« Obama's Catch-22 on Gay Rights | J. Clarence's Blog | And It Begins: Conservatives Launch After Sotomayor »
After 8 Years of Failure Democrats Are Still Allowing GOP to Define the Debate
A sociologist professor in college once told the class that the party
that gets to define the debate is generally the party that will win the
argument, today I feel someone should sit down and explain this
phenomena to Majority Leader Harry Reid and all of the press, including
the liberal wing, because after eight years of failure on almost every
front, from the economy to the war(s), the Democrats have allowed the GOP
to define the debate.
It is inconceivable to assume had Bill Clinton left the country in the shape the 43rd president did that Democrats would have been able to have as much say on the Hill and throughout the press as Republicans do now. In fact despite leaving behind a surplus and keeping the country safe from foreign terrorist attacks after the 1st attack on the World Trade Center Towers, Democrats were all but shut out from the conversation during the first Bush years.
Since the current President took office a host of Republican figures, including disgraced figures from years past, such as Newt Gingrich, have surfaced and derailed and/or diluted legislation that has been long over due. Democrats have allowed old failed ideas of the past to take center stage, all the while new ideas for change are beaten down by GOP ideologues who persist in lies and deception. Attention Democrats: Republicans had their chance and they failed, don't let them have another go at it.
Part of the blame sits on the lap of the traditional media, which has become obsessed with the charade of providing both views on any given issue. This trend in political coverage has only served one purpose: to elevate and legitimize GOP obstruction. Rather than providing objective news, many in the press have convinced themselves that objective means listening to both sides and extracting from that what you will--which is by definition subjective--rather than stating the facts.
Nevertheless, the biggest culprit in this are Democrats themselves, who have either not yet become accustomed to life in power--which would be understandable, as they have been out of power for so long--or lack the resolve to call out Republicans on their feats of obstruction. In no place is this more clear than the United States Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was appropriately labeled by comedian Bill Maher as a "dusty old dumbass" on Maher's show Real Time with Bill Maher, has allowed Republican Senators to set the agenda and drastically change legislation.
Republicans have restarted their old fear machine, which has worked well for them in the past, and kicked it into high gear this time. They are resolute on instilling fear into the American people on all the issues Democrats were sent to Washington to change; and Democrats seem ready to allow themselves to be steamrolled yet again.
With the issue of national security coming to the forefront again Democrats must not let Republicans get away with scoring political points on the issue. Democrats must make sure to remind the American people that George Bush's presidency did not start on September 12th, 2001; and make the case once and for all that torture does not work and weakens American security down the road.
Democrats should not be afraid to address national security, because one thing we have seen is that when one political party--especially the one with the bad ideas--is allowed to dominate the conversation bad things happen.
Republicans have the wrong ideas on national security, health care, education, and the economy; Democrats cannot turn their turn at the helm into a referendum on Republican ideologues, but rather it has to be an opportunity for progressive change.
As a Democrat it is truly stupefying to see Democratic leaders on defense to Republican obstruction, as there simply is no reason for it. When a political party has failed as badly as the Republicans have over the last eight years they should not be given an equal seat at the table, but rather chased out of the capital until they can come up with better ideas, because their present ideas and rhetoric simply are not the solutions to the problems we face as nation.
It is inconceivable to assume had Bill Clinton left the country in the shape the 43rd president did that Democrats would have been able to have as much say on the Hill and throughout the press as Republicans do now. In fact despite leaving behind a surplus and keeping the country safe from foreign terrorist attacks after the 1st attack on the World Trade Center Towers, Democrats were all but shut out from the conversation during the first Bush years.
Since the current President took office a host of Republican figures, including disgraced figures from years past, such as Newt Gingrich, have surfaced and derailed and/or diluted legislation that has been long over due. Democrats have allowed old failed ideas of the past to take center stage, all the while new ideas for change are beaten down by GOP ideologues who persist in lies and deception. Attention Democrats: Republicans had their chance and they failed, don't let them have another go at it.
Part of the blame sits on the lap of the traditional media, which has become obsessed with the charade of providing both views on any given issue. This trend in political coverage has only served one purpose: to elevate and legitimize GOP obstruction. Rather than providing objective news, many in the press have convinced themselves that objective means listening to both sides and extracting from that what you will--which is by definition subjective--rather than stating the facts.
Nevertheless, the biggest culprit in this are Democrats themselves, who have either not yet become accustomed to life in power--which would be understandable, as they have been out of power for so long--or lack the resolve to call out Republicans on their feats of obstruction. In no place is this more clear than the United States Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was appropriately labeled by comedian Bill Maher as a "dusty old dumbass" on Maher's show Real Time with Bill Maher, has allowed Republican Senators to set the agenda and drastically change legislation.
Republicans have restarted their old fear machine, which has worked well for them in the past, and kicked it into high gear this time. They are resolute on instilling fear into the American people on all the issues Democrats were sent to Washington to change; and Democrats seem ready to allow themselves to be steamrolled yet again.
With the issue of national security coming to the forefront again Democrats must not let Republicans get away with scoring political points on the issue. Democrats must make sure to remind the American people that George Bush's presidency did not start on September 12th, 2001; and make the case once and for all that torture does not work and weakens American security down the road.
Democrats should not be afraid to address national security, because one thing we have seen is that when one political party--especially the one with the bad ideas--is allowed to dominate the conversation bad things happen.
Republicans have the wrong ideas on national security, health care, education, and the economy; Democrats cannot turn their turn at the helm into a referendum on Republican ideologues, but rather it has to be an opportunity for progressive change.
As a Democrat it is truly stupefying to see Democratic leaders on defense to Republican obstruction, as there simply is no reason for it. When a political party has failed as badly as the Republicans have over the last eight years they should not be given an equal seat at the table, but rather chased out of the capital until they can come up with better ideas, because their present ideas and rhetoric simply are not the solutions to the problems we face as nation.
Advertisement
The problem with the Democrats (and the Democratic party) as I see it is the philosophy of "run to the center." The problem is that they seem to define the "center" as the Republican "platform" which is so damn far right.
IMHO, this began when the Republicans labeled Bill Clinton (a moderate Democrat) as being a "card carrying liberal. What they were successful in doing was chopping the political "spectrum" essentially in half (chopping off the "progressive" half) and Clinton became the "far left." Clinton then moved to the "center" of the redefined spectrum. He ended up being - what in any time within the 30 years before that - a "moderate REPUBLICAN."
Unfortunately, the spectrum has narrowed even further than that since Clinton. So every time "bipartisan" or "appealing to the center" comes up, I cringe. So in the last presidential campaign, Kucinich was defined as far left. On almost every issue, polls showed that he representative the stand of the public. Which show us the difference between political perceptions and public perceptions, and the Democratic party's disconnect from that public.
May 25, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is more than a disconnect from the public. It's Hostility or contempt. The public is the Wage Slave
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
"The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles"
ALL ABOUT THE SPOILS
"The Republican and Democratic parties are alike capitalist parties — differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests — they have the same principles under varying colors, are equally corrupt and are one in their subservience to capital and their hostility to labor."
May 26, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This pox on both their houses" bloviation is pointless. We've got two political parties at the national level, and have to deal with that fact. If you're not part of the solution in this debate, you're part of the problem.
May 26, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Brew : Wow? Did you think that, all by yourself?
Tokyo Rose would be proud of you, "Give up Yankee, you know you can’t beat us, you know you only have a two party system, why fight us. We your friend, why fight us".
It appears you have no record of comments; you've posted nothing as far as I can tell.
I would seriously consider any suggestion you have to offer, but I suspect you're here to throw insults?
There are alternatives; but people like you, are the problem. You offer no solutions. The two party system, has not solved our problems. They both take the money or spoils, from basically the same donors, those who can pay to play.
If you still believe, they have you’re best interest in mind, you’re to naïve. You have eyes, use them so you can see; you have ears, listen to those, who have been fighting this corruption for years. Hoping the next generation will pick up the mantle and fight against this corrupt two party system, restoring confidence in our representative form of governance.
Our forefathers were not cowards when they fought to change the Monarchy
After reading your comments, it’s apparent, you’re not the sort of person it takes to fight the corruption of monarchies or a two party system, and you’ve already capitulated. You’re symbolically blind and deaf. Don’t even try to convince me that I should give up, as it appears you have already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweedledum_and_Tweedledee
During the 2000 United States presidential election, candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that George W. Bush and Al Gore were not very different in their corporate policies,[8] and called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee.[9]
Which one do you follow, tweedle Dum?
May 26, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I've been a reader and commenter here since the site's inception. Some problem keeps my comments from appearing with my profile. So you've already demonstrated that you don't generally know what you're talking about in the first paragraph of you rather incoherent response.
You also apparently know nothing about coalition politics. I'm certain that my ideal political environment is not very different from most of the critics of Obama and the Democrats from the left. However, apparently unlike most of these critics, I have seen narrow agenda politics tear the Democratic Party apart. We need to demonstrate that a movement to European-style Democratic Socialism will not destroy free enterprise and result in peoples' children being forced to marry members of the same sex, as the conservatives' claim. This will take time, and a period of moderate, effective governance by the Democrats.
It's also hilarious that you would cite Ralph Nader approvingly. While the man's criticism of the corporatist influence corrupting both parties is accurate, the argument that as a result there is no difference between the parties, is, well, idiotic. If you honestly think that we would be facing the set of international and domestic crises that we are today if Al Gore had been president for the last eight years, then you aren't worth debating.
Parties and movements don't spring full-blown from the fevered imagination of a narcissist with a Messiah complex like Ralph Nader. They take time and effort of a true grass-roots nature.
I would have a lot more respect for Nader if he had ran for Congress as a Green and devoted real effort to building a viable third party at the state or local levels. He didn't, and that fact that he, like you, thinks that political change is achieved by calling bullshit on the whole enterprise makes you, frankly, rather pathetic and ridiculous.
May 26, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's probably a good reason your comments don't appear.
You're mean spirited. You want to attack the person, rather than debate.
Go talk to yourself.
May 26, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for not responding to any of the substantive points I made in my comment.
And I would suggest you compare the amount of ad hominem in my comments as compared to yours before you get all indignant.
May 27, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that the corporatist agenda has contaminated the entire political process, and that is where we - the citizens - need to step up to the plate and demand corporations be taken out of our government. This includes PACs, campaign financing, the revolving door between government and "industry" etc. etc.
May 26, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Clarence is absolutely right about the redefining of the debate (I would say that began to take hold with the Reagan packaged presidency and playing to fears and prejudices and moral superiority under people like Roger Ailes (who went on to shape FOX), later Atwater, Newt, Rove, and groups like the Christian Coalition.
But as those great quotes from Debs show, this is not new. I think things had really changed for the better with New Deal populism and the shift of power to the exploding post-war middle class. But the corporate control over both parties is more cemented than ever, and the “two sides of the same coin”system may be that way for some time.
Of course, the parties are different but when push comes to shove, say with a new scary boogieman to fear and start wars over or a depression or something, the underpinnings of the parties are exposed. Politicians know who butters their bread, though the caveat that Dems do attempt some moderate reforms is required and, if they are exposed as bowing to their K-street or Wall Street overlords will usually withdraw in shame and change course. Republicans proudly pursue their elitist desires without apology. They just try to reframe (obfuscate) what they’re actually doing often by manipulating “values” or playing to drugstore-cowboy patriotism.
I think the attitude of some Dems that independent candidates are extreme and divisive (see the avg. Nader hater) furthers the closed duopoly, especially as the press has become almost totally a mouthpiece of the establishment instead of a watchdog. We're not just fighting the Republicans but the Dem Party establishment machinery, the wealthy elite and multinational corporations, traditional media (with "expert" consultants, think tanks, and unnamed sources), right-wing ranting media, much of organized religion and all of the unthinking people who are bamboozled by these interests and institutions.
As you say, look at how Kucinich is pidgeon-holed as extremist when the Democratic nominee over 35 years ago was just as “radical” (and people forget that McGovern had a sizable lead until his campaign imploded).
I'm probably preaching to the choir, but maybe in time, with netroots movements, alternative media, issues now relegated to the dark alleys in our marketplace of ideas are debated, and the sun starts shining again things will change. Eventually, perhaps when the majority just get sick and tired of the oppression of wage-slavery and fat-cattery, viable third party challenges will emerge. This will either cripple the Democratic Party or cause it to radically change course.
May 26, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked what you wrote. Since Debbs wrote that piece, America had changed.
The Great Depression helped the progressives and the Democratic Party. Like everything else, The Democratic Party became corrupted.
Now some of the Democratic Party members are Republican lite.
Look at this recent bailout of AIG, and the Banks. Asking the Wage/slaves to foot the bill.
If you wage/slaves want health care, you pay for it. You want a shack to live in you pay for it. No more housing for the slaves.
You want safe food. You pay for it.
When the American Corporations want a strong military to defend they’re interests around the world, well! let the wage/slaves pay for it.
The American people are nothing more than slaves to a Capitalist system whose only interest for the well being of the workers, is for productivity. There is no place for compassion it’s unprofitable. Clean air and water costs too much. OSHA, a burden, need to call our paid off Congressperson. Legal assistance for the poor, can’t afford it, besides it’s probably our business they’re bringing before the court. Any body on the bench we know? Who do we have in Washington to block the things that hurt our profitability?
Which party do you think takes up the cause against this corruption?
If the American worker, wage/slave should balk or try to reign in the abuse. Well, they'll just pay off some member of Congress, (Democrat or Republican, makes no difference, they both like the money) and get a nice tax break to boot. Moving their operations overseas
Then some dumb, blind wage/slave thinking how great our system is foots the bill.
One only has to look at slavery in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_slaves
The house slaves had it better than the field slaves.
The Dumb/wage slave depending on his station thinks it better to not rock the boat.
The moment it affects him, then there's and attitude adjustment.
Are we there yet? When will the blue-collar worker say, enough is enough? There should be a pox on both houses.
May 26, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just taking one example, a huge one admittedly, I do think a big solution was needed to hold the economy together and try to slow down the layoffs. Much of the stimulus was a good thing though it is small potatoes in light of the problem and the $trillions spent to float the “banks.” But what this government has done, a bone thrown to the workers while the big banks rushed in like pigs to the trough, is rightly called one of the biggest swindles ever.
While there has been a little argument about who was responsible for what plan, no one has spoken much about the fact that the economic transition between Bush and Obama was the smoothest of all. The only real bumps have been over the AIG executive compensations and parts of the stimulus (when the congress spends money on jobs, that is called pork).
Summers and Rubin are just the flip-side of Paulson and Greenspan. Geithner was right there with Paulson and Bernanke (not to mention Goldman-Sachs CEO) in forming the strategy the government would take before and after the party in power changed. The TARP and related programs begun in the fall and continuing today have gone off without a hitch, though the whole government changed. Why would that be?
May 27, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I do blame the media and the way they give credit, which is in no way deserved, to the failed ideologies of the GOP and the 20% of the Americans they represent.
But the majority of the blame lays with the democratic politicians. This isn't a new problem. They long have struggled with conservative demagoguery because allegedly it is so rooted in 'patriotism and love of country'. Inferring if you don't agree with the republicans you are somehow 'un-American'. The more things change the more they stay the same. We must also recognize that part of the problem is during the Clinton years the D's climbed into the same corporate pockets that the R's inhabited so they could get their share of the $$. So on the economy the 2 parties are more in agreement than opposed. Only because they serve the same masters.
May 25, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is the the Democrats are in the pockets of the corporate elite just like the republicans. The democrats in the left pocket, the republicans in the right pocket. And the elites call all the shots.
C
May 25, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the right believes in lying, there is no level playing field.
May 25, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That just makes telling the truth more important. The only way to fight lies is with truth - part of that truth is deconstructing the lies. People HATE being lied to - look what happened to Bush's (and Cheney's) popularity when the lies started shredding.
May 26, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree. But with the truth, there's only one story. People who lie have endless stories. Thus, they, by lying and telling new lies, keep setting the frame of the debate. Hard to frame a debate, when the debate itself, via lies, keeps changing. Can you see that means you're always playing defense? No matter how hard you try to play offense.
People hate being lied to - except for the ones who believe the lies....
May 26, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we are firm in our foundation of the truth, then we will be repeating those truths rather then reacting to new lies with new material. The Dems are just piss poor communicators when it comes to responding to the GOP BS and they lack the dramatic antics of the GOP. One thing Dems should be doing to NOT allowing these distractions to take center stage. There are ways to difuse them.
Frankly, the whole the GPp will rename the Dems shoudl have been smacked down as soon as it started. We should also smack down thie Speaker Gingrich thing. He is former Speaker, and that is all. To suggest he have any other title is to insidiously suggest we do not have a Speaker now. (Okay, Pelosi haters, don't go there!)
May 26, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we have to be honest with ourselves that the Democrats also lie and in a sense the way they lie is almost worse. Democrats lie when they tell the public there is nothing they could do, and that the failures and capitulations they produce time and again are the best they could do. That might be true once in a while, but it is now little more than a pathetic, tired excuse for their own dishonesty about who their real constituency is.
May 26, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Dem. I don't lie.
That some Dems lie can't be denied. (I hope you're not one!) But I think the repubs are inveterate liars. Weaselly liars they are.
May 26, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are in agreement. I'm just saying our elected Democrats are different in that they do a lot of deceiving and prevarication.
May 26, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats also lie when they are pretend they are for change and then relentlessly bolster the status quo.
They court the votes of labor and then don't support major bill like EFCA. They court the votews of gays and then stall on DADT. They court the votes of peace activists and then raise the defense budget and escalate war. They court the votes of those concerned about civil liberties and then support preventive detention. They claim they believe in universal health care but once elected dumb that down to "expanded access" or "increased coverage" or "cost control" or vaguely "reform".
May 26, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, I am struck by the similarity of the situation you describe and an abusive relationship. Not sure how to untangle my way out of that, but given the excellent Strauss/Erickson analysis you did it might click for you.
Anyway, of of the most debilitating things within an abusive relationship is that the "rules" are arbitrary and shifting - like the lies upon lies and framing the debate.
The lies are (in my opinion) and attempt to dominate. Unfortunately, it has been fertilized and propagated by the MSM (on virtually every issue). But that means that folks need to be well armed in engaging in telling the truth. By debunking the lies, it changes their impact from domination and frame-changing to desperation to "win" at all costs. Then that "strategy" can be addressed for exactly what it is - and attempt to deceive to manipulate to gain for whatever special interests.
May 26, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem as I see it is that the progressive caucus is so accustomed to keeping their mouth shut that the debate gets framed as between bluedogs and teabaggers. Where are the reds and the greens? Why aren't reps like Barbara Lee, Peter Defazio, Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, etc. on TV arguing loudly for the progressive causes? This would give Obama and the bluedogs the cover to move left.
There are 71 members of the organized progressive caucus in the house- thats roughly 15%, far more then their are blue dogs. But we never hear them speak out and make independent stands arguing for the left. They need to get loud and demand concessions just as much as the bluedogs do. That would change the media coverage and the debate would shift left. Their should be a group right now angling for the public option and loudly pronouing they won't accept anything else. Force the centrists into negotiations.
The debate will not move left as long as they keep staying mum.
May 26, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are several issues with your post.
First, you are assuming that the winning party has the right or monopoly to dictate the terms of the debate. This is meaningless, because if such right is accorded to the winner then there will be no debate but a monologue. Given the fact that we have a two-party system and a divided electorate no party will ever be able to avoid being debated or challenged. This is normal, healthy and essential to any democracy.
Second, the ability to control the "terms" of the debate is a political tactic and it has nothing to do with the merits of the debate, one way or the other.
The reason GOP has been able to shift the terms of the debate is because they were able to exploit the inconsistency in the Democratic position on national security. This put Obama on the defensive (as evidenced by WaPo account on his two separate briefings to different ideological groups, moderates and liberals).
Their ability to do this will be only amplified when Obama's CIA will developed a new version of interrogation techniques and they will be leaked.
GOP will also be able to do this when the budget deficit and health care reform will finally collide in the public consciousness and attention.
The same thing happened to Bush following the WMD and Iraq war, by the way. No party has the monopoly on dictated the terms of the debate.
Any party that has inconsistencies in platform or strategy will pay the prices for that.
May 26, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I should add that if Republicans adopt the Democratic "big tent" idea, as some suggested, they will be running into such inconsistency issues a lot of more often.
May 26, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I don't think Democrats are anymore so entitled to a monopoly just because they occupy most seats in the Congress, any more so than Republicans do when the situation is reverse. What I do believe is that after doing such a horrible Republican, and many Republican arguments that are based on old flawed ideology of the presumed, Democrats should not be so coy in challenging the GOP head-on.
A healthy debate is necessary in our Democracy, but what we have now in the Congress is not a serious debate but rather obstruction left, right, and center because of ideology on the part of Republicans, mostly, and some Democrats.
And my point is that it is a political tactic carried out on the part of the GOP. If they were arguing against something on true conservative principles then that would be fantastic, but all they have done and tried to do is derail the conversation, whether it is on energy, health care, the economy.
I disagree on your point that Democratic inconsistency is what at fault here. Democrats as a whole seemed fine with closing Gitmo, but it wasn't until GOP talking heads started up this foolish campaign about putting terrorist in your backyard did Democrats (yet again) give in to pressure.
We clearly have two different versions of the past because even after the WMD incident, or lack thereof, in Iraq the GOP still managed to quickly change the terms of the debate of why we went in there and maintained public support, or at least a sustainable tolerance for the war until the very end of Bush's term.
May 26, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, point by point:
1. Democrats already did challenge the GOP head one. Quite strongly and for a long time. I disagree with your argument, at least in the way you expressed it, because "taking on GOP" now means Democrats can't focus on delivering the solutions they promised and simply keep blaming others for problems. It makes no sense, 6 months after the election and after the control, to still be blaming everything on the GOP. At some point they gotta step up and take responsibility.
2. If GOP is still capable of derailing the conversation (especially in view of the above), then isn't there something quite right with the way the conversation is being held? If the party of no that is falling into oblivion can still manage to outshout the Democrats, what does it say about Democrats's "speaking" abilities?
3. Same about Gitmo, exactly the same point. The real issue here is that Obama simply made a mistake by putting a deadline before he had a plan. That's all it is, a simple mistake. But the price of that mistake will be big, because he put himself into a corner - he's simply relocating Gitmo to a new place, same as Bush, blah blah blah.
4. It's a tactic carried out by GOP? Of course it is. The opposition party, whichever it is, always does it. Remember Bork confirmation? That's just how politics works in America, it's not a problem of any one party. Again, the real issue is not the fact that it's a GOP tactic, but the quality of the Democratic response to it.
May 26, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely share your sentiments, but you are making an assumption that the DC Democrats are not happy with the current situation and.like you and I, sincerely want to see progress on the major legislation Democrats have been promising for many years. I think it is time the grass roots Democrats, who actually want to see the changes that Democratic politicians say they are for, consider that perhaps many, if not most, of the elected Democrats are perfectly happy with letting the Republicans dictate the terms of debate.
You give them far too much leeway in terms of not being used to being in power. That's absurd. Democrats in the Senate were only out of power for half the Bush Presidency. All the BS about needing 60 votes and how they somehow can never manage to come through on their most important promises regardless of how many Democrats are in office is telling.
For decades now, the majority of Democrats in Congress have been campaigning as Democrats "fighting" for change and progress, but once elected their obvious first priority has been serving the needs and wishes of the very same special interests as the Republicans have served. Look at the banking bailout. Look at their flip flopping on FISA. Look at how they rolled over for terrible Republican Supreme Court nominations in the past? Look at how they balk at doing the right thing in terms of the budget and stimulating the economy in the midst of the worst economy since the 1930's. Look at their ongoing impotence in the face of Republican opposition and look at their never-ending, just-over-the-horizon promises to accomplish the goals they say they share with us common folk.
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee and quit electing these corporate/DLC type Democrats to either house of Congress. They are every bit as willing to prostitute themselves to the wealthy and powerful as any Republican no matter what the negative effect on the common people. There is always an excuse for how they just couldn't do the right thing "this time" but that "next time" will be different. Give me a break! Unless and until we either force them to do the right thing or replace them, it will remain as it has been. If we fail to make the Democrats live up to their word, then it's our fault for being suckers.
May 26, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are on target. I thought last session they were wimps, but they aren't. Harry Reid is what they want. Ben Nelson is what they want. Joe Lieberman is what they want. They want the status quo. They want room to pretend they're out to help the middle class but they want to be sure beyond all doubt that all their efforts will fail. First they needed a majority, then they needed 60, now dear me poor, poor, Dems, 60 would not be enough - Ben or Joe or Evan might balk and we could not have that could we? Dear me no. We need at least 70 votes now ...
May 26, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
After 8 years, Dems are still allowing the Republican executives of the six major media corporations controlling 95% of the US market, and their corporate sponsors, control the debate.
I don't understand why Obama and the Dems cannot override the longstanding conservative bias of the established press, and get them to suddenly be objective, accurate, and thorough.
May 26, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's because the Democratic Party, is in place for the people to vent their frustrations. They are the proverbial barn door, although closed and barred. The people will beat on it instead of the occupants, finally tiring and then go on about their lives. Leaving the plutocracy safe again. .
When the people in their rage, wanted accountability, they went to the government, looking for justice. How could the financial sector, a capitalist tool, expect the wage/slave to bail out the system?
Did Obama not carry on a program to save the donors of both Parties’ the moneyed elite?
Then by chance, maybe just maybe, the bread given to these capitalists’ institutions would allow enough crumbs to fall from the table. The people would rejoice.
The Capitalist system had been saved.
Too calm the people the Democratic Capitalists pulled an old trick out of it’s arsenal, the old, Feel, Felt, Found, psychology
I know how you feel, because that's how I felt, but this is what I found.
The rebellion, quashed again. Capitalism saved by having both Parties in place, to cover any unexpected attacks, on its abilities to control.
Now all they have to do is block Single Payer Health Care. How’s Baucus doing on that front?
May 27, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good post Clarence. I recommended it yesterday. ha
I guess I have nothing to add. Framing the issue is of the utmost importance.
This is a war of phrases, and we must keep up.
May 26, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink