I DEMAND A FINAL ANSWER...why did the Democrats act like eunuchs

[IconoclastIlene]

and wimps over the war in Iraq and even the goings on now, in general, and even, so far as to not have one democratic senator speak on behalf of the disenfranchised in Florida?

Why are the Democrats so silent? Is something in there for them with relation to Bush or has the Democratic party lost, the Give 'em Hell Harry, Democrats and I used to believe in, and so forth.

I want an answer, why didn't Democrats vehemently oppose the war in Iraq; not one American died, directly from the Iraqi's. Why are the Dem's acting like puppy dogs instead of Rottweiler's, I'd like an answer.

I need TO KNOW THIS AND I NEED IT NOW.

thank you,
M. Bovary

[AP]

1. I will blame every Republican before I blame one Democrat for the IWR vote

and even then, I'm starting with Zell Miller.

[CharlesGroce]

4. you don't have to just blame one representative

silly. Blame those who are guilty.

[AP]

13. Each one is accountable for their votes, and I will judge them individ-

ually, and a think the motivations of the Republicans are much more worthy of harsh criticism than those of any Democrat's (other than Miller and maybe two or three others).

[zoeyfong]

43. That's classic. Look in the mirror, buddy. What would you say if

repugs used that logic? But democrats are special, because we're us and they're them, and it's all about us vs. them.

[CTLawGuy]

2. becuase

"winning" is more important to them than doing what's right.

[IconoclastIlene]

8. Screw that........

I am looking for someone with the courage of his convictions, level headed, and dignified.

[FascistAdder]

9. Arguments might be it...

I suggest that they were having political infighting to figure out how to best respond to public reaction quickly while saving the face of the political process. I suppose that the democrats aren't quite sure what the real opinions look like through all the media chatter. You know we really don't talk to them enough as a nation.

[zoeyfong]

39. Yep; dems are in ABC mode. Ooops, i mean ABB mode.

Winning is all that matters. It is all about us vs. them. The last three years are proof positive that dem leaders will not hesitate to abandon the american people and democratic principles in precisely the moment when strong moral leadership is needed most. And i'm not talking about a few minor issues; i'm talking about war and peace, america's standing in the world, and our national economic solvency, for christ's sake!!!!! Democratic voters who support candidates who took part in our national self-destruction are themselves responsible for the damage, both to america and to the future of the democratic party. To badly paraphrase Shakespear (i think), "What profiteth it a party if it gaineth the world but loseth its soul?"

[CharlesGroce]

3. alright fancy pants....

because they are not directly connected to the American people and only wish to further their corporate-political careers. They are doing as they are instructed, pure and simple, and have been for 100 years.

Check out the party platform of the Progressive Party of Theodore Roosevelt sometime, seriously, you'll find out just how long this current two-party system has been subjugating the working people of this country.

[Fenris]

5. You're surprised by this?

Bloated by money, the leisure of incumbency, and a desire to not appear liberal, the Democratic Party and its leadership has become a spaghetti-spined parody. It fails as an effective opposition party. It needs to start nailing those Republican fuckers' asses to the goddamn wall and take this country back from the criminals in charge.

[CharlesGroce]

10. I don't think they are going to just start doing that friend...

without the desire to do so. I know I have the desire to do so. You do too. A new major political party is needed. They need to be replaced.

[IconoclastIlene]

12. Roosevelt fought the barons of money, taxed them, Roosevelt

introduced the New Deal; Johnson tried to create the great society; what good has anyone else done for the underdog, tell me that!!!!!


Truman has the balls, and saved the lives of thousands of soliders who whould have perished trying a landing in Japan, WTF.

[zoeyfong]

40. There *is* no opposition party in america right now.

Here in SD Tom Daschle is running for reelection, and so far his campaign ads are about country of origin labling for animal products, and increasing ethanol production and use. I didn't know that anybody in this state was actually opposed to those things.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

6. There was one black representative from GA

.. WHO DID directly oppose the war and she was held up in contempt by her own electorate.

What would it have served if ALL Democrats had been trampled in the PR Machine of FlagWaving and MeToo'ism?

[Martin Eden]

7. Have you actually seen

their testicles?

Until I see actual proof, the logical conclusion is they are indeed eunuchs.

[IconoclastIlene]

11. The Democrats didnt open their mouths loud and hard enough

and the, too are making me sick about the whole global situation. I want to know what silenced the Democrats.........were they afraid of being picked off by secret police? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AP]

14. If they win in 2004 and part of the reason they win is because a lot of

voters in the middle aren't freaked out that Democrats are going to endanger their safety, then they will have done the right thing.

[Terry_M]

18. And if they lose

Because they appear weak and useless and people either don't show up, or vote for the strong moderate republican against them, that's bad.

[AP]

20. If they lose it'll be because Bush cheated again.

[Terry_M]

24. I'm refering to individual senators and congressmen going for

reelection, not Kerry trying to be president.

[AP]

31. Me too.

No Democrat should be blamed before blaming a Republican for what's happened the last four years. Except for maybe Zell Miller.

[zoeyfong]

41. Even if they actually *are* endangering our safety, that's OK?

Just as long as people don't 'think' they're endangering our safety? Seems to me that a better idea would be for them to do a little better job explaining why a position in opposition to the bush plan of all war, all the time is actually the way to make us safer. But instead of taking the right position for america and forcefully advocating for it, they ran scurrying to hide under bush's petticoats at the first sign of a little political heat.

[FascistAdder]

16. saving face?

During the operations of any democratic government there is always one obligation that must be fullfilled in order to maintain civil order, that is the public trust. The Dems likely didn't dispute it because the media whores at the time were turning it into a divisive issue. At the time it might have been more prudent in the opinion of the elites that the party would be better served by not making a major issue over it. Even though they knew that something was fishy. Sometimes its better to do your work in the background out of the public eye.

[Terry_M]

15. I am afraid that even if we had

A slim majority in the house, senate and put Kerry in the whitehouse, republicans will not play nice while the democrats will still be very passive.

[ibegurpard]

17. What's it going to be?

outspoken and willing to push the edge or polite and meek like you're calling for here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1874078&mesg_id=1874132&page=

[FascistAdder]

19. In one sense being polite is what its about...

I will grant you that the repugs are not playing polite these days. I will also grant that the democrats need to be a lot more hard assed to compensate. What I am suggesting though being from the south is that they need to do it like a cia op would, not in front of the public. The problem with having a transparent battle is that you can get caught in a storm of people drawing lines in the sand and little works anyway until the deaths outweigh the arguments.

[IconoclastIlene]

23. Never in my 50 years have I sold out........and I am not starting now.

I am not a corporate whore, a sell out, a skin flint or anything else. I gotta big mouth, always have, and I call it so far as my gut tells me to...................

Singer vs. the Board of Education, 1971 (I just testified)

[Lefty Pragmatist]

21. Anybody ever consider

that, while having questions, they tended to actually support the war?

To be honest, I don't think that was it, either. In war, the first casualty is truth, an the second casualty is liberty -- nobody with an office to lose felt they could withstand the public insanity if they had opposed the war. That had nothing to do with the Republicans. It would have been the electorate -- y'know, those people they're supposed to represent -- who would have burned them at the stake for being soft on terrorism or some other nonsense.

War fever will always carry away an elected legislature. Considering that the only remedy for that is to have an unelected government, I'll pay it as part of the freight cost of democracy.

[zoeyfong]

42. The solution is to elect people of principle.

I have quit jobs over principles far less weighty than war and peace; and no way am i going to accept that some pampered powder puff of a congressperson couldn't be expected to go down with dignity resisting an unwise, unnecessary war. No f-ing way. But when voters continually give these people a pass on their gross dereliction of duty and morality, it's no surprise that when the moment of truth comes, they let us down.

[NNadir]

22. I refuse to answer until you answer why Dem haters act lobotomized.

You can't see the shit for the mushrooms, Madame. Frank Lautenberg (my Senator I'm pleased to say, had a chickenhawk poster on his Senate Website. My congressman, Rush Holt, is the author of paper trail bill in the House. He has routinely condemned (loudly) the criminal war.

But even if individual democrats have not spoken loud enough to suit every navel gazer in the world, THE PROBLEM IS BUSH. At this point, there is no other force in the world that can stop this criminality beyond the Democrats. Either you do everything you humanly can for the Democrats or you are a party to the continuance of this vast national and international crime. I suppose you'd need your cranial lobes connected to see this, but in case you don't have this wonderful feature, the reality remains nonetheless the same.

[Terry_M]

29. It's not just the war vote

There are other instances in which Democrats did not stand up to the Republicans. There's that new corporate tax bill for which 48 congressional democrats voted for example.

[FascistAdder]

30. I don't know about anybody else...

But personally I feel I am not amongst those that need convincing to work on getting the dems to raise hell on the repugs. Repugs just want everybody to be moral and happy and just want to sit on their front porch like everybody else in the world. They have their ideas about how to solve the worlds ills. They take them to extremes just like liberals do. The major difference between liberals and republicans is that their ideas are based on some centuries outdated concocted belief that religion will fix these things in absentia of anything dealing with the current world realities. They go and find people and races to accuse for the worlds ills based on some of the disfunctional crap that can be found in a piece of the bible and then they use "gods will" as a license to act in defense of their little reality. Frankly I think its a bunch of crap too. But such is how it is and will likely always be.

[zoeyfong]

44. Right, and you hear a lot of dems saying we need to 'get religion.'

I don't think so. I'm never going to love Big Brother, and i don't care how many other people do. Repugs are totally controlling the debate in this country right now, and the efforts (however half-hearted) to cozy up to religion and 'speak the speak' are just further evidence of how dems are being led around on a leash by repugs.

[wildmanj]

25. why

its called republican lite---all repugs and dem slop at the same trough of big money---the people be damned---sad but true

[IconoclastIlene]

27. I just want to know who is in bed with who before

I am party to this orgy of ignorance.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. This Is For The General Discussion Forum

n/t

[IconoclastIlene]

28. Hell, no it isnt GENERAL

An important election is coming up and I don't consider that general information....................listen up!!!!!!!!!!!

[FloridaPat]

32. They've been gutless for 25 years. They didn't do much against

Reagan and Bush 1. They let them off the hook for Iran Contra. And they didn't help Clinton when the RW was trying to string him up. I keep wondering if there around just to make us think we have a two party system and hope for the future.

[Terry_M]

33. I think they're there simply to slow the Republicans down

[zoeyfong]

45. I think you're on to something.

[riverwalker]

34. they want to get re-elected

and so listen only to their constituants, even before common sense and conscience. This means that instead of blaming them for doing what they think they are supposed to do, represent us, blame the frickin ignorant people who supported the war. As I told my son while we left the theater, we can and will change leaders, but it's really US that we have to change, to prevent this from ever happening again.

[Dr Fate]

36. Thank you- and the people who complain dont do Democratic work...

Dollars to donuts- the people who complain the loudest dont volunteer for their local DEM organization- then they wonder why their values are not represented more...

[zoeyfong]

46. Exactly; that's why voters have got to stop encouraging the present

crop of dem leaders. The change will only occur from the bottom up, and when the voters have low standards for elected officials, they will get what the ask for.

[Dr Fate]

50. And the way you stop encouraging them is to get Republicans elected!!!

Gotta love the logic at this place...

[Dr Fate]

35. They were afraid we would find "somthing" in Iraq...

...and twhatever that "somthing" was, that the GOP/media would seize upon it...

Anyhow- we need to back DEMS now and clean house after we gain power...

[zoeyfong]

47. dream on.

you said:
Anyhow- we need to back DEMS now and clean house after we gain power...

Ain't gonna happen, and it never has. THE ELECTION is where you decide what kind of government you're going to have. Because whatever lying, immoral, ass-kissing, conniving, corrupt strategy that got somebody elected in the first place is what that person is going to stick with, because it worked!! They're not going to see the light and start walking the straight and narrow after the election, when it was business as usual that got them elected.

[Dr Fate]

49. Generally, politicians will reflect what the people SAY they want...

And the people were backing the war at the time those DEMS supported it. Those who donr, dont get re-elected.

And if we Bush boot out, DEMS will get the message.

If your argument is that Kerry wont be "Liberal" on any issues- well, that's just wrong. Kerry's record indicates otherwise.

The other problem is that you gave no alternative in your post- what am I supposed to do, vote Bush? Stay home? Write in Mickey Mouse?

No thanks- putting some Democrats in power is a first step towards the correction direction...
}

[Mnemosyne]

37. Madame, I know the answer, but everyone says to get out

the tinfoil hats. I will repeat it again and again, in the hopes that one person will see the light.

http://www.geocitiescom/bohemian_grove_dirt/


Everyone needs to be aware of this and let others know.

ex-Senator John DeCamp, NE, wrote a book "The Franklin Coverup".
He was a very respected legislator, but became horrified at what he learned investigating the s&l scandals in the 80's.

Just check it out, don't take my word, you don't know me.

Good luck in your quest.

:hi:

:scared:

:tinfoilhat:

[goodhue]

38. Fear. n/t

[LiberalBushFan]

48. Could you really imagine Edwards, Kerry or Gep being that one objector?

Didn't think so. That's why he better choose someone not in that group for VP.

[ArkDem]

51. Why do you have this bias against eunuchs?

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. They are acting strong

They are acting strong by ignoring the fringes of the party.

[LiberalBushFan]

53. fringes?

like the Black Congressional Caucus?

(referring to the Florida issue)

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. On that issue? Yes

At that point is was over. The Supreme Court had issued its ruling, and any further haggling would not have accomplished anything except making Democrats look like sore losers. Fortanutely mature Democrats like Paul Wellstone carried the day.

[IconoclastIlene]

55. I m glad, in a way , that the Dems have been behaving like decent men

I wish the best for Kerry and I hope to G-d that he picks a really great, smashing running mate that will cement the democrats for a landslide win, that is what I wish for, believe me.

The Dems have been acting like civil,articulate and decent men, and may they get their chance to re take the white house and may people coe to their senses regarding what has transpired over the last 3.5 years; in all its' agony, disgrace, fears, dissapointment, I hope that we all see the light.

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TexasSissy]

56. Spilled milk. I'm just voting for those w/guts from now on.

It could be centrist, even. Just someone w/guts to speak openly and step up to the plate when it counts.

I don't think Kerry is one of these, particularly, but he's the only game in town, and I think he will speak openly & have guts, when he's the one in charge. I think he'll make a fine President, and he's a down and dirty, expert campaigner/politician, which is what it will take to win. Someone who's been politicking for years and knows the game.

[Cats Against Frist]

57. If you want to call this an answer

I can't really explain why they didn't stand up during the election decision.

I think I can, however, explain why they didn't stand up against Bush during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. It was pure self survival. Remember, at this time some 80 percent of the country was "standing behind the President," and if the Dems would have vehemently opposed it (not knowing the outcome would be so disastrous), it would have been seen as political suicide -- particularly after the 2002 mid-terms.

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I'm sure you will hear me say this plenty of times. The Republicans have "the narrative," -- it's crumbling, a bit, but they still have the apathetic masses under the spell of their narrative, and if Democrats appear too "Communist" (Communists? Where?), the GOP will be able to eat them up like a chocolate pie.

Democratic work is stealth. Hedging your bets and doing what is practical is sometimes smart. Again, I wish they would have stood up. But at the time, the political magic 8 ball, probably said "try again later."

C

[no name no slogan]

58. Not quite true-- more House Dems voted AGAINST IWR than for it

Despite Gephardt being the lapdog for Bush/Cheney in the Rose Garden, most Democrats in the House voted against the IWR. They were not afraid to do so. And most of them got re-elected, too, despite what the right-wing media said, or what the "mood" of the electorate was.

The Democrats have let the Repubs dictate the terms of the debate for the last 25 years. Instead of putting forth our agenda, they've simply been putting out the fires started by the right wing. The only thing they stand for is that they're "not the GOP".

Right now, the Democrats could be literally pounding the crap out of the Repubs over the Iraq war-- just look at the attendance of F911 last weekend. Instead, we've got John Kerry pushing an Iraq plan that's little different from the one BushCo is ramming down their throats. So effectively, that issue is off the table-- one less thing to use against Dubya this fall.

Same goes with the "war on terror". Americans are not stupid people-- they know that you can't win a so-called "war" with a bigger conventional military. They also know (now) that despite our beefed up security, terrorist attacks were up 21%. So we really aren't much safer after all.

Instead of calling for fully funding our first responders, both candidates want to "strengthen" our military by buying more cool new hardware, and REFUSE to cut the programs that are taxing our economy. For example, neither candidate is abandoning "Star Wars", despite the fact that after almost 20 years of development, it still doesn't work. There's another issue, off the table.

Both candidates also support the Sharon plan in Israel. Sharon, a war criminal, will still keep putting up his wall, will still keep killing innocent Palestinians, and will still get billions from the US every year in military hardware, despite the fact that he ignores countless UN resolutions and opposes a sovereign Palestinian state free from Israeli influence. Yup, there goes another issue, off the table.

So now we're left with the economy, which has been whittled down to who will give the middle class the biggest tax cut, and who will give the largest "incentives" to big business to keep jobs in the US. NEITHER of them is talking about reigning in corporate power, or breaking up the media monopolies, or scrapping NAFTA or the FTAA. So, yet again, another issue off the table.

People in this country WANT a real opposition party. That's why only 1/2 of them voted last time: there was little real difference between the major party candidates, and people knew damn well that neither one was interested in fixing what's broke in this country. The only thing Kerry has going for him today is the sheer incompetancy of the ShrubCo administration-- which will be enough to get maybe 45% of the vote.

45% may have been enough for Clinton in 1992 & 1996, but it won't be enough to win this year. He needs to show he's NOT AFRAID to take some bold stands, and show that he's got some balls tucked up underneath his pants. Talking like a warmed-over Mike Dukakis is not the way to do it.

[mzmolly]

59. THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE WAR

I believe the number was 147 Dems against - 80 for. Compare that to 2 Republicans total who voted against ...

I would ask why we spend so much time FORGETTING THE DEMOCRATS WHO STOOD UP AND FOUGHT against this senseless war?!

I repeat the MAJORITY of Democrats voted against the IWR. I hope that's of some comfort. And, were it not for the reichstag (ie. 911) the number against would have been far greater.