12/14/2007 09:10:07 PM EST

Where Are Our Leaders When We Need Them?

posted by Cenk

First, there was the abysmal, pathetic, inexcusable and cravenly collapse on Iraq War funding. The Democrats gave into ALL of the demands of the most unpopular president of all time. And where were our so-called Democratic leaders?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
I understand there are a number of people on the campaign stump claiming they are going to be wonderful leaders. Really? What have they led on? When have they ever defeated Bush? Did I mention their opponent is the most unpopular president in American history?

This is not ancient history. It's happening right now. So, the Democratic presidential hopefuls were MIA on the Iraq War funding fight, or lack thereof. They went right along with yet another Democratic cave-in. No fight, no leadership, no nothing.

Then there was the energy bill, where the Democrats tried to take back $13.5 billion in outrageous subsidies that the Republicans had given the oil companies in the middle of their record breaking profits. And what happened? Another loss. That provision was stripped out when the Republicans mustered up 40 votes, including Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), to pull of yet another successful filibuster.

And we got the familiar refrain of losers - what could we do? Oh, you poor schmucks, did you get outmaneuvered and outvoted again? How about you put a world of pressure on your own senator to not betray your whole party and the American people by giving the oil companies $13.5 billion of our hard-earned money? Does this party have any leaders? Do they have any idea what leaders do?

If Senator Clinton, or Obama or Biden had an ounce of leadership in them, they would have found a way to win by one vote rather than lose by one vote for the billionth time. Please don't tell me they were too busy worrying about their own careers on the campaign trail to actually do their job. You know what would be a convincing argument on the campaign stump - I actually got something done! I actually beat George Bush for once! But right now, none of them can make that claim.

But at least one of them has been trying, and that's why I left his name off the above list of senators. Chris Dodd is fighting one of the most important fights - not allowing the telecoms to get immunity for their law-breaking on FISA. If they get this, the entire Bush administration would be shielded from any accountability for their brazen violations of federal law.

So, who is fighting to make sure this victory goes to the Republicans - Harry Reid, naturally. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent explanation of how Sen. Reid helped the Republicans tremendously with a legislative maneuver today. I don't know if he knows this, but he's supposed to be on the other side of the aisle. And this is our leader?

Let me not mince words, Harry Reid is a terrible majority leader. In fact, it's an insult to the word "leader" to use it in the same sentence as Harry Reid. Why would you help George Bush and the Republicans break the law?!

Actually, I know why. It's because so many of the Democrats are also in the pockets of the telecommunication lobby and some of the Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, have been complicit in allowing the worst abuses of this administration. So, they're looking to cover their own ass. Just like when they gave into Bush on the Iraq War and on federal spending, but kept the one thing they care most about - pork-barrel spending. Greedy politicians have to make sure their asses are covered first.

I don't know if Harry Reid is part and parcel of these complicit Democrats, and I don't care. It's possible that he's just too weak to stand up to them. What a ringing defense, "I am not a greedy, law-breaker; I'm just too weak to stop them." What I do know is that results matter and his results have been hideous.

To top all of this off, Reid had to help the Republicans by burying a hatchet in the back of Chris Dodd, who has been trying to fight this immunity provision tooth and nail. Sen. Reid respects Republican Tom Coburn's holds on bills because to do otherwise would be to challenge the bullies, God forbid. But he won't respect his own colleagues hold on this bill. I'm trying to see if there is any other way Reid can hurt us. If it can be imagined, believe me, he'll find it and do it.

But this fight is not yet over. The other Democratic contenders promised that they would help Dodd filibuster if it came down to that. Then they prayed all night that their bluff wouldn't be called. Well, it has. It's now put up or shut up time. Will the other Democratic senators in the presidential field, come to the defense of their fellow Democrat and help to lead this filibuster fight?

God, this is so easy. The first one to jump on the bandwagon would gain so much credibility with primary voters. And they would lose nothing. Do you have any idea how many Democratic votes (or independent votes, for that matter) you would lose if you stood up to Bush? None, zero, not one.

This should be a no-brainer for Obama or Clinton. They should be tripping over themselves to jump to Dodd's side on Monday. Let's get real, as much as I respect Senator Dodd (who I have absolutely no affiliation with), he is not likely to win the nomination. So, the person who works with him can soak up all the credit for this fight.

This is the time to show us if you are truly leaders or not. This is not theoretical; it's real and it's now. On Monday, will you do as you promised and help to lead a fight against Bush's law-breaking or will you show that you're no leader at all?

As frustrated as I am that none of these folks has done a damn thing to stand up to Bush all this time, I am willing to look past all that if we could just get one of them to stand up just one time. And that time is now. Will any of them do it? Is there a leader among them?

The Young Turks

< Is TYT suspended? | Mitt Buys the Medium: Clear Channel >
 Display:
Where Are Our Leaders When We Need Them? | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
One swift stroke of Occam's razor... (none / 0)
...and what you have is not weakness, but complete complicity. There is no other explanation to the positions that the Democrats have been taking, so when you look at it for what it is - complete complicity, it explains everything. They do not stand up to Bushco. because they have the exact same positions as him, they do not de-fund the war because they are in favor of it (they all voted for it didn't they), so if you cut through the BS rhetoric you can see then for what they are, fully and with complete knowledge and comprehension complicit. Period...this is why after the first supposed "cave-in" on the war funding I reregistered as an independent after 30+ years as a Democrat...fuck'em, when history is written about these lot the Democrats should be given an equal share in the blame.

by keith on 12/15/2007 09:53:55 AM EST

Good Question (none / 0)
It seems like only yesterday that I was asking the same question when I couldn't find my favorite radio program.

by Dogger on 12/15/2007 11:43:42 AM EST

Obama (none / 0)
Well Obama votes against the war. Isn't that enough for a free pass?

by acroso on 12/15/2007 08:13:10 PM EST

Weakness=Joe Lieberman; Strength=filibuster (none / 0)

Senate Democrats have to tread lightly since they don't have a majority. Lieberman says, "JUMP", and they say, "HOW HIGH, SIR". Otherwise he jumps to the Republicans. That's almost the worst case scenario.

OTOH, no matter how important it is to do anything, Reid must allow the Republicans to filibuster, and he'd better require a real filibuster, 24/7, no breaks. That way people can see that it's the Republicans--and Lieberman--who are obstructing the people's work, otherwise, they blame the Dems when Repubs are the guilty party.

Even Lieberman won't have an excuse to switch parties when the Republicans filibuster and show in public the obstructionists that they are in the Senate. 

Why don't the people of Connecticut recall this selfish creep??!!! 

by zenie on 12/17/2007 09:08:27 AM EST

There are 2 parties ruled by a third. (none / 0)
We have two "major" political parties and often the question comes up about whether a third party can rise into play. Actually, a "third party" is the party currently in control, because that party has taken over the so-called "two" parties. The ruling third party is not listed on any ballot, not found in any political index, but it is the one that rules. It goes by many names, the Business Party, the Corporate Party, the Ruling Class, etc., but it is the unnamed party that controls the leadership of both the Republican and Democrat parties.

Anyone can step back a little and see this clearly by paying attention to the complaints of the rank and file of both parties who say over and over again how their leadership does not follow through on their party values. It may be that Democrats look at the Democrat leaders like Harry Reid and call him a Republican-lite, but Republicans too look at George Bush and see Democrat-lite. Yes, it is true. Bush has kept virtually none of his Republican values since he has been elected. We all remember his claim that he wouldn't be a president who sought regime change, and turned around and did just that. Bush campaigned on small government and created the largest government bureaucracy in many years. Bush campaigned on fiscal responsibility and not increasing the deficit yet has spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave creating the largest deficits in many years. See Thomas Frank’s book "What’s the Matter With Kansas" for a great review of how populist Republicans are hornswoggled.

So rank and file Republicans have had their values abused as much by their leadership as Democrats have by theirs. Who is doing the abusing? It is the Business Party, (A.K.A. The Military-Industrial-Corpora te Plutocracy) that has taken over BOTH political parties and use the arguments over social issues to trick and con the voters into thinking that they are voting for two parties. The party controlling the two parties is the party that Harry Reid and George Bush both belong to. The argument within this single party dictatorship that becomes reflected in the debates between Republicans and Democrats, is not about who owns and controls America (that is a given - they do), but about how the working classes (middle and lower) will be treated. It is all about how to maintain the ownership society for greater profits and control.


It boils down to Republicans saying that since the middle and lower classes don’t have real power they don’t deserve any more benefits than they can fight for tooth and nail. The Democrats say why should the owners of the ownership society have the headaches from labor and culture wars? The Democrats position is that the middle and lower classes will be less volatile, less socially disruptive, and better workers producing more profits if they are given better working ans social conditions. This is the foundation of the New Deal that was instituted under fear of the popularity of 1930's socialism. The rich owners like Franklin D. Roosevelt perceived the treat to their social control after the Crash of 1929. They pointed out that the Republican philosophy of the 1920.s failed. Even Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican who agreed and saw that they (the ownership class) were more secure under the New Deal than under the pre-1930 Republicanism.


In the 1980s the Republicans came back with a vengeance to undo the New Deal. This was a resurgence within the Business Party to get greater profits. The current Bush presidency has followed this political logic arguably to its greatest degree ever resulting in more corruption than any other previous presidency.


So why are Democrats so weak? Because their first interest is protecting the Business Party and their commitment to Democrat values is only for appeasement of the middle and lower classes. Where a Democrat can get the reward of appeasement by words alone, then they don’t need to actually act. Thus, the Business Party Democrats only have to mouth the rhetoric in 9 out of 10 cases because the rank and file Democrats are so completely fooled. The Democrat leadership only reacts to social disruption or upheaval, and then only to the degree that it relieves the steam pressure and the rank and file fall back into their hypnotized acquiescence to leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.


Okay, that was more wordy than I expected but the point should be clear. Every time political discussion accepts the FRAME that there are two parties - Republican and Democrat - then the affect of the real THIRD party that is in control of both parties is buried and denied.


What can be done? Outlets like The Young Turks need to provide at least a minimal forum for informing voters of this political process and the phenomenon of both parties being hijacked. One thing that could be done is for TYT to bring on the minor national parties such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party to have discussions about the political process and how the marginalization process works. I’d like to see Greens and Libertarians on TYT together at the same time so the audience can hear the alternatives. I understand why this can’t be a full time endeavor for TYT but if TYT could at least do a once a week segment that focuses on alternatives to the Republican-Democrat-Busines s Party that would be the greatest gift to democracy that TYT could provide.

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 12/17/2007 03:17:34 PM EST

Where Are Our Leaders When We Need Them? | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: