After answering question after question about how the American people can possibly think that Democrats, especially the subset of the species that lives in Washington DC are nothing more than spineless, clueless eunuchs, I have done some exhaustive quantitative and qualitative research and discovered the reason behind these widespread beliefs:
Democrats, especially the subset of the species that lives in Washington, DC are nothing more than spineless, clueless eunuchs.
It actually gives me comfort to have come to this understanding, the fresh perspective on reality and allow me to present Exhibit A: Iraq.
Remember 2006? Hell, Remember 2004?
Here's what Nancy Pelosi said almost four years ago:
"This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer," she said.
One would presume that a person taking such a position and stand would then when in not just a but the position to do something about it, would do something about it.
No, she hasn't. Not only has she not done anything about it, Majority Leader Reid has done nothing about it. They have failed to take Iraq as concrete blocks and tie them around John McCain.
In conversations, it has become clear to me that the Democrats, spineless clueless eunuchs, when given power in the fall 2006 had no clear idea on how to act like damm leaders and lead.
They were so whipped by Republicans they have Stockholm syndrome and want to play nice with those who spanked them for so long - it's a shocking indictment clearly exemplified in this article from The Boston Globe this week.
By month's end, House Democrats plan to produce a major supplemental spending bill - totaling as much as $170 billion - to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the next presidency, channel more federal money to the ailing domestic economy, and set policies they hope will begin to move US troops out of the Middle East.
$170,000,000,000 more for George Bush's failure, supported by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats -- and before you go commenting about the votes and the politics of it, I have one very simple fact for you:
As Paul Abrams and I pointed out, and a private conversation with a very well-connected and beautiful DC insider last week confirmed, not only does Speaker Pelosi NOT have to bring this bill to the floor, thereby not forcing anyone to vote for or against it, it has been brought up to her that she doesn't have to which is spineless.
She and other Democratic leaders also fail to point out that with a Department of Defense budget in the hundreds of billions, they could fund the war if they wished. But what they want is the Democrats to fund the war, because you fund it, you own it. Not realizing that is clueless.
Here are a few facts to consider:
Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress meaning we can do what we damm well please, vote on what we want, when we want or not vote on anything, but consider the news out of Iraq since January 2007,
over 1,000 American men and women have been killed in Iraq,
that's on our watch.
over $300 billion has been wasted, on our watch.
Army, Marine and National Guard units have been sent back for their second and third tours of duty, greatly raising the rate of mental health issues, on our watch.
We own this war.
And Nancy Pelosi is funding it. In doing so, she and the other quote-unquote leaders while failing completely to end the war, they are completely succeeding at ending the Democratic Party as we know it.
Follow James Boyce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesboyce
What else is more important to this majority leader than to stop this country from going down the drain ?
Then when it's time to run for president, we see Hillary Goldwater: pro war, pro nukes, pro guns, anti-abortion, pro corporation, anti-union, anti-labor, anti-black. Did I forget anything?
Unfortunately I think the people who call the shots within the Democratic party are the ones who control the donations, who can bring in the most money. Bill got a lock on a lot of it, as did his friends, and they are pro war and pro corporate. Nancy Pelosi should not be blamed for the right-wing tendencies of some of the Democrats.
NABNYC,
"Nancy Pelosi should not be blamed for the right-wing tendencies of some of the Democrats."
One phrase sums up my thoughts on this: "Impeachment is off the table".
That pronouncement was nothing more than the biggest white flag in history. Everything else is secondary after that...
*
History tells us that Richard Nixon stepped down only when he had a visit from key GOP members. This time we don't have the same goods. Some say we do. Criminal charges may be the best answer.
To fix this mess may take more leadership than one lifetime affords. That's just one reality of history. Rock and a hard place for the present crop of Dems. Can we get the change we want?
Or will we elect the president we deserve. Again.Guess it's up to us. Yeah, "we the people".
You say, "...they are completely succeeding at ending the Democratic Party as we know it", as if that is a bad thing. Personally, I think the Dem Party as we currently know it needs to be ended, or at the very least, divided into two parties -- one for progressives and the other status quo that we have now.
There are still a few good Dems in congress, but they are outnumbered by the PelosiReid-ites that take no solid stand on anything it seems. Those few good Dems should break off and form a new Party for true progressives. I think there is enough support in the nation at this point.
40K casualties (i.e. K.I.A.), $$$$$ spent , Demos turn Presidency over to
Repos, who take another 6 years, 20K more K.I.A. getting US out.
Iraq: Repos get US into war over 'freedom, oil, WMD, terrorists or some
damn thing or other'. Six years in, 4K of K.I.A., $$$$$$$$ spent, Repos
MAYBE turn Presidency over to Demos, who do 'some damn thing or other'.
See the difference?
Eunuchs? I'll buy that. And it was the voters who stayed home in droves who did the deed.
So, who is clueless and spineless?
You can't develop much spine lying on the couch. You have no clue if you don"t read, but get your "information" from sound bites.
Namecalling can't change the fact that without a veto-proof majority the Democrats have no real power. Nor will they until we elect a democratic President and a strong majority in the House and Senate. We'll have to give those leaders something to work with rather than calling them names. Reserve some of those names for those who have abdicated their responsibility as citizens in a democracy.
Better yet, encourage everyone to excercise that responsibility in 2008 and beyond.
If it were the GOP in this position, they'd get almost everything they wanted.
The problem is Pelosi and Reid are Corporate-friendly Neoliberals. Them along with a dozen or so "Blue-Dog" Democrats continuously vote with the Repugs on issues of war and slavery (Globalization).
The Liberal base should be supporting Sheehans' early primary against Pelosi. It's time to take back the Democratic Party from the Corporate henchmen.
I assume all you righteously angered folks have actively done something like voting in every election, writing your elected officials, getting out and protesting this horror at every opportunity, volunteered for a candidate. We are all implicated in this mess. And that is my point.
Leadership? Apparently we tend to get the leadership we deserve rather than the leadership we need.
If a majority in the house votes against a funding bill, it dies right there. All funding bills originate in the house.
Pelosi can stop a funding bill all by herself by simply not scheduling it for a vote.
Yes, Nancy and Harry could end the war. They could make sure torture-loving war criminals with law degrees do not become Attorneys General of the United States. They could have kept impeachment "on the table" (yes, it's there in the Constitution Nancy. Did you mean that the Constitution was off the table, too, Nancy? Yes, you did.)
The Democrats will ultimately go down in history as the party that deserved Ralph Nader. A pathetic, even tragic legacy. Pathetic for them, tragic for us.
We all know Bush caused more damage to this country than any terrorists could have dreamed. However, what Nancy Pelosi did to her own party is deplorable. She embarrassed and disappointed the Democrats beyond repair. And for failure to protect the USA as required by the constitution, she broke the law. This is one Democrat who will NEVER forget what she did.
It's hard to admit that the government has been taken over by a class of criminals willing to kidnap, imprison, torture and kill anyone they designate as their enemy, so we don't.
It's hard to admit that the criminal class's NSA can and will destroy any opposing public figure with their illegal spying and total invasions of privacy, so we don't.
It's hard to admit that America is not what we were taught (and hoped) it was, so we don't.
He has threatened to expose their crimes, so I predict that they will probably destroy Obama, the heir apparent to JFK, King & RFK together and the only real leader to rise from beyond the circle of criminals in a long time. It will be another "loner", of course, who takes the fall (that works very well, if memory serves), or, if they get especially creative, a conspiracy of "radical leftists" so they can discredit their entire opposition even as they decapitate it.
I don't think this is even mildly paranoid, but logical and, if history is a guide, likely. The magitude of the crimes of the ruling class over the last seven years demand a highly criminal means of preventing their investigation and subsequent exposure. Obama has promised to expose them, so...
Mmmmhmmm
But the author doesn't complete the story by relating why Pelosi doesn't do this. She knows that AIPAC has intimidated house democrats to the point that they will replace her as speaker if she doesn't allow a funding vote.
AIPAC wants the Iraq occupation to continue and Syria and Iran to be conquered so Israel can finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Since AIPAC controls the campaign finance committees through Schumer and Emanuel, they control which politicians get money for their campaigns.
He brings in big bucks for the dems.
What in the world makes anyone think that defunding the war will end the war? George Bush and the republicans have built enough money into the Defense Department budget to fund this war well past January 20, 2009.
The only people that would suffer from defunding the war will be the troops on the ground, you know, those people the neocons don't give a flying fig about..
As for having a large enough majority to end the war, forget it. It is simply not there. If one has any idea how congress works, one would not call Pelosi and Reid names. Don't forget, there are still some democrats voting with the republicans on this.
What's with these elected official who WON'T do the will off the people?
There are better democrats out there. They're the ones we need.
And if someone says, "Better Republicans", put your head further into the toilet. And flush repeatedly.