Third Party & Independents Archives

Senate Democrats Fail to Differentiate Themselves From Republicans

As you might know by now Republicans introduced a bill last week in order to gauge who is for ‘staying the course’ and who is for withdrawal. Now many Democrats have argued that this was merely a move of partisanship. However when one looks at how the vote went down it is apparent that a majority of Democrats in the Senate are as pro-war as there Republican counterparts.

The bill, described here http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/washington/15cnd-cong.html?ex=13080
24000&en=bcef9f035f53b0f9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

shows clearly that Democrats in the Senate do not represent those who are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Only six Democrats voted 'no' on the bill whose chief provision stated, "that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of the United States armed forces from Iraq". This is absolutely pathetic that only six Democrats could stand up and vote no on this, the six Democrats who did vote no are: Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, Harkin, and Byrd.

I for one am sick of hearing Democrats say they are the party that can get us out of Iraq. Obviously they are not as only 6 of the 44 Democrats in the Senate could stand up and vote against this bill, that amounts to less than 14 percent of the Democrats in the Senate.

So next time a Democrat tells you they have the answer to get us out of Iraq, tell them that 14 percent of them may but the other 86 percent have the strategy to keep us there.

Posted by Richard Rhodes at June 22, 2006 8:44 PM
Comments
Comment #160725

The problem with the Democrats, and why I write posts like this is because Democrats are not attacked from the left. If we do not tell them when they messed up they will continue to move rightward, because they will think they can ignore us and we will vote for them anyway. The only way to make the Democrats listen to us again is too vote third party and show them that if they do not represent us we will not vote for them.

The only two parties which have stood up against the Iraq War are, the Green Party (www.gp.org) and the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org).

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 22, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #160772

And you know that how?

And the rest is hot air.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 22, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #160775

And I know what how? The fact that only six Democrats voted no? Hot air huh, why is it hot air to tell people that a majority of Democrats in the Senate can’t stand up against the Republicans.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 22, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #161019

Richard-
I keep pushing this stone up a hill and it just keeps on falling back..Huh oh I am not Greek? I’m a Democrat? And thats not a hill? It’s a Republican majority? I disagree with your assesment of Democratic representation. I think this is more like when your married for a while. You learn to pick your battles.

To simply dismiss them as slackers who just follow the herd is too simplistic. Do I think that there is a realistic plan to extract us from Iraq? No,but when there is it will garner the suport it needs. And from both sides of the aisle.

With the exception of some crazed Republican bottom-feeding money grubbers,most want us out. Looking at it cynically,perhaps only because it will allow more pork belly projects back home.
Whatever it takes to make us leave,is ALMOST worth it. Politicians as a group are opportunistic. Given a set of circumstances that allow them to reduce troops with minimal loss of face ,it will be done.

Posted by: jblym at June 23, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #161832

Richard, I couldn’t agree with you more, and all the more reason for independents to stand up and demand a full and open dialogue on US foreign policy. The Dems (as well as their colleagues “across the aisle”) are only interested in winning elections, not in being responsive to their constituents. We have to keep working at the grassroots level to educate and activate ordinary Americans to participate in the “debate” - so that it becomes a real debate.

Posted by: N. Hanks at June 26, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #161983

I have a question regarding this vote. Why does not setting an established date of withdrawal make them for the war? If a Democrat wants out and wishes they never got in but they think that it would be more harmful to just pull out then why would that be the same as a Republican who thinks we should stay longer and is still supporting (and thinking it the right thing) the war?

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 26, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #162215

Because the Dems are only using the issue to create anti-Repub sentiment so they can get 3 more votes than the Repubs in the next election. If the Dems were serious, they could have stopped the war, or prevented it. What we need is a national dialogue on the direction the US should be going in, and that takes independents who are not tied in to the self-protecting duopoly (the 2 parties) that is preventing ordinary citizens from participating in our political system.

Posted by: N. Hanks at June 27, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #162684

The Dems had their chance to vote how they felt. They failed to do so because they were afraid how it would reflect on them in future elections (so they voted to support the war), and saw how effective the flip flop moniker stuck to Kerry. So they aren’t going to change their minds now…that and some other reasons stated by others above.
Unfortunately IMO we have to try to make this mess as successful as possible, if it is possible. Leaving any time soon would be disaster far worse than what we have now.
But yes, the Dems are weak and wont to do what’s politically expedient, just like the Repubs. We need to elect people who are not afraid to say something’s wrong even when that’s unpopular.

Posted by: Zebster at June 28, 2006 10:34 AM
Post a comment