Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Democrats are all wrong: make them say 'yes'!

From Leahy to Durbin from Conyers to Feingold, the Democrats have been asking the wrong question; it isn’t about censure or lack of confidence. No. They are going about it the wrong way; make the Republicans say: “YES!”.

How many committees and subcommittees and late-night pizza parties does this Congress have to endure until they 'flip-flop' their method to get some traction? Because the Democrats can drag in as many administrative lackeys as they like for some Congressional dog-and-pony show; the sad reality is that they are not going to get the answer that they (and the American public) want: the acknowledgment of the truth.

If the democrats took a different stand they might fair better in the mire that they've left themselves in. Instead, if some Democrat asked for a vote of confidence for Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gonzales and pushed for a vote on the floor, forcing every representative to state, unequivocally, that "YES! I do support Gonzales! I think he's doing a hellava job!" They'd probably get exactly want they want; an answer of support.

For then and only then will you have representatives going on record defending Cheney's unlawfulness, Rice's incompetence, Gonzales' ineptitude and Bush's utter disregard for a representative democracy.

If those that refuse to vote against administration officials that regard themselves and their party above the law and country; let them vote for them instead.

And after they vote their resounding YES, the 80% of the American people that support Congress over Bush (link) will also, most certainly, voice their opinion too.

At least we can hope so.

Posted by john trevisani at July 25, 2007 5:52 AM
Comments
Comment #227370

Nice thought, John, but I would imagine that, the day this vote would come up, that there would be a lot of empty seats. To coin a phrase, what if they held a vote and nobody came? Besides us bloggers, how many people actually pay attention to how many members of Congress show up for any one vote? Very few. You cannot force people to shoot themselves in the foot.

I think Congress is doing things the right way: slow and easy, build up the evidence. They are taking the same tack that they took for the impeachment proceedings for Nixon. If memory serves, it took them three years to build it all up. With the majorities in both houses, especially the Senate, being so small, they need to convince some Republicans to side with them, otherwise it is all just sound and fury, siginfying nothing. The possibility of impeaching any of the Bushies is too important to screw up. Let them take their time and do it right. Hopefully, it will be so airtight that you will end up with Dubya echoing Nixon’s “I am not a crook” speech sometime next summer.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at July 25, 2007 10:08 AM
Comment #227373

John,

“the sad reality is that they are not going to get the answer that they (and the American public) want: the acknowledgment of the truth.”

It sounds like you have a preconceived notion of what the truth is, or what you would like it to be?

Posted by: cliff at July 25, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #227380

Cliff:
i don’t have preconceived notion of what the truth is, but i certainly know what a lie is.

Posted by: john trevisantion at July 25, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #227381

The Associated Press revealed today that none, not one, of the Democrat Presidental Candidates will attend the Democratic Leadership Council summer meeting being held this weekend in Tennessee. Bill Clinton and 300 officeholders from 45 states will attend. I find it curious that not one of the candidates wants to be assicoated with the moderate wing of the party. Too busy pandering and taking instructions from MoveOn.Org I guess. As a moderate, I will take great interest in watching how the eventual candidate will come back and appeal to me and my vote. We all do understand, I hope, that both parties candidates are after the money and will say whatever is necessary to get it. But, I thought the Dems represented a new day, a new type of politician, a breath of fresh air and truth telling. Sadly, it’s the same old crap.

Posted by: Jim at July 25, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #227383

John,

Just what is the lie you are referring to?

Posted by: cliff at July 25, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #227384

Jim, moderates are of no concern anymore. The media and special interests will nominate who they want and moderates such as you will be stuck choosing between the far-left liberal and whomever the right nominates.

John T
A vote of support is interesting and would be something I would watch. Not a bad idea, IMO.

Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #227385

kctim-
What do you define as far left, other than being a Democrat not committed to submitting to Bush’s unpopular hard right agenda? Your definition of moderation seems to be the actual moderate’s definition of right wing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #227386

stephen,

There is a saying, “If you remember 1967 you weren’t there”. I would hypothosize that those who don’t remember ‘67 are the one’s who are defined as hard left. Unfortunately, they will ruin the Democratic Party.

Posted by: wolf at July 25, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #227387

Other than being a Democrat not committed to submitting to Bush’s unpopular hard right agenda, Stephen?
Would that be anything like defining all who do not submit and who dare question the hard lefts agenda, as Republicans?
You guys and your word games.

Are you really saying that you cannot see the difference between a pelosi and a Skelton? Or a boxer and a Landrieu?

I won’t bore you with obvious things like govt control over individual lives and more govt is the answer to every problem way of thought that those on the far-left share either.

IMO, a real Democrat represents ALL of the people in their district and a far-left liberal represents ONLY the people who elected them.
A real Democrat goes to the Capitol with the intent of doing whats best for their own people and a liberal goes to the Capitol with the intent of forcing what they think is best, onto ALL of the country.
A real Democrat agrees, for the most part at least, with the US Constitution while a liberal wants to change the US Constitution until it agrees with them.

A real Democrat would have been accepted by the moderates and would have won in 2000 and 2004.

Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #227391

John T. your use of the word ‘force’ implies a war between Democrats and Republicans. But, that is a gross error. Democrats and Republicans WERE at war, but, the war was won in Nov. 2006. It is the gravest of errors for Democrats to either fail to acknowledge they won, or having acknowledged that, now play the role of VICTOR over Republicans. For to do so, will only strengthen empathy for Republicans.

Democrats, would fare far better in the long run to treat the defeated Republicans in much the way one would treat a freshly broken horse, with compassion, sustenance, civility, and respect for the mutual benefit of all, in appealing to them on issues in which some accommodation of Republicans wishes can benefit Democratic sponsored legislation.

Republicans are now the prodigal son, returned home to their rightful place as the minority party, and they should be treated with respect and to the extent possible, the accommodation, one would extend to a wayward son returned home after being beaten by the errors of their own ways.

Republicans have much value to offer Democrats in the way of fiscal responsibility focus, protection of individual rights, and homeland security, which remain as cornerstones of their views, if not the foundation of their actions.

When all is said and done, Republicans were defeated for having departed from their own beliefs, a result of succumbing to the pressures of their donation and campaign sponsors. There is much of value to be learned by Democrats from the Republican experience, and much in their core philosophy that should NOT be lost sight of by Democrats.

Because it was those core Republican principles that brought them to majority party status, and though the Republican politicians abandoned those principles, it would be a monumental mistake by Democrats to assume the American public abandoned them as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 25, 2007 6:22 PM
Comment #227396

david
i hope your being diplomatic because i don’t want to believe your that naive. the winning of elections by the spurous tactics of people like newt and the arm twisting and threats of tom d lay to get votes in congress and donations from business. please pos t what you feel were accomplishments that were meant to help the lower and middle class since the republcans have been running the country.
btw i have read your postings and i think your very bright.

Posted by: albert at July 25, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #227404
But, that is a gross error. Democrats and Republicans WERE at war, but, the war was won in Nov. 2006.

David, why not say the “war” was won by Republicans in 2002 or 2004 then? Why choose 2006 as the end point? Is there not a struggle now to position for 2008 and beyond? I’m not sure what you you’re trying to say by suggesting that the conflict between Republicans and Democrats ended in 2006. It’s been going on for about 150 years now, and there’s no reason to think it won’t go on for another 150.

What’s at stake here, actually, is a MANDATE to govern right now, which is what I think you intended to refer to. Fact is however, that a party’s mandate is only as good as their ability to put their polices in motion. Opposition parties have no responsibility to respect or show deference to a majority’s mandate. Democrats didn’t defer to Bush’s “mandate” when he won two elections, or to the Republican Congressional majority’s mandate either. And in fact, in some measure at least, they’ve succeeded in regaining the majority through those very means. Republicans will now attempt the same thing. Whether they succeed or fail remains to be seen, but the battle will continue indefinitely into the future. It is a kind of game, but it’s not the kind of game where a final buzzer will sound and anybody will be declared “the winner.” The losers will always keep fighting and eventually come back stronger.

What the Democrats and Republicans have tapped into (and I know how frustrating this is to third parties) is the real divisions in our national character. It’s a little like Buddhist philosophy. One side will ascend for a time but will then inevitably fade. No side can be permanently victorious or permanently defeated.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 25, 2007 10:43 PM
Comment #227406

“What do you define as far left, other than being a Democrat not committed to submitting to Bush’s unpopular hard right agenda? Your definition of moderation seems to be the actual moderate’s definition of right wing.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2007 04:22 PM

What hard right Bush agenda are you talking about? The biggest problem Bush has had is his moderating to the left of center on issues like health care, spending, immigration, etc.! To call Bush a hard righter shows just how far left the typical Democrat has gone over the past few years.

A real Democrat would have been accepted by the moderates and would have won in 2000 and 2004.
Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2007 05:22 PM

That is just the point, kctim, there are very few moderates left in the Democratic Party. Remember, they adopted DNC policies of kicking guys like Lieberman out for being too far right, when he was actually somewhat left of center. It was kind of embarrassing to them when their lefty lost big and Joe got the last laugh. But, Democrats will never learn so long as all the money is in kooky Hollywood and the environmental rock shows! I’m beginning to wonder if the Democrats are going to run for President based on whose friends can play a better guitar riff?

JD

Posted by: JD at July 25, 2007 11:37 PM
Comment #227414
It was kind of embarrassing to them when their lefty lost big and Joe got the last laugh.

Please. In the previous election you guys ran right-wing nutball Pat Toomey against Arlen Specter because he criticized Bush’s handling of Iraq. By your own logic, there are very few moderates left in the Republican Party.

The fact is, all the seats Democrats picked up in ‘06 were won by conservative Democrats. Can’t you hear the lefties going nuts because the Democratic Party doesn’t pay any attention to them?

The Democratic Party is far more conservative today than it’s been in decades.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 26, 2007 12:24 AM
Comment #227415

Oh, and I like your idea, John.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 26, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #227422

kctm
FYI A real Democrat was accepted by the moderates and did win in 2000.

Posted by: BillS at July 26, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #227426
there are very few moderates left in the Democratic Party. Remember, they adopted DNC policies of kicking guys like Lieberman out for being too far right, when he was actually somewhat left of center.

Moderate in whose eyes? Yours? If there are no moderates in the Democratic Party these days, then why do they get more support than the the GOP?

Lieberman got voted out because he was telling other Democrats to shut up and support Bush and his war.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 26, 2007 7:36 AM
Comment #227429

David:

It is the gravest of errors for Democrats to either fail to acknowledge they won, or having acknowledged that, now play the role of VICTOR over Republicans. For to do so, will only strengthen empathy for Republicans.

Democrats are most certainly not acting as if they won anything. But i think it’s a far stretch for, even the most moderate of the electorate, to feel any empathy for the Republicans. For as public opinion polls indicate, there is significant mistrust in the inner-workings of our government and the Republicans, which had complete control of the country for a long period of time, should and are taking the brunt of that mistrust.

Given that all the noise from the Democrats lately is coming under the one of the true staples of our democracy: oversight; the Democrats should be the ones in need of that empathy. It’s been the Democrats that have been making an effort to uncover the nasty underworld of this administration and have been stopped by executive privilege and threats of filibusters. If anything, people want the truth and support efforts to get to the truth.

The approach that the Democrats have been using during the recent public battles is ineffective and plays completely into the hands of the Republicans. The approach allows the Republicans to nuance their message to say that they wouldn’t support negative legislation. Which is why i suggest allowing the Republicans a public forum to support their fine upstanding administration.

Posted by: john trevisani at July 26, 2007 8:22 AM
Comment #227431

JD,

I can’t believe you can call Dubya a moderate with a straight face. He is not a traditional conservative, yes, but he is hardly moderate. He’s a neo-con, the bastard child born of the strange melding that happened when, back in the 70s, religious conservatives and economic conservatives decided to kiss and make up after hating each other for the better part of 2 centuries. He’s a “compassionate conservative”, which means he pays lip service to moral issues while lining the pockets of the rich with many many greenbacks. Christianity has nothing to do with rich and poor, nah! Forget the fact that the word “poor” appears 23 times in the Gospels alone and the word “rich” another 18 times. Capitalism is inherently moral, didn’t you know that?

Traditional conservatives created this monster when they thought it would be a good idea to try to tap into the evangelical Christian vote, a demographic that, until the 1960s, was not politically active. With such a vicious dichotomy, is it any wonder that this administration thinks it’s a good idea to both raise spending and cut taxes while we are engaged in a war? The neo-con mindset is, by definition, schizophrenic. This is the bed the Republican Party has made, now they get to sleep in it, and it will result in them going from controlling both houses of Congress and the White House to controlling neither.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at July 26, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #227435

“FYI A real Democrat was accepted by the moderates and did win in 2000”

No Bill, moderates had to choose between a liberal and a conservative. The conservative was viewed by those moderates as being the lesser of two evils and won. Eight years of lies, corruption and rights violations tends to make people want change. They got change in 2000 and will get it in 08.

Posted by: kctim at July 26, 2007 9:31 AM
Comment #227463

kctim, Gore got more votes overall than Bush in 2000, and by every method of a full state recount recount in Florida, Gore won that state as well.

In 2000, the people decided they wanted to let the Golden Age of Clinton roll on with the liberals, but Bush’s lawsuit and trial lawyers put a stop to it. Like it or not, that’s the facts.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 26, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #227467

Fact: George Bush was elected President of the US in 2000.
Fact: Conspiracy theories have not produced the facts to prove otherwise or Bush would not still be President.
Fact: The “Golden Age of clinton” was anything but “Golden” for those of us serving in the military at that time.

Posted by: kctim at July 26, 2007 4:24 PM
Comment #227471

kctim, all you have to do is look it up. A statewide recounts shows that Gore won Florida.

Bush is President because Gore conceded and the result went uncontested. But Bush wasn’t elected and your claim that voters chose a conservative in 2000 is incorrect.

And I’m sorry you had such a bad time in the military in the 90’s. I had two family members in the service at the time and they say it was better than it was in the 70s and 80’s — more professional and the morale was better. And it was certainly better than it is now.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 26, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #227478

kctm
More dead horse beating. Gore was accepted by enough moderates to win the popular vote. This is not and has never been disputed.
The Bush regime came about from a split SCOTUS decision.This has never been disputed either.

Posted by: BillS at July 26, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #227526

Ok AP, the courts annointed King George against the peoples will.
And I’m glad your family members were lucky enough to somehow have a better experience than myself and 99% of my peers.

Yes BillS, more dead horse beating. The Bush regime was illegally placed into power against the peoples will, is definetly beating a dead horse.

Bush 50.4 million votes, gore 50.9 million votes.
Gore barely won the popular vote but 105 million voters out of 250 million possible voters is hardly a sign that moderates voted for either in overwhelming numbers.
You guys believe the popular vote shows moderates wanted gore. I disagree.

Bush 271 electoral votes, gore 266.
Each state has electoral votes based on the total number of House members plus Senators and are directly elected by popular vote. Voters elect these people to supposedly represent their views in govt.
IMO, directly elected House reps and Senators from every district in the country, are more representative of our entire population than an averaging of what 105 million willing voters probably means would be.

Posted by: kctim at July 27, 2007 10:04 AM
Comment #227529
You guys believe the popular vote shows moderates wanted gore. I disagree.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, kctim.

As for the electoral votes, since we know an accurate statewide recount would have given Florida to Gore, it follows that Gore actually got most of the electoral votes as well.

And my relatives tell me that their peers in the military were just fine with the 90s. Again, I guess everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 27, 2007 12:11 PM
Post a comment