idea, cut off the money!!

Instead, we waste time on talk show hosts while the war rages on.

[ladym55]

60. Thanks for being a voice of reason

I often wonder if we all get sucked in by the Repug's agenda. We spew their talking points against our own. They start the little digs, and we run with them.

We need to stop bashing our own, BUT we also need to be keeping a close eye on our representatives. Mine hear from me on a regular basis--when I'm happy and when I'm not.

I get impatient. We all do. We have a giant mess on so many levels, and I want everything fixed NOW. But it's a waste of time for me to turn on all Dems and start whining.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

62. Sweeping majority, indeed.

The dems ARE in an excellent position, admittedly, but politicians have a way of fouling up even a no-brainer situation, but I'll try to stick to the positive. There are a LOT of great opportunities to exploit the Bush administration. It makes me wish I was a Dems campaign manager. Katrina should be a big one, the war is good theres' a lot of opposition, but it's distant, AMERICANS suffering, sick, homeless, and prez shit-for-brains sitting on his hands looks AWFUL, that will resonate. This SCHIP bill thing is another slam dunk, you can't beat poor sick kids, big opportunity. Federal deficit is good, too, even better I think would be these ENORMOUS sweeping tax cuts for the rich and no bid contracts, it seems every time the dems try to tax the rich (Instead of giving them our hard earned tax dollars.) the republicans spin it saying "They wanna raise you're taxes, everybody!!!" as if it would affect middle class Americans. One of his cuts saved the billionaire walton family 30 million dollars, stuff like that will get under Joe American's skin. i just started reading Naomi Klein's new book about "disaster capitalism", as much as I'd hate to take cues from the lunatic fringe, the Bush administration is one MAJOR disaster we must and should capitalize on.

[The Magistrate]

63. Hear Hear, Ma'am!

Home truths....