Are the Democrats really pussies?

[Darth Wong]

We all know the story: the Republicans are corrupt assholes but they're tough and ruthless and they get the job done. Meanwhile, the Democrats are supposed to be principled but they're spineless and weak, and can't get anything done.

But is this really true? What if the Dems are just conflicted, rather than being pussies about these principles they supposedly have? And what if the Republicans have been able to get so much done simply because half the Dems have been totally behind their agenda, rather than having some sort of BadAssMofoCantStopMe mojo?

[Cairber]

Recently in PA governor Rendell tried to help the democrats get some gun legislation passed by speaking on their behalf in front of legislative committee in Harrisburg a few weeks ago. However, the next day- or soon after- 20 or so junior democrats came out saying that they would not sign on in support nor would they issue statements of support in any way. The Black Caucus just up and left the building a few days later in protest of there being no movement on 'meaningful gun control' (not even the one limited hand guns to one a month).

Looking at this situation, I would say it gives evidence to both arguments. There is obvious conflict. (and you see the same thing on abortion in this state- Democrats that are towards the middle, lots of them that won their seats in the recent years, are anti-choice)

But then I wonder how the republicans manage to force everyone into line...and the dems can't seem to do that here.

[Durandal]

It's a matter of who comprises each party. The Republican party's population is much less diverse than the Democratic party's, and the GOP is far more authoritarian. That makes it easier for the Republicans to get the troops in line, so to speak, under one agenda. Because of their party's internal climate, they tend to attract people who are less likely to question authority, like Christian conservatives, the poor and uneducated and military personnel. So when some blowhard Republican congressman does something stupid, he won't catch much flack from his constituents as long as he reminds them of how gay people are responsible for their problems.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are a fragmented party. Because they're liberal, they have a lot of different interests to contend with. They have to make the labor unions, women's rights movements, Hollywood and minorities all happy. Balancing union interests with minorities' interests can be particularly tricky because of illegal immigrant workers. And making Hollywood happy by passing absurd copyright laws tends to mean pissing people like me off.

So that's why they appear spineless. They have make lots of different people happy, and that often means alienating other parts of their constituency. Their consistent sniveling in the face of the minority party doesn't help that image, either.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It certainly seems that the Democratic party are not as willing to push away anyone whereas there are large swaths of the population that the Republican party are fairly comfortable with telling them to go fuck off.

[Cairber]

It certainly seems that the Democratic party are not as willing to push away anyone whereas there are large swaths of the population that the Republican party are fairly comfortable with telling them to go fuck off.

Sometimes I think this must be what happened in PA. The current crop of young democrats must have been republican rejects, now calling themselves "moderate democrats". Then they hit the big time when everyone abandoned the republicans in the last election, but didn't want to move too far away from their comfort zone. So they voted for the 'moderate democrats.'

[MKSheppard]

Recently in PA governor Rendell tried to help the democrats get some gun legislation passed by speaking on their behalf in front of legislative committee in Harrisburg a few weeks ago. However, the next day- or soon after- 20 or so junior democrats came out saying that they would not sign on in support nor would they issue statements of support in any way. The Black Caucus just up and left the building a few days later in protest of there being no movement on 'meaningful gun control' (not even the one limited hand guns to one a month)

Let me guess, those 20 junior democrats were recently elected, and from previously republican seats?

[Cairber]

Recently in PA governor Rendell tried to help the democrats get some gun legislation passed by speaking on their behalf in front of legislative committee in Harrisburg a few weeks ago. However, the next day- or soon after- 20 or so junior democrats came out saying that they would not sign on in support nor would they issue statements of support in any way. The Black Caucus just up and left the building a few days later in protest of there being no movement on 'meaningful gun control' (not even the one limited hand guns to one a month)

Let me guess, those 20 junior democrats were recently elected, and from previously republican seats?

Yeah, I kinda address this in previous post...but I figure people just didn't want to go too far from their republican comfort zone but didn't actually want to vote 'republican.' So they went for these...hybrids...aka 'moderate democrats.'

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Basically yes.

The Democrats pander to everyone they can, while the Republicans only really seek to pander to one select group.

Hence when it comes time to pay back those election promises... The Republicans have fewer agendas to try and squeeze into bills.


Both parties are inept and corrupt at every level. But that's unavoidable in any form of government. Least of all a popular representative one.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I think it's simple: The Republican Machine is powered by stupidity and the Repubs know it!

[MKSheppard]

The crux is that the traditional Democrat Machine bases have been in a death spiral since the 60s:

The Urban Inner City population has long been spiraling down in power; as more and more people left the perceived crime ridden cities for the safer suburbs -- this has been going on for decades, and only recently has it been halted; but here's the crux; the people who are moving back to the cities aren't the minorities who traditionally vote democrat; but relatively rich (read=white) people.

The Unions; long a stronghold of Democrat power, have been ruthlessly cut down to size - they can no longer in most of the country, invoke strikes big enough to have political impact.

You can see this in the shifting dynamics of politics in Maryland -- the city of Baltimore, long a stronghold of Democrat machine politics in the state, is being slowly forced out of the picture by the suburbs of Maryland; who tend to be less liberal than the old strongholds, and hence more competent in providing services.

[MKSheppard]

Because of their party's internal climate, they tend to attract people who are less likely to question authority, like Christian conservatives, the poor and uneducated and military personnel.

I guess all that blowback that killed the amnesty bills that were being pushed by Bush and the RNC were from robotic republican drones.

[SirNitram]

We all know the story: the Republicans are corrupt assholes but they're tough and ruthless and they get the job done. Meanwhile, the Democrats are supposed to be principled but they're spineless and weak, and can't get anything done.

But is this really true? What if the Dems are just conflicted, rather than being pussies about these principles they supposedly have? And what if the Republicans have been able to get so much done simply because half the Dems have been totally behind their agenda, rather than having some sort of BadAssMofoCantStopMe mojo?

Welcome to what happens when it becomes inconceivable to be liberal. The Right Wing pushes ever-right, and it's authoritarian nature manifests now as lock-step voting. A new energy bill that would have ended oil subsidies and given them to non-carbon power for an extended period got killed. Why? 59 votes. 'WAIT! 59 votes is a majority!' Why yes, padawan, but the Republicans just decided to demand a cloture vote.. And without 60, no vote. And if they got sixty, so what? Bush vetos. Now you need 67.

The fundamental balance of power is gone, because Bush has shown he'll even veto the standard appropriations bills if they aren't what he wants, and will force congress to remain in session until he gets his shiny toys. The only way out is Impeachment.. But the last try got killed by an individual spineless cretin who recommitted it. In plain language? Sent it to the bottom of the pile in a committee that's already overworked, Oversight.

[Darth Massacrus]

The only way out is Impeachment..

two words: President Cheney.

Sometimes, the cure is worse than the illness....

[SirNitram]

The only way out is Impeachment..

two words: President Cheney.

Sometimes, the cure is worse than the illness....

The Impeachment sitting on a table and being pushed anew by three members of the Judiciary is for Cheney.

Not stupid, just unable to get past the conservatives in their own ranks.

[Darth Massacrus]

Lets assume that the Democrats do manage to impeach Cheney (lets also assume the devil takes up snowboarding). Who would replace Cheney?

[SirNitram]

Lets assume that the Democrats do manage to impeach Cheney (lets also assume the devil takes up snowboarding). Who would replace Cheney?

The President can nominate anyone he chooses, though the official line of succession would be Condoleeza Rice.

Far less dangerous if they then succeed in putting cuffs on Bush. Also, it would make the racist/sexist wing of the GOP freak out, knowing they caused the first black, woman President.

[Elfdart]

Arthur Silber has been making the case that many elected Democrats, the leadership in particular, are neither cowards, nor are they two-faced towards their liberal voters. His thesis: Hack Democrats really DO support wars of aggression, torture, illegal eavesdropping, wiretaps without warrants, abducting people and handing them over to Third World shitholes for disposal, and every other abomination you can think of.

The dog that didn't bark is the fact that opposing the Iraq War, torture, illegal wiretaps, etc are all the position the majority of people in this country support. So if Dems were just being cowardly and opportunistic, one would think that they might adopt the position of their constituents when it's perfectly safe to do so.

For example, Senator Chris Dodd put a hold on a bill (which is to say, he blocked it) that would give the phone companies immunity from lawsuits and prosecution for helping the government spy on citizens illegally. This abomination of a bill is the pet project of not only the White House, but Democratic Senator Rockefeller. Rockefeller is filthy rich in his own right AND has a huge campaign fund AND has a seat in the Senate that would be damn near impossible to vote him out of. Most people polled do not approve of granting immunity to the telecom companies, and certainly not among Democratic voters. Dodd's hold should be the end of it, right? Wrong. Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to overrule Dodd's hold on the bill and when Dodd announced his intention to filibuster it, Reid set about to screw Dodd at every turn -all to make illegal wiretapping and spying legal. Why would he do this?

Money? No. He's swimming in campaign cash.
Political expediency? No. The expedient thing to do would be to let it die quietly. As Glenn Greenwald points out, Reid never overrules a hold placed by Republican senators.

Whenever complaints are voiced about Congressional Democrats, invariably there arises in comments and elsewhere protests that complaints should only focus on Republicans, that most everything is their fault, and that Democrats are doing the very best they can but are simply helpless due to GOP tactics and the constraints of their own caucus. I rarely answer such protests because I know that Democrats will soon provide an answer with their actions far more compelling than any I could construct with words.

Today, they provide but the latest iteration of the answer as to why there is so much dissatisfaction and anger towards them, including from those who fully recognize the pragmatic constraints involved. This isn't a case where they are trying to oppose Bush's demands on telecom amnesty and warrantless surveillance powers but are sadly thwarted by a lack of votes. Rather, Harry Reid is doing everything he can to thwart those who are attempting to impede Bush's demands and thus doing everything he can to ensure that the White House is liberated from the prospect of accountability for past lawbreaking and vested with vast, new eavesdropping powers with as little oversight as possible -- just as Mitch McConnell would be doing if he were Majority Leader (though even McConnell might lack the audacity to simply run roughshod over Dodd's hold, as Reid is apparently doing -- while treating Tom Coburn's holds as sacred).

Put another way, the issue isn't that they're failing to impose limits on the President. It's not even that they're failing to do everything they can to do so. The issue is that they are devoting their efforts and energies -- again -- to ensuring that the White House wins, its radicalism enabled and bolstered, and the people who support them thwarted in what they believe.

The criticism isn't that Harry Reid is being insufficiently aggressive in opposing the White House. It's that he's doing what he can to support the White House, serving as their key ally.

Ockham's Razor would favor the theory that Dems like Reid and Pelosi aren't liberals who are willing to appease Republitards when it comes to such heinous acts. Instead, they really do support those acts and only pose as liberals because they don't have the luxury of running for office in Orange County or Alabama.

[Flagg]

I think alot of this has to do with pure political strategizing. You weaken Bush's programs and things like Iraq and FISA lose some of their urgency. Which is detrimental to getting liberals out voting for the Democratic presidential nominee.

It's basically the same shit the Republicans did in 2004 by suddenly pushing Anti-Gay Marriage amendments when there had been no real mention of it prior to campaign season.

[Warsie]

Many democrats are pussies who followed the Republicans and agreed with the Repubs secretly.

Many are decent leftists who can't do much. And yes there is disagreement, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Why are we assuming that politicians have any better judgment than regular people? I think that the politicians here simply reflect their constituencies. The Republicans reflect the self-interested rich-guy constituency that they come from, as well as the idiot fundie/racist/redneck constituency that they take advantage of. The Democrats reflect the Mindless Middle of American politics: the teeming masses of people who can't be bothered to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to pay attention to what's really happening in the world, and whose idea of a big issue is to try and get the feds to pay more attention to their regional special interests.

Between the Republigays and the Conservacrats, I think the soft, mushy middle of American politics can be seen quite clearly. It doesn't have any real concept of principles or ideals or values, and it certainly has no particular sense of judgment or planning. People who believe that they do anything out of principle are simply being naive; the closest that they come to principles is their loyalty to whoever paid the most money to help them get into office.

[Flagg]

I really can't say I agree with that. The Democrats represent much of the left and the centrists. There's a constant war within the party between the leftists ideologues, and the centrist corporatists. I think the best example of that was James Carville (a Clintonite) trying to get Dean removed as head of the DNC after he ignored the advice of the centrists and essentially won back both houses of Congress.

The mindless middle seems to go with whoever looks or sounds better at any particular time. They're usually that magical 11% of "undecided" idiots who seem to populate every poll.

[Patrick Degan]

Arthur Silber has been making the case that many elected Democrats, the leadership in particular, are neither cowards, nor are they two-faced towards their liberal voters. His thesis: Hack Democrats really DO support wars of aggression, torture, illegal eavesdropping, wiretaps without warrants, abducting people and handing them over to Third World shitholes for disposal, and every other abomination you can think of.

The dog that didn't bark is the fact that opposing the Iraq War, torture, illegal wiretaps, etc are all the position the majority of people in this country support. So if Dems were just being cowardly and opportunistic, one would think that they might adopt the position of their constituents when it's perfectly safe to do so.

For example, Senator Chris Dodd put a hold on a bill (which is to say, he blocked it) that would give the phone companies immunity from lawsuits and prosecution for helping the government spy on citizens illegally. This abomination of a bill is the pet project of not only the White House, but Democratic Senator Rockefeller. Rockefeller is filthy rich in his own right AND has a huge campaign fund AND has a seat in the Senate that would be damn near impossible to vote him out of. Most people polled do not approve of granting immunity to the telecom companies, and certainly not among Democratic voters. Dodd's hold should be the end of it, right? Wrong. Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to overrule Dodd's hold on the bill and when Dodd announced his intention to filibuster it, Reid set about to screw Dodd at every turn -all to make illegal wiretapping and spying legal. Why would he do this?

Money? No. He's swimming in campaign cash.
Political expediency? No. The expedient thing to do would be to let it die quietly. As Glenn Greenwald points out, Reid never overrules a hold placed by Republican senators.

Whenever complaints are voiced about Congressional Democrats, invariably there arises in comments and elsewhere protests that complaints should only focus on Republicans, that most everything is their fault, and that Democrats are doing the very best they can but are simply helpless due to GOP tactics and the constraints of their own caucus. I rarely answer such protests because I know that Democrats will soon provide an answer with their actions far more compelling than any I could construct with words.

Today, they provide but the latest iteration of the answer as to why there is so much dissatisfaction and anger towards them, including from those who fully recognize the pragmatic constraints involved. This isn't a case where they are trying to oppose Bush's demands on telecom amnesty and warrantless surveillance powers but are sadly thwarted by a lack of votes. Rather, Harry Reid is doing everything he can to thwart those who are attempting to impede Bush's demands and thus doing everything he can to ensure that the White House is liberated from the prospect of accountability for past lawbreaking and vested with vast, new eavesdropping powers with as little oversight as possible -- just as Mitch McConnell would be doing if he were Majority Leader (though even McConnell might lack the audacity to simply run roughshod over Dodd's hold, as Reid is apparently doing -- while treating Tom Coburn's holds as sacred).

Put another way, the issue isn't that they're failing to impose limits on the President. It's not even that they're failing to do everything they can to do so. The issue is that they are devoting their efforts and energies -- again -- to ensuring that the White House wins, its radicalism enabled and bolstered, and the people who support them thwarted in what they believe.

The criticism isn't that Harry Reid is being insufficiently aggressive in opposing the White House. It's that he's doing what he can to support the White House, serving as their key ally.

Ockham's Razor would favor the theory that Dems like Reid and Pelosi aren't liberals who are willing to appease Republitards when it comes to such heinous acts. Instead, they really do support those acts and only pose as liberals because they don't have the luxury of running for office in Orange County or Alabama.

This would seem to cohere with observations the late historian Walter Karp made about party politics in America through most of the 20th century and in the last two decades of the 19th —particularly in the era when progressives were being beaten down by the party machines and, in some instances, nightsticks wielded by cops. In Karp's view, the object of the exercise is simply to stay in power, whether of the party machine or the national government.

The twist to this in recent times is that the Democrats haven't really figured out yet that today's GOP really do want a one-party state in America, and that it doesn't have the "D" initial.