How the Democrats Blew It in Only Eight Months

By Alexander Cockburn, The Nation
Posted on August 10, 2007, Printed on August 11, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/59367/

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

The row over the US Attorneys and the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been something of a typhoon in a teaspoon. The Democrats love it, since they imagine it portrays them to the public as resolute guardians of the impartial administration of justice, a concept whose credibility most Americans sensibly deride. The Democrats now plan to track Gonzales's firing of the US Attorneys back to that comic opera villain of the Bush era, Karl Rove, another great provoker of dust storms.

The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.

Just as the Democrats work tirelessly to demonstrate to the voters that it makes zero difference which party controls Congress, the political establishment forces all candidates for the presidential nomination to sever any compromising ties to sanity and common sense.

Right now they're hosing down Barack Obama because he said in the YouTube debate in South Carolina that he would be prepared to meet with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to hash over problems face to face. The pundits whacked him for demonstrating "inexperience." Experienced leaders order the CIA to murder such men.

Then Obama drew even fiercer fire by saying he would take nukes off the table in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama told the AP on August 2, adding, after a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

I'm beginning to respect this man. He displays sagacity well beyond the norm for candidates seeking the Oval Office. He comprehends, if only in mid-sentence, that when you drop a nuclear bomb, it will kill civilians. He also realizes that strafing Waziristan with thermonuclear devices in the hopes of nailing Osama bin Laden is a foolish way to proceed.

So Obama is being flayed for his "inexperience," first and foremost by Hillary Clinton, who permits no table setting that does not include a couple of nuclear weapons next to the sugar bowl. To recoup, Obama has declared his readiness as Commander in Chief to order US forces to hotly pursue Osama into Pakistan, whatever the government of Pakistan might think of this onslaught on its sovereignty.

Has the left the capacity to influence the conduct of the Democrats? In terms of substantive achievement the answer thus far has been no. People didn't like it when I wrote here a month ago that the antiwar movement was at a low ebb. They invoke the polls showing that 70 percent of Americans want the troops to come home. This is presumptuous, like a barking dog claiming it made the moon go down. It didn't take an antiwar movement to make the people antiwar. People looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust. Their attention is already shifting to the economic crisis: housing meltdown, car sales meltdown, credit crisis, threats from the Chinese to destroy the dollar. What war?

The left is as easily distracted, currently by the phantasm of impeachment. Why all this clamor to launch a proceeding surely destined to fail, aimed at a duo who will be out of the White House in sixteen months? Pursue them for war crimes after they've stepped down. Mount an international campaign of the sort that has Henry Kissinger worrying at airports that there might be a lawyer with a writ standing next to the man with the limo sign. Right now the impeachment campaign is a distraction from the war and the paramount importance of ending it.

For sure, there are actions around the country: Quakers and Unitarians picketing outside shopping centers, campus vigils, resolutions by city councils and so forth. It's all pretty quiet, in a conflict that has now -- as my brother Patrick recently pointed out -- gone on longer than the First World War. At the liberal blogger convention, Yearly Kos, held the first weekend in August, the organizers nixed any serious strategy session on the war. John Stauber of PR Watch had to force an impromptu (and very successful) session with leaders of the Iraq Veterans Against the War.

A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush's police-state executive orders of July 17 -- the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them. And guess what? Just as their poll numbers are going down, Bush's are going up, by five points in Gallup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?


© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/59367/

The problem the elected Democrats have run into was that they promised things they knew they could never do and now people are disappointed.

If a bring-home-the-troops-now Democrat gets elected to President you'll see similar disappointment when he/she doesn't do it.

The problem is obvious.

Conservatives.

Namely, the Blue Dog Democrats. They betrayed the Democratic party.

The Blue Dogs need to be targetted and purged from the party.

The Blue Dogs need to be targetted and purged from the party.
No thanks... they'd probably be replaced by Republicans.

No thanks... they'd probably be replaced by Republicans.

Or... they can be replaced by real progressives.

More and more Americans are disgusted with the situation in Washington every day.

The Republicans' support is dwindling. As much as people are dissappointed in the Democrats they are disgusted with the Republicans who remain in lock-step with the worst, most unpopular President in American history.

Not too long ago everyone expected John McCain to "walk away" the the Republican nomination... Now his association with this illegal war has sunk his chances, as ultimately will sink any Republican's chances to get elected next year. These delusional Republicans are all running to become the next Bob Dole. And one of them will get it.

but they did elect a democratic congress.

Unfortunately for the 'progressives' their candidates have no broad appeal. See McGovern, Mondale, Dean, and now Edwards. The 'progressives' mistake is to think they have a majority when in reality they are the fringe.

The Iraq war does put a blemish on the republican chances. But, the Democrats are taking a huge chance running a woman and a african american. From growing up in the south I don't think sentiment has changed enough to elect either one of them. This is not the year democrats needed to do this.

I personally hope Hillary Clinton wins. Just about every bad thing people say about her is a jive at her character, not her stance on the issues. The reality of the situation is that we will never know what Hillary, bush, or Obama is really like as a person. Because most of us will never know them personally. I support Hillary because I agree with her almost 100% on her issues.

I have been a Bush supporter since he was elected, but I'm not going to let something as stupid as party affiliation stop me from making a choice I believe to be right.

The problem the elected Democrats have run into was that they promised things they knew they could never do and now people are disappointed.

I agree, somewhat......although I think the phrase should be *would never do* instead of *could never do*.

The Dems like to talk a big game, and banter about doing progressive things, things that the people want and need, but they never deliver. This is because they are, at heart, nothing but Corporate lapdogs. Just like their counterparts, the other half of the Corporatist Party; the Republicans.

If a bring-home-the-troops-now Democrat gets elected to President you'll see similar disappointment when he/she doesn't do it.

I think you're absolutely correct.

The Corporatists who own all the politicians and who are reaping mega-billions in profits are not going to allow their cash cow, the "war" in Iraq, to get away.

The problem is obvious.

Conservatives.

Namely, the Blue Dog Democrats. They betrayed the Democratic party.

The Blue Dogs need to be targetted and purged from the party.

No,as usual you got it AssBackward.
The Blue Dog Democrats GAVE the Dems a Majority.
They were the turning point.Like Jim Webb.
The problem is Recall.The Voters who heard repeatedly from
leading Dimocrats what they're gonna do and all those
Big Dimocrat Promises.Promises,promises,promises.
Now,The Voters who elected them to a majority RECALL
exactly what they were promised,and it was all meaningless spiel.
Plus Madame Bela's plea for CIVILITY.
There's Nothing Civil about endless subpoenas.
That's basically ALL Dim0ocrats have.
It's their stock in trade.
Bad mouth the opposition,start up rumors and Lie,lie,lie.
Just like Hillary still hasn't been taken to task
for vowing 200,ooo new jobs,especially to Upstart New Yorkers,if
she's elected.Turns out there was a LOSS of Jobs,not a gain under
her Junior Senatorial Fraud.

Democrats LIE
Republicans Talk Turkey

No,as usual you got it AssBackward.

From you, that is confirmation I was absolutely right.

The people want oversight, which is something the rubberstamp Republicans never bothered to do and everyone knows it.

People do not want Republican corruption back, they want the Democrats to be able to do what the promised without betrayal by the blue dogs.

Or... they can be replaced by real progressives.

Are you ashamed of saying liberal?

[B]Not too long ago everyone expected John McCain to "walk away" the the Republican nomination... Now his association with this illegal war has sunk his chances, as ultimately will sink any Republican's chances to get elected next year.
McCain's popularity was a creation of the media who swooned to his supposed "maverick" status.

He never had a chance to be nominated. And he was "sunk" by amnesty for aliens, not by the war.
Other pro-war Republicans are beating him in the polls.

I personally hope Hillary Clinton wins. Just about every bad thing people say about her is a jive at her character, not her stance on the issues.
Her biggest weakness actually her flexible core.

A couple weeks ago she complained when Obama tooks nukes off the table.
She said the same thing a year ago.

The war is even a better example.

People are starting to see through it.

I agree, somewhat......although I think the phrase should be *would never do* instead of *could never do*.

You're right. That's more accurate.

No,as usual you got it AssBackward.
The Blue Dog Democrats GAVE the Dems a Majority.

You know that's a great point. A district that would elect a conservative Democrat might just as easily elect a moderate Republican.

If a liberal Democrat ran there he'd probably lose, thus giving the Republicans a majority in Congress, on committees and committee chairmanships.

The blue-dog dems are actually responsible for their party's majority.

The debate between Harold Ford and Markos Moulitsas on meet the press this morning spoke to exactly that topic. The so-called "conservative" Democrats were called such primarily because of their emphasis on fiscal responsibility, something markedly lacking in the Republican party these last 7 years. That does not mean that they were elected to betray the Democratic party and American people on such fundamental issues as the Constitution and warrentless wiretapping of American citizens. We expect the Republicans to put the power of the President above everything else but that is not what the Democrats of any stripe voted for.

That does not mean that they were elected to betray the Democratic party and American people .....
The definition of betrayal does not automatically mean a decision that Dhrama disagrees with.

Would you accuse Lincoln Chaffee or Ron Paul of betrayal because they don't march in lockstep with their party?

The blue-dog dems are actually responsible for their party's majority.By that logic the Democrats owe their majority in the Senate to Bernie Sanders -- a Socialist.

And when the Republicans were in the majority they owed it all to the RINO's.

By that logic the Democrats owe their majority in the Senate to Bernie Sanders -- a Socialist.

And when the Republicans were in the majority they owed it all to the RINO's.

Good point Sedan.

And when the Republicans were in the majority they owed it all to the RINO's.Only if you can show that the RINO's won in areas that were moderate to liberal or the majority was in question (as it was in 2006).

The majority is more important to the party than philosophy. That's why the Republican Party continued to support Lincoln Chaffee over a more conservative opponent in the primary, and why they still support Arlen Spector.

Only if you can show that the RINO's won in areas that were moderate to liberal or the majority was in question (as it was in 2006).Whatever this means, the Blue Dogs too.

It's a silly argument -- every majority is made from a spectrum. It doesn't 'owe' it's existence to any one part of that spectrum. Every vote counts equally to make a majority party.

The majority is more important to the (Republican) party than philosophy.

We finally agree on something 100%.

""The majority is more important to the Republican party than philosophy"" is another way of saying -- "Maintaining control and remaining the majority is more important to the Republican party than integrity, or being honest about their stances on the political issues."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the record, I know that the Democrats are NO different in that respect. I just wanted to point out how unrelentingly venal and mercenary ALL the Corporate Party politicians in Washington (IOW, all the politicians in Washington) are.

It's more important to both parties.

Also, if you're going to quote me, don't alter what I said in the quote box. That's not cricket.

Also, if you're going to quote me, don't alter what I said in the quote box. That's not cricket.

?!?!?!

"alter"..........?!?!?!

This is astounding.

Let me get this straight.

When you said --""The majority is more important to the party than philosophy. That's why the Republican Party continued to support Lincoln Chaffee over a more conservative opponent in the primary, and why they still support Arlen Spector."" --------

.........you were not refering to the Republican Party..........????

I truly fail to see how such a statement could be viewed by anyone as a reference to a party other than the Republican party, as it was worded and in the context that it was posted.

But by ALL means, if you really WERE talking about a political Party other than the Republicans, I am deeply sorry for having inserted that awful word and distorted your meaning.

It was a needed clarification, but Brooks is doing what he does best and dithering over inconsequential details.

It was a needed clarification (and Brooks certainly was correct in this case, and you were wrong Freethinker), but Brooks is doing what he does best and dithering over inconsequential details.Thanks Dhrama.

?!?!?!
"alter"..........?!?!?!
This is astounding.
Let me get this straight.
The prior posts were referring to Democrats. My statement was about parties in general followed by a Republican example.

Whether that was clear or not, save your interpretation of my statement for your own post or use the [correct] type of brackets.

Thank you.

Thanks Dharma. {sic}

You're welcome.
Thanks for having at least enough honesty to not deny it.
:thumbs: