Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

What the Hell Are Democrats So Afraid of?

By Glenn Hurowitz, Maisonneuve Press. Posted February 22, 2008.


As this excerpt from "Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party" shows, if Dems want a lasting majority, they have to stop caving in.
image001
"Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party" by Glenn Hurowitz (Maisonneuve Press).
Advertisement

Like many progressives, I’d heard all the explanations for Democratic failings, and they all boiled down to this: a lack of smarts or competence. But was that realistic? After all, we’re the egghead party, the party of science, the party of the PhD. Could we really just be as stupid as we say George Bush is? What I’ve seen is something quite different: a lack of courage that makes Democrats afraid of implementing the strategies that work. It’s why even when Democrats win, they lose.

After Democrats took back Congress in 2006, Republicans still manage to bully Democrats and the media into controlling their agenda. It seems like Democrats forgot James Carville's basic lesson of political summer school "It's hard for your opponent to say bad things about you when your fist is in his mouth." Unfortunately, too often, the Democrats are the ones coughing up fingernails. What follows is an excerpt from my new book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party (Maisonneuve Press), which illustrates this debilitating weakness in the Democratic Party.

****

"The senator agrees with you, but he's not sure about the politics," the senior Democratic Senate aide told me. "But if the politics changes, the senator would definitely like to vote your way -- so good luck; we're behind you." The aide was explaining to me why his boss, a Democrat who represents a rural, Republican-leaning state, hadn't supported higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks in a recent vote. The aide told me that though the senator agreed with the environmental group I was working for that increased auto mileage made sense, he was afraid that his constituents might not support his stance, especially after being bombarded with auto industry ads on the airwaves.

It was a response I would hear over and over again from Democrats as I went from leading local and state level environmental campaigns to helping direct those campaigns on the national level. When Democrats voted against us, it was rare to hear them say they didn't agree with us on the merits. Instead, they'd tell us they were afraid: afraid that their constituents wouldn't support a pro-environment position; afraid of defying President Bush and the Republican noise machine; or they'd even admit they were afraid of angering this or that corporate lobby and losing campaign contributions to the Republicans.

To be sure, on a basic level, I found their explanations infuriating: shouldn't leaders do the right thing, even when doing so might entail some political risk? But even when I put myself in their shoes and tried to see their positions from the perspective of a purely self-interested politician, these rationalizations still didn't add up: polls consistently show strong support in all parts of America for stronger environmental protections -- it's one issue that unites grassroots Republicans and Democrats. What's more, in my experience, politicians who were willing to confront powerful interests in tough battles came out of those battles more, not less, popular.

When I looked outside the environmental movement, I saw the same thing. Starting with President Clinton, through the 1990's, and down to the present, Democrats shied from a full-throated campaign for government-financed universal health care, not because they disagreed with experts' assessment that it was the best and most affordable way to provide health coverage to the greatest number of people, but because they were afraid of taking on the HMO's and insurance companies. Many Democrats supported President Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-rich, not because they thought giving billionaires a tax break while the working and middle classes were feeling economic insecurity was a good idea, but because they were afraid of opposing President Bush, no matter how worthy the cause.

And of course, dozens of Democrats failed to speak out against Bush's rush to war in Iraq, not because they thought George Bush would bring peace and democracy to the Middle East, but because they were afraid that Republicans would paint them as weak. Again, I found their explanations morally and politically bankrupt: not only were they the wrong decisions, they also served to empower the very corporations and special interests out to defeat Democrats.

There has been no shortage of explanations for these Democratic failings. But they're all based on the notion that Democrats are at some level stupid; that they lack the knowledge or expertise to practice politics effectively. This book takes a very different line: that the problems diagnosed above are not themselves the source of Democratic failings, but rather symptoms of a deeper problem: a lack of courage. It is not a crisis of competence that we face, but rather a crisis of confidence. It will be impossible to implement any of these solutions until Democrats gain the backbone to do so.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fear and courage in the d, glenn hurowitz

Glenn Hurowitz is the author of "Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party" (Maisonneuve Press).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Cowardice - Corruption or Both
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 22, 2008 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hurowitz makes a great case but there is more going on here than cowardice. Just look around the Democratic ranks and you see certainly cowardice but look a little deeper and you see corruption.

Look at the fortunes and employment that our Congress enjoy. Feistein has larded her husbands military companies with tens of millions of dollars. Murtha has built an empire in his district on military contracts. Jane Harmon is worth hundreds of millions from investments in the military. Countless Congressmen lobby for 4 and 5 times their former salary, people like Tom Daschle.

These people are trading favors to line their own pockets and their constituents love them for it because much of it ends up in their districts and states.They promote companies for jobs or to lobby later.

Then there are the cowards like Harry Reid who killed the Bill that would have taxed hedge fund managers at income rates instead of capital gains rates for campaign contributions.

Even the 'best' of our elected officials have to have a contribution base and build in fiefdoms of family or special interests to pay the bills.

Yes there is cowardice and corruption but what it basically comes down to is money. We must implement Federal Campaign Spending for candidates so that the honest can do their jobs and the crooks are found out and thrown out of office. This spending must be bold taking historical spending and adding inflation and maybe more so that the public owns the candidates not the candidates personal gain nor the special interests' jobs and contributions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Both! See AIPAC! Posted by: GrannyBgood
What are they afraid of? The corporate media!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 22, 2008 2:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at what happens to candidates who actually promote real reforms and focus on issues - candidates like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich? They are attacked in the press, sidelined in or excluded from the debates, and end up having to run against the press as well as against the opposing candidates.

What will young politicians make of this recent electoral season, when candidates with messages that were very popular (Ron Paul, for example) are treated as implausible candidates by the press?

The corporate press in the U.S. represents the conglomerated corporate interests that own it - not the public interest. They're the main culprit in the current state of affairs, and their new power is just as great as that of the Democratic and Republican leadership when it comes to picking candidates for public office.

They tried to throw the Democratic nomination to Hillary, and Obama threw off the plan - but they did manage to keep Kucinich out and Edwards on the sidelines.

Here's a debate question you won't see asked in any press-sponsored debate: "Is there a media cartel in the United States? If so, should it be subjected to antitrust law?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Same as it ever was Posted by: CUnknown
Not afraid - complicit
Posted by: xi_people on Feb 22, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does AlterNet keep running articles suggesting that dimocrats are "afraid" or "intimidated"? Let's call a spade, a spade -- they are in complete agreement with the repukes about the ultimate plan to continue to build and maintain a worldwide empire. The up-coming "election" means nothing, because no matter who is (s)elected, these imperial policies will remain the same.

This is so because the days of America enjoying such a marked advantage over the rest of the world is coming to a close. Your CONgresspeople have access to data on the actual malignant state of the national economy that few others are privvy too. They also know that without using the military as a blunt instrument to scare the rest of the world into giving up their natural resources, "the American style of life" would collapse in short order.

That's going to happen anyway, but both parties are committed to "going out with a bang." God knows how big this bang will be, and how many people will lose their lives because of it.

So, no -- the dimocrats are not "scared," they just aren't a party of opposition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plato's Parable
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Feb 22, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading these comments I am reminded of Plato's parable about the blind men discussing the elephant. Each touches some part of the elephant and concludes that it is representative of the whole.

Are Democrats fearful of the press or of their own shadows? Certainly, some of them.

Are Democrats corrupt and just as complicit as Republicans? Certainly, some of them.

Are Democrats making a serious effort to reform government? Certainly, some of them.

Does the media make us blind? Certainly, it tries hard to.

Are we making the mistake of generalizing from observing only a small piece of the elephant? Certainly, some of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plato's Parable Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: Wasn't that from Aesop's Fables? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Pass me a hankie and a tiny violin
Posted by: ankhet on Feb 22, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's very touching. But the reason for the Democrats' apparent lack of courage is simply that they're made of the same stuff as the Republicans; they think the same way, take their baksheesh from the same sources, do their work on behalf of the same corporate gangs. They are really, sadly, induistinguishable from the ruling junta. They'd rather look cowardly than be revealed as the reptiles they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is all this "scared" and "timid" stuff?
Posted by: chalquist on Feb 22, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are doing exactly what the Social Democrats of Germany did in the early 1930s: keeping their heads down because they know which way the reactionary winds are blowing through what's left of government. They don't want to be renditioned when the next election either doesn't happen or is stolen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At the Root
Posted by: WhutDaFun on Feb 22, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At its root, isn't the fatal flaw in the system the fact that being a member of congress creates a built-in conflict of interest - i.e. "What's good for the nation may not be good for me"?

If I oppose some terrible legislation because it would be a bad deal for the people, will I lose campaign contributions? Will tons of money and influence be directed against me? Will my intentions be distorted in order to be used against me? Will any of my colleagues have the courage to support me? In short, do I risk losing re-election?

Yes, if they pay any attention to public opinion, they can see that they probably would get plenty of support for necessary stances. However, when it's your butt (your job) on the line, do you *really* want to take a chance? It's still an easy out to just go along to get along. Maybe next time.

BTW, this is not an issue for Republicans, because they either have no clue or don't give a rat's rip about what is good for the nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Big Enemy"?
Posted by: GrannyBgood on Feb 22, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I submit that the "Big Enemy" the Dems are so afraid of is Israel and their huge money-lobby, AIPAC!
I have seen it take the teeth out of once-brave mouths like Feingold, Boxer, etc, who used to speak truth to power and now only seem to come up with a tepid whimper!
What have you got when our Politicians are so beholden to a FOREIGN COUNTRY's lobby money that they feel they can't get elected without kowtowing there? Certainly not a Democracy, and Certainly NOT a great autonomous Nation that puts the interests of its OWN people FIRST!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "Big Enemy"? Posted by: aonghus36
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 22, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The only difference I ever found between the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership is that one of them is skinning you from the ankle up and the other, from the neck down."

Huey P. Long


Direct Primaries!

Direct Elections!

Direct Democracy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A WILD GUESS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 22, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats who have clout can never count on full support of their constituency. Unlike Repblicans who would back their guys all the way to hell. Where was everyone when Gore had his butt handed to him? While it's good to think things through and have an opinion, it's important to recognize a good thing and get behind it. It's just not the way Progrssives think. Just maybe, it's time to get together on a few things. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Country Before Party Posted by: Andie927
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 22, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

Thomas Jefferson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very simple..Anthrax
Posted by: Zimbly on Feb 22, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All you need to do is look back at events after 911, when there was this "anthrax scare"... a few things to note.
1) the anthrax envelopes were only sent to Democratic congressmen
2) later it was found out that the Anthrax was of "military grade only found in a very specific lab in the US"..duhhh

So here is a possible scenario
1) we know that 911 was orchestrated by a very sophisticated "hidden government" or agency within the Industrial -Military complex
2) Bush on 911 "received a phone call"..play the game or die
3) he didn't "know" who they were
4) neither do the Democrats
5) on 911 they "demonstrated their Power"
6) the anthrax was for those"who didn't get the message".
7) so the Dem's "know this and are scared "sh&*less"..wouldn't you be.. its like dealing with a ghost.
8) this "hidden government" is the real government and the one that its in power and the one that "calls the shots"
9) if you don't "play the game"..you'll have and "accident"..or receive an anthrax letter or your "plane will crash/JFK11 and that Senator..forgot his name.
10) the Dem's could.. one day..go completely public about this and let the chips fall where they may..that would require some real courage and cajones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very simple..Anthrax Posted by: galen
Don't ignore "incrementalism"
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Feb 22, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Todd Tucker recently concluded in Corporate Lobbyists Have Turned Human Rights into a Tradeable Commodity:

"....just getting some definitions on the table can get the corporate animal spirits spirited up. Before you know it, public interest advocates are on the defensive, having to articulate why they thought regulation was necessary in the first place. And unfortunately, even many of our best politicians attempt to strike a "middle ground" between the previously unthinkable corporate takeover and the public interest, leading to a continual rightward drift."

The Greed Culture has been intent on its work every day since the ink lay wet on the Declaration. Much of what is done by its enablers naturally -- without express intent -- circumvents democracy. For the rest, influence is cheap to buy, and if a legislator pulls a Duke Cunningham, only the legislator and the bagman get jail time. What a great investment is our Con-Grease!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats don't lack courage they lack language
Posted by: ot on Feb 22, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See this article from 2003. It is even more relevant today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

" I can't wait."
Posted by: mberg on Feb 22, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign when Jerry Brown had a big win in the Connecticut primary. He was on the Phil Donahue show and was openly talking about the real issues facing the country. One of them was health care insurance and he was strongly promoting a government single payer system. Phil interupted in his usual but generous style and asked, " You mean to tell me you are willing to take on the insurance industry?" Jerry, without hesitation, responded confidently," I can't wait."

It was that weekend that Averell Harriman's widow gathered up her friends and invited Bill Clinton to a big pow-wow. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Clinton's campaign was flush with cash and Brown was discredited and shut out of the media. To me this was the visible launch of the DLC and the blatant marriage of the Democratic Party to dominant corporate interests. The Democratic Party usurped the GOP platform as their own with welfare reform, balanced budgets, and anti-labor practices. This certainlly opened the door for the Republican Party to move even further to the right and the neo-con era. Just a side note, there were more mega-mergers during the Clinton years than Reagan and Poppy Bush combined. The most infamous of course being Exxon/Mobil.

The Democratics failure is not simply a lack of courage. The existence of the Congressional Progressive Caucus proves my point with their truly democratic agenda. But it is the DLC and corporatism that has corrupted the system and until the people decide that there is more power in the critical mass of people than money, our government will fail to serve its purpose and ideals.

In my opinion, with Hillary and Bill now, you have the perfect match to Republican skullduggery. They will do absolutely anything to get back into the White House. I find it interesting that the two candidates this election cycle who are unequivocably anti-war, an issue that 75% of the public supports, were literally locked out of one or more televised debates. Sound familiar?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama, is Wall Street's Baby Posted by: Steve Adair
» REPLY Posted by: mberg
Congress needs term limits
Posted by: nfamous on Feb 22, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing points out the need for term limits more than the cowering episodes we are daily witness to with the Democrats. I do believe that some of that actually fear that the Republican attack machine will ruin their livelihood and career for speaking out or voting against them. Republicans probably got dirt on everyone but it's only useful if someone is actually trying to hide something and feels they have something to lose if it's exposed.

I think this just boils down to our government thinking they are better suited to govern us than we are to ourselves. They don't believe they are accountable to us or anyone anymore because of the blatant criminality the Bush administration continues to get away with. The problem is how to get the people that make the laws to make laws that limit their own power. That is almost impossible to do and most Americans don't realize that the power ultimately rests with them. They feign and fawn over politicians like they are gods or something. All they are supposed to be is representatives of the American people.

So in answer to the question Democrats are cowardly but not so much out of fear of reprisal as fear of livelihood. They are greedy and selfish and have too much of a personal take to be true representatives of their constituencies. In other words, they simply are not doing their jobs because they are career politicians. Term limits fixes that to an extent by at least allowing new faces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Robinson: Evolution v. Revolution
Posted by: sslyon on Feb 22, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EXCELLENT! This is certainly the most lucid and accessible analysis of our political State Of The Union I've seen to date. Robinson documents the process of political change and while in this case focusing on the probable result of Revolution, reveals in silhouette the alternative of peaceful Evolution that, at all but the final stages is available to American citizens. That is, it's available to those who aren't numbed by corporatist propaganda and what's trying to pass for entertainment. Her clarity of vision and purpose should provide sufficient motivation for citizens to take charge of their collective political fate before it gets to the tipping point.

This article should be broadly disseminated and is motive and inspiration to positive action by citizens of nearly every political stripe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate Repub/Dem No Choice!
Posted by: Andie927 on Feb 22, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama and Hillary are BOTH Corporate/Centrists,
McCain is certainly in the same pockets,
How far Right do you want to go??Is the only
choose left!!

Unless, we take our country back, by going to a third party, Go Green!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bumper sticker
Posted by: vasumurti on Feb 22, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saw this on a bumper sticker:

Under the Republicans: Man Exploits Man
Under the Democrats: It's the other way around

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

true, but nothing new here ...
Posted by: Shakti on Feb 22, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been the rant on DKos 24/7 for years - "spineless Democrats" has entered into the blogosphere lexicon. The author is restating the obvious.

Any insight into *why* they are so afraid? Why they have so few convictions? Why is is so hard for them to take a stand?

Maybe it is because (as the Edward campaign so painfully demonstrated) corporate control is so complete that any serious threat to corporate domination is quickly squashed by Big Money and Big Media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The three "R"s and the three "B"s
Posted by: willymack on Feb 22, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rethugs remind me of the three "R"s, Repulsive, Repugnant, and Reprehensible. And the demos? Why, the three "B"s, Bamboozled, Bewildered, and Blackmailed. One of the statements in this article is that the demos are afraid our people won't support a progressive, populist agenda, to which I say: Pooh and likewise Pah! Just look at the excitement Sen. Obama is generating in his campaign. He has to look for bigger places to have his speeches, what with so many people flocking to his side to hear his progressive populist speeches. It's time for ALL Democrats to stand up and be heard. Sen Obama can't do it all himself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The King George II Residential Library!
Posted by: williameon on Feb 22, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The George W Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages. You'll
want to be the first at your corporation to make a contribution to this
great man's legacy.

The Library will include:

The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.

The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you can't remember anything.

The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't have to even show up.

The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room (which no one has been able to find).

The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go
back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.

The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete with
shooting gallery

Plans also include: The K-Street Project Gift Shop - where you can buy (or
just steal) an election.

The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican
Senators.

Last, but not least, there will be an entire floor devoted to a 7/8 scale
model of the President's ego.

To highlight the President's accomplishments, the museum will have an
electron microscope, to help you locate them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congressional DemocratsASfraid ? Not Likely !
Posted by: hadashito on Feb 22, 2008 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A short time ago on the Truthout website a report on the failure of gun control legislation stated that the NRA pumped many millions of dollars into the coffers of members of Congress, including an appreciable number of Democrats. "Fear" of their constituencies by our Congressmen had very little to do with the affair.
With lobbyists crowding the hallls of the Capitol building on a daily basis offering generous handouts to our less than honest members of Congress, especially those up for reelection, there are VERY FEW who reject the offers. An honest legislator in DC has become a rarity. Corruption is no longer the (quaint) term used to describe the wholesale buy-off or our elected representatives. Massive pay-offs for favors by legislators are simply business as usual - - and Democtrats are no exception.
Since the legislature will certainly NEVER pass laws to prevent the briberies that now control our legislature, what we need is a series of independent watchdog organizations to identify the briberies, both the bribers and those accepting the bribes, loudly and repeatedly. If ten or twenty are caught, prosecuted, and sent off to prison, the effort might just "reform" the rest of the crooks who have been sent to Washington to pass useful legislation rather than use their positions as platforms for power and wealth.
While the current Republican Party has led the way to the deepest level of corruption in our history, many Democtrats are also just as guilty. We may only hope that a progessive new administration in DC may begin to change the culture there.
We as taxpayers all know it, but the media will never expose the cheaters because the corporate owners of the media are themselves bribers of legislators. The various ethics committees of the Houses of Congress have totally abandoned their responsibilities under the current Republican admnistration, so we need a citizen effort to force the issue, clear the hallls of Congress of the crook and opportunists, and clean out the corruption.
Since the practice of bribery has become so prevalent, one or two Cunnighams or Neys will not suffice; it will require a large scale effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Somebody's got something on these people
Posted by: tlees2 on Feb 22, 2008 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing I can figure is that somebody has some dirt on some of the Democratic leaders that will come out if they push too hard against Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Israel Lobby.
Posted by: cindyn on Feb 22, 2008 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It holds the purse strings for both parties, and both partues dance to it's tune. It's why we're in Iraq, and why we'll be in Iran - no matter who becomes President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Israel Lobby. Posted by: using
At least it is pretty obvious here...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Feb 22, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that most people realize that there is little difference today between a Repuke and a Democrap. One only has to look at the leaders, Pelosi and Reid, a Catholic and a Mormon to boot.

The reasons are open to debate, but the solution is easy, VOTE them ALL out if they mention a God in their personal life. This would be a great acid test. If their is a God He would not behave as any Repuke or Democrap in office with a few exceptions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The blame lies with the VOTERS!
Posted by: antiapathy on Feb 22, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should Democratic politicians act like they have a spine? There is absolutely NO CONSEQUENCE for their cowardice at the polls. They know the voters will hold their nose and vote for a cowardly Democrat, rather than vote for a true progressive and risk "spoiling" the election.

As long as the voters keep "playing it safe" instead of voting for Greens or other real progressive candidates, there will NEVER be any incentive for congressional Dems to stand up for our values.

I can just see the old arguments coming out about how things have been so much worse under Bush than they would have been under Gore, but that darn Nader spoiled the election. But the fact is if Gore had displayed some progressive values instead of promising 4 more years of Clintonian, middle-of-the-road politics, he would have gotten those votes that Nader got and he would have won. You would think that the Dems would have learned something from these last two elections. At least Al Gore did.

Hopefully Sheehan will be able to knock Pelosi off, and the Dems will realize they have to grow some balls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blackmail
Posted by: Magginkat on Feb 22, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blackmail....... plain and simple. It's public knowledge now that the bu$h gang of thugs started intercepting telephone calls as early as February 2001..... almost 8 months before Operation 9-11 the inside terrorist job.

What reason did they have other than gathering material on members of Congress & other high ranking figures for blackmail purposes.

Of course there is corruption throughout that Congress & who knew that better than Dick Cheney and what better way to make an entire congress roll over for each and everything that the bush gang wanted.

Before I die I hope that someone tells the whole truth on these bastards. If I remember correctly there is no statute of limitations on treason and war crimes. I would like to see them imprisoned for the rest of their lives with no chance of parole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fear/Spineless Meme Rings Hollow
Posted by: chlamor on Feb 22, 2008 8:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.

In terms of defending the general population against the depredations of this business consortium, the Dem Party gave up the ghost in the mid-1960's. Their threadbare act as the "Party of the People" serves not to defend the well-being of the population, but merely to persuade ordinary citizens that within the official political system's framework, there's at least some faint hope for eventual progressive change. Their focus is not so much being on our side, as convincing us that they're on our side -- without the slightest serious examination of what that might entail.

The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.

The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

time to stop voting democratic.. wake up
Posted by: grkjr on Feb 23, 2008 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have certainly hit all the basics on trying to figure out just what makes this democratic congress tick. I would underscore what my papa told me so many years ago. "when one loses their moral compass (integrety), they run around in circles and shoot and all rational thought is gone".. these unfortunate souls (democrats) can no longer rationally see reality. For instance (as in the article), most americans want the war to end, they instead follow the most unpopular and minority course of the president out of fear... go figure. Only way out, that i can support, is a new party. If the most consistent progressives would siimply leave the democratic party versus trying to talk such irrational people back into the fold, the possiblity for a new beginning would be started. I will not vote the democratic ticket, even for new individuals seeking congress, .. we have already seen what that gets us.... more of the same as they seem to be mezmerized by the status quo once they get to congress.. for those who say... but wait any democrat is better than a republican.. i say no.. the degrees of difference are so slight as too be, as the article points out, too insignificant. WE must bite the bullet and vote green, independent etc etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not Fear, IT's ABOUT MONEY and a corrupt economic system
Posted by: common intelligence on Feb 23, 2008 9:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The facts as I see it are that behind curtain of the American Political Theater that is being played, back stage the promoter of the illusion and deception realize the audiance is waking up. After sleeping through the last few decades, the boomer generation, that make up a majority of the population, have seen the man behind the curtain.

The illusion has been exposed and the genie can not be put back into the bottle.
That is, the whole economic model everyone has been lead to believe is the Blue Chip stock of foundational security is a lie.
401k's, social security, heath care, elerly care, veterans care, Financial flexibility, viable income producing jobs, the whole infrastructure is surely unraveling.
With the awareness leave of the people rising to a new level the leadership of the country is working desperately keep the whole country from some kind of sudden collapse. Even if it takes igniting another war, preemtive attack, on Iran to keep the truth from exposing people, to what is ahead, they'll do it. For the "...strong economic base.." Bush mentioned in his State of the Union was receive by most everyone, accept those in extreme fearnfilled denial, as hog wash.

This country can not continue stealing the future from the unborn, by borrowing (selling off America, literally , in bonds to the Chinese, India and Japan.That $300-$600 check that's coming "In the mail" was created from thin air. It will do no good in even slowing down the inevitable collapse of the economic system.

The impending desparate times is surely unfolding throughout the American society, all classes will be involved.

This is all why democrats are caving. It's simply because they can't control this run-a-way train either. Anyone that thinks Obama is going to fix it without making Bush and a long string of cronies accountable is lost in somekind of denial or dream land.

Oh, but the system is still selling the American Dream, right?

The game is simply this: As Jackie Gleason said in the Honey Mooners, once you've been caught in a lie, "Deny, Deny, Deny."

Bush is not only "the decider", He is the Distractor. The trip to the middle east, Saudi Arabia, he just did was a "begging trip". Begging the Saudis to bail this collapsing country out. When is he going to China? The Euro has already over taken the Dollar and will become the preferred denomination of the oil cartels soon, if it isn't already.

I just hope the dollar holds enough value that I can exchange the damn stuff in time to get out of this country! But I can't save enough is the delema.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The power of a long-term vision
Posted by: kpaxson on Feb 23, 2008 10:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How did conservatives successfully define good government as limited government, fiscal responsibility as less government, and the common good as the private sector? The answer lies in the conservative movement’s ability to communicate their values and vision.

The author explores the impact of a long-term vision statement, and the lack of one, on the ability of conservatives and progressives to effectively communicate. A proposed progressive vision statement is compared to the conservative vision statement, "Republican Principles."

The lesson to be learned from the rise of conservatism is that a "clearly defined and consistent philosophy" is important to the success of a political movement.

PDF of Report is posted on Commonweal Institute's web site, but is easier to find at

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 -