The Democrats don't have a majority in Congress

[CoffeeCat]

I used to be baffled. I'd sit and wonder why meaningful healthcare reform wasn't being passed. After all, the Democrats
have a majority in the House and Senate. Why is this so difficult when the math is on our side?

All we have to do is vote, and meaningful healthcare is passed--as well as other legislation that helps the poor, limits
the power of corporations, protects our rights to privacy, ends illegal wiretapping, closes Guantanamo and ends the Iraq
war.

And after all, these are long-held principals of the Democratic party...right?

Flashback to 1994, when Republicans swept the Congressional elections--securing majorities in both the House and Senate. Newt
Gingrich spearheaded the Republican "Contract With America". Republicans galvanized and were a tidal wave of political change, standing
in unison on the Capitol steps, declaring that they had "a mandate". Republicans authored and passed incredible amounts of legislation.
The never compromised. They never apologized. In fact, they told the Democrats to sit down and shut up.

Let's break down the numbers:

**In 1994, Republicans held 53 of 100 SENATE SEATS; and 233 of 435 HOUSE SEATS
**In 2009, Democrats hold 59 of 100 SENATE SEATS; AND 253 OF 435 HOUSE SEATS

Look at those numbers. The Democrats have a bigger majority now, in 2009, than those unwavering Republicans had in 1994.

Why aren't our Dems out on the Capitol steps? Where is the flurry of Democratic legislation--wrapped up in a nice slogan with press conferences
and media tours from Democrats declaring their "mandate"?

It's just time. Time to face the truth. The Democrats are not "weak". They are not confused. Nor are they afraid of the Republicans,
or just nice guys who are being taken advantage of.

It's time to stop believing that everything happening (or not happening) is some kind of unfortunate mistake, or bungling by the Democrats.

The truth is---The Democrats do not have a majority in Congress. We don't have a majority in the House and we don't have a majority
in the Senate.

What we have is 100 Senators and 435 House members--535 members of Congress--each of whom is a stand-alone, tailored interest group
representing the unique fusion of corporations that have "contributed to their campaigns". Each of the 535 members is governed solely
by those corporate dollars. They vote according to those dollars. They stonewall legislation based on those dollars.

This is why single payer is dead. This is why meaningful healthcare reform is unlikely. This is why nothing changes.

It's time for us to begin accepting the reality. We've got the numbers, but we don't have the votes.

We have the numbers in the House and the Senate--but we do not have a majority.

[rurallib]

1. Liberals have never had a majority in congress

even under Roosevelt. We have always had to bend to the conservatives.
Frankly I am surprised this country isn't more right wing crazy than it is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Appx. real numbers: H-80 S-20

[SheilaT]

3. Oh. I had thought that perhaps

several states were recently added because I keep on reading and hearing that the Dems need 60 votes to pass any bills in the Senate.
:shrug:

Plus, of course, every time the Dems seemed likely to show even the tiniest backbone the Repubs kept on threatening them with dire consequences if they so much as thought about a filibuster.

But yeah, the main point really is that far too many of the Dems in Congress aren't remotely liberal, and virtually all of them care more about re-election than doing the right thing.

[redqueen]

4. I hope this will disabuse people from the delusion that corporate Dems are "moderate."

They're not "moderate," they're on the fucking take.

[Hepburn]

6. +1...n/t

[rucky]

5. I'm afraid you nailed it. n/t

[LuvNewcastle]

7. The Republicans used to have some moderates

until they purged them. I'm thinking of the old days, with people like Nelson Rockefeller. When they ran off their moderates, they had to go somewhere else. If we purged the Blue Dogs, they would just become Republicans. As long as we have a two-party system, we'll always have this back-and-forth migration of moderate(center right-wing) congressmen.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Because the devil is in the details

Every Democrat believes that there should be health care reform, but they do not all agree on what exactly that reform should entail.

[rhett o rick]

9. Yes, some DINO's agree with republicans that reform should include more money for their

rich friends.

[redqueen]

11. Yep, and they have no shortage of Dems like this to exploit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6436512

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Some Democrats do not hate everyone who is not poor

[rhett o rick]

35. You seem to favor the ruling class over the people. Why? Are you rich? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. The paradign of class struggle went down the tubes with the Soviet Union in 1991

[PVnRT]

44. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Oh, wait, you were serious.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Indeed

[PVnRT]

48. Indeed. Or perhaps just blind.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. I'm quite aware of the political realities of the situation

Some DUers would prefer to live in a fantasy land.

[tkmorris]

37. What a pantload

Do you ever think about the stuff you post and get, you know, embarrassed? Just a little?

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. I call them like I see them

[PVnRT]

47. Apparently affordable health care and tax fairness = hating the rich

I wonder where I've heard that one before?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. So when are we going to start pushing for federally funded elections?

I think it's just about time to give it another SCOTUS challenge - this time, with a better attorney.

[rhett o rick]

13. The SCOTUS is going to take care of that issue soon.

Thom Hartmann says that a case is coming up before long where the SCOTUS will determine if campaign finance laws pertain to CorpAmerica. I havent yet got the details or link. But with the current make up of the court it looks like there will be no federally funded elections and no campaign finance laws at all.

If anyone has specifics on this please help me out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Well, that's literally the only way to take back influence.

That's the only legal means left for money alone to influence law makers. Everything else is already illegal (bribes, corruption, and whatnot). Further lobbying reform is meaningless and likely unconstitutional.

We have to find someone competent enough to make the case that privately funded campaigns infringe on the rights of free speech for ordinary Americans and that the nation itself has a compelling interest in legislating on this matter.

[rhett o rick]

25. LOL. Unconstitutional is what John friggin Roberts says it is. What the hell you gona do about it?nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Same thing as everyone else, unfortunately.

Which is to say "nothing."

That doesn't mean it's not the single most important reform we can make to eliminate monetary influence.

[rhett o rick]

28. i no, i agree. there isnt really anything we can do. we are royally fucked. nt

[rhett o rick]

12. I have been saying it for years. Numbers are meaningless.

It has become embarrassing to be a republican so many have switch and now call themselves Democrats. They continue to vote with the republicans.

But some people keep talking about the numbers. We have 60 in the Senate. But 60 what? There are about 10 - 12 that vote with the republicans.

What would people say if all the republicans decided to join the Democratic Party. Some would be ecstatic. We would really have the numbers. 100% in the HOR and Senate. Wow. The votes would be the same.

[unpossibles]

14. unrecommended

Actually one of my first ones. Sorry, but while I think you have some points, I get sick of this kind of bashing.

First of all, yes I agree that corporate-backed politicians are the problem, but I don't think it is as deep as you put it. I think a more accurate interpretation would be that the progressive Democrats are still a minority compared to the more right-leaning corporate Democrats and the far right Republicans.

Why don't I like the "they're all the same!" crap? Because it discourages people from being active in politics, and frankly it's a tactic that the right uses to great success based on our voter turnout. Why not focus on the people who are doing their jobs (as we see it), and in trying to work to make elections publicly funded, and to remove corporate influence? Uphill battle? You bet. But complaining inaccurately that they're all the same implies that they truly are all the same, and frankly they aren't.

George Bush taught me that sometimes the worse of two evils really is fucking awful. I'd take a corporate Democrat over a Republican any day of the week.

Also, try to remember that America on the whole doesn't necessarily feel the same way we do about many issues. Sure, I'd love to see an America where we have equal rights for all and universal health care, but the trick to that will be convincing our fellow Americans that it's the right thing to do, and reducing corporate influence on politics. This requires a lot of ground work on our parts, something Obama (who I consider to be to the right of me, fwiw) has said repeatedly. We need to wean our collective selves off the corporate news teat, and we need to either run for office if we really think they are all the same, or support those who do run and represent us more fully.

Sorry - I just can't stand to hear people complain about this because all it does is give more power to the oligarchy unless you're willing to do something about it. The more people feel their voice doesn't matter the less people vote (or vote for fringe loons like Ron Paul!), and the easier it is for the corporate drone fat cats to have their way with us.

"We" do not have a majority in Congress, but the Democrats do. This is because the Democratic Party is very diverse whether we like that or not. Frankly, I'd rather have us be diverse than try to be some lock-step leftwing version of the Republicans - you'll notice their extremism and purging is not exactly winning them any contests lately, except among the lunatic fringe.

[Apollo11]

15. He who pays the piper calls the tune

To pretend otherwise would be naive.

[unpossibles]

17. I'm not asking anyone to pretend otherwise

Just to do more than complain about it using the same argument the right uses.

Is that so much to ask?

[CoffeeCat]

22. My intent wasn't to discourage people...

...from getting involved in politics, nor do I want people to give up.

I want the problem and the reality faced, head on. There are not enough people like
you who even GET that the corporations own our government and have unprecedented
influence.

And true--there are some Congress members who are good and decent. Kucinich, Conyers, Feingold
come to mind. However, that's not what this thread was about. It's about the majority of
Congress members and how they have sold us out. We can have 10 or 15 decent, moral Congresspeople
on the rosters, but in the end--it doesn't matter if the remaining 95 percent are corrupt and bought off.

Do you know why Kucinich and Conyers are allowed to speak their minds? Because the 95 percent knows that
it won't make any difference. Yes, it placates us Progressives to hear an actual Congress member speaking
our views. However, in the end--it doesn't make any difference.

Is that a harsh reality? Yes. But pretending that reality doesn't exist, only empowers that 95 percent
who are destroying our democracy.

Only "WE THE PEOPLE" can change things now. My post was intended to lay out the reality that most all ready
understand--and to do something about that reality--instead of waiting for any politician to do it for us.

When I know someone is screwing me over--I get angry and that fuels change, justice and action. Sometimes
people need to be told--in very clear terms---just how much they are being screwed.

That's not negative...it's empowering people with facts so they can change a very difficult reality.

Or at least...that's they way I see it.

[unpossibles]

23. ok, fair enough. I jumped to a conclusion

But in my defense, one of the first things that "some people" who are conservative but who won't admit to being a Republican now is that they complain that "they're all the same" then basically try to get people to agree to their Libertarian wet dream.

On of my problems with Libertarianism is the same problem I see in every political, religious, and economic theory: at some point, human greed will always fuck up even the most perfect sounding "fair" idea. I also just think they are living in a fantasy land where society somehow functions without any taxes or government, and success always comes to those who work hard, etc.

I do think you make good points, FWIW, and I do agree we need to be more active as the power behind the government, but not in some reactionary teabagger way which is nothing but partisan posturing hiding behind the flag.

[rhett o rick]

29. Heres the deal. First, fuck you. Second, "the Democratic Party is very diverse"

Like that is a good thing. The diverse is costing us human fucking lives you moran. The blue fucking dogs are costing human lives. People are dying because some GD blue dogs want their campaign money from the killers.

Blue Dogs helped bush* go to war and kill over a million people. How do you feel about that? Do you have no feelings whatsoever.

Decent health care is a moral issue. If you dont support single payer, you are killing people for money.

[unpossibles]

36. Wow. There's no reason for a 'fuck you' here

First off, I am for Nationalized Health Care and I agree we need it badly and that it's the only real reform we can hope for.

That said, I am just saying that we are a diverse party, not that I agree with the more conservative wing. It's the truth, and explains why we have problems with getting full support for progressive issues.

I agree it's costing lives, I just don't care for the "they're all the same" meme. Jesus, kid; get a grip.

[rhett o rick]

38. I am just sick and tired of people justifying the misbehavior of the blue fucking dogs

as being part of our diverse party. I am getting frustrated by the idiots in here that are against single payer, against a government run public option. If I misjudged you i am sorry. And thanks for calling me kid. But I refuse to get a grip. The fight is just begun.

[unpossibles]

41. I'm not justifying them - I would like to see more actual progressives in Congress and the WH

BUT I also know that realistically it may not happen. I've lived in some places where even the democrats are somewhat conservative, and I also am willing to admit that our representatives need to represent all of America, which is why despite my personal disagreement with some of Obama's platforms, I am not willing to throw him under the bus yet either.

I do agree we need more progressive representatives AND more importantly, we need to start acting more like a coalition who can ally and vote together despite differences. The conservatives - Republicans and Blue Dogs alike - need to get serious with health care or they are possibly going to lose their jobs. If they don't care about people, then maybe they care about their paychecks.

FWIW I am not saying to not fight when I said 'get a grip' just not to blindly attack people who are your allies - or would be.

[treestar]

33. Recommend post feature needed here

Spot on. We can get through to the congresspersons. Public funding or direct funding or some way to convince them they won't need corporate fatcat money to get elected.

Or maybe term limits. If they just can't get elected again, maybe they will be more honest on the issues. Take time to read bills rather than have to plan the next campaign.

[rhett o rick]

51. We have people dying from lack of health care and we cant get a decent bill passed. How do you think

we are ever going to get campaign finance reform or lobby reform. Face it, CorpAmerica has us by the throat.

[Winterblues]

18. Compare 1993 with 2009 instead of 1994 and 2009

In 1993 there were 267 Democrats in the House and 58 Democrats in the Senate which was an even larger majority than Democrats have now, and Health Care was shot down..When Health Care failed Democrats lost seats by an extremely large percentage.. The same thing could easily happen in 2010.

[Uncle Joe]

19. That's precisely why the Democrats should pass major health care reform now.

If the Democrats fail the people; that put them in office, the people's moral sinks and they tend not to vote for an ineffectual party.

No doubt some Democrats; could care less because their clients are the corporations which grease their palms with mega-bucks.

The Republicans on the other hand, even when wrong ie; The Contract on America articulated a clear vision and determination to push it through, they didn't give a damn about the opposition because for one thing they had the corporate media propaganda machine on their side as a result of openly representing corporations.

If the Democrats; in power seriously represent the American Peoples' best interests, their majority will only increase but you can't serve two masters, either they live up to their oath of loyalty to a government of "We the People" or they subvert it in favor of We the Corporations.

If the Democrats decide to represent the corporations over the people, they will still lose because the Republican Party is more corporate supremacist and when 2010 rolls around, the corporate media will promote the Republican Party and the Democratic Party will have made the corporate media's job all that much easier.

[Froward69]

20. I had to UN-rec

because i refuse to think in a defeatist way. somehow Democrats, TRUE Democrats will prevail!

[CoffeeCat]

21. I understand what you are saying...

I know this post--on face value--is negative. However, it is reality.

I don't feel defeatist about this reality. I feel empowered because I
understand the reality. The only way we can make change is if we
understand the truth about our government and how it is running right now.

In my opinion, the defeatists are the people who have no clue that their
government is bought and paid for. They think George Bush is a good Christian
man who fought the evildoers--and they're not letting those socialist Democrats
take over the world.

That's living in the dark. That's buying into the nonsense.

The only way "We The People" prevail is if they understand the reality.

Sometimes reality sucks, but that doesn't mean you give up. It means you
try even harder to change things.

[redqueen]

24. I don't see this as defeatist... I see it as enlightening.

Many people seem puzzled as to why we can't get a good, strong healthcare bill through congress, since techinically we do have a majority. For those people, this kind of OP may be helpful for them to look more closely at the voting record of some of these DINOs.

[rhett o rick]

26. You must be kiddin. "Some how the true Democrats will prevail". Are you drunk?

It really pisses me off when people have that attitude. True Democrats are getting screwed. Look around. The sooner you fucking figure it out the better. We are in a fight for our lives literally.

It isnt defeatist when you point out that we are getting our asses kicked. WE ARE GETTING OUR ASSES KICKED. and unless we do something, we are fucked.

[rhett o rick]

30. of course you did you blue fucking dog. I am so sick you you greedy bastard. nt

[treestar]

32. Convince them that future elections will have money raised from citizens

over the internet, the way Obama did.

This has the potential to get them to respond to citizens directly.

It's part of the media problem we have, too. They have to have money to get elected. The voters are shallow people, they believe, who won't elect anyone without the right look or the snappy ads. That belief must be pretty strong.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Dems have never had a majority in either chamber of Congress because we have

milquetoast DemoCRAPS who are really Republicans, they just never left the party for some reason.

Then, we have a faction of corporatist Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council, who tend to side with Republicans on issues concerning the economy.

So, we've never had the majority. It was never about getting 60 votes; they were using that as an excuse, but it was never about that.

The Democratic Party has never walked in lockstep. It has never really been a cohesive party; too many factions representing too many varied special interests.

I'm jealous of the Republicans because they've always been able to coalesce around their core principles--however wrong those principles may be. They never compromise their party values. NEVER!

And for Obama to believe that the Republicans will work with him towards a compromise...it's well...incredibly astonishing to me how naive he really is...

[Xenotime]

42. It's time for the people to vote the other repugs out of office.

It's time to launch a campaign against them.

[HughBeaumont]

43. Rec'd. We need less Landrieus and Nelsons, more Browns and Kennedys.

"Going along to get along" is giving us all the high fist. Time to end this appeasement and get some real reform accomplished. Otherwise, we're just proving Libertarians right. And the LAST thing I want to do is prove a bunch of pro-corporatist Reaganites right.

[PVnRT]

45. I think the Beltway leadership of the party is more concerned with winning

than they are with agenda. As long as there's a D on the candidate's name, their team wins. What that candidate stands for seems to be largely irrelevant.

EDIT: typo in post title

[1]

50. absolutely they do. 59 of 100 senate, 253 of 435 house. majority all around...

what you don't get is that we don't elect democrats and republicans. we elect representatives.

what representatives do is represent their states/districts.

its not an either/or election about democratic or republican ideals. its about representation of states/districts.

representation. what their states/district want. not what any political party wants.

did you not attend the public school classes in representational goverment?

do you not know what that means?

[Echo In Light]

52. Profits Over People = All American