Are the Democrats Worse Than the Republicans?

President Bush is the most unpopular president of all time - literally. No one has had approval ratings this low for this long in American history. Yet he keeps on kicking the crap out of the Democrats.

If you keep losing to the worst, what does that make you?

Today, President Bush will win another huge victory on telecom immunity. He will get away with breaking the law and ordering private companies to break the law for him, which he freely admits. He is making the argument that the president is above the law in the United States of America. And the Democrats can't find a way to beat that argument.

I have no respect for the Democrats. You'd be crazy to have any. Crazy. Blinded by hope or partisan fever to have any respect for these bunch of losers. They keep telling us that they can't possibly beat the most unpopular president of all time. Is there a word worse than loser? Because if there is, it should be applied to the Democrats; if there isn't, they should create one for the Democrats.

On the one had, Democrats will keep telling you that they can't get anything passed in this Congress because the Republicans have 41 Senators that they can filibuster any legislation with. On the other hand, the Republicans will now get this telecom immunity passed through Congress. So, do the Democrats not have 41 Senators, so they can block this bill? Of course they do. They just don't have the nerve. They are collaborators.

I don't believe there is anything the President could have done that would make the Democrats actually challenge him. He broke this law, admitted it, rubbed it in their faces and then made them pass a law that immunizes his law breaking. What other laws could the president have broken? Based on this precedent, just about anything.

If they cared to do this right, the proper strategy would have been painfully easy. Pass an intelligence bill that closes the foreign communication loophole (the only real national security issue that has to be addressed) and don't put in any provision about telecom immunity. Then send it to the president. Have him veto it. And then scream bloody murder that the president is jeopardizing national security. Because he would be.

Telecom immunity has nothing to do with national security at this point. First of all, it's retroactive, so it has nothing to do with current security issues. Secondly, they'll have their day in court. If they are right, then they have nothing to worry about. Their actions will be judged to be legal and they will have no liability. Problem solved.

It's not that this case is hard to make. It's that the Democrats don't want to make it. That's because they don't want to make any case or pick any fight or win on any issue. They are scared to death of the Republicans, to this day as the Republicans are running for the hills and figuring out how many more seats they are going to lose in Congress.

One quick side note. This might mean the Democrats lack all courage. It might mean they are callous and want to lose on purpose. But it doesn't mean they're stupid. They have calculated that policy losses will lead to political victories. And it looks like they are right. But these policy losses have real consequences for our country and our constitution.

Think about this for example. If the president is authorized to order private companies to break the law for national security, why couldn't he order other companies to do a break in - say at a complex like the Watergate building in Washington - and then say it was for national security?

You say that's absurd? But what is warrantless wiretapping but a break-in? It's breaking and entering into your private conversations and communications without a warrant and outside of the law. Do we even know who they wiretapped? Isn't it possible that the Democrats are now retroactively authorizing wiretaps of their own phones?

Since I am still a naïve and gullible guy, I don't think the Bush administration wiretapped the Democrats. But I have no basis for believing that. How do we know if they did or didn't? How do we know the Democrats aren't immunizing this very act? They don't know, because they didn't even bother to find out who got wiretapped and for what reason.

Now, I have to give the standard caveats about how there are some who do the right thing in the Democratic Party. I will give the standard example of Russ Feingold (he is the standard example because he seems to be the only who does the right thing on a regular basis). Having said that, if you think your particular Congressman or Senator is one of the good ones, you're probably wrong. This is capitulation en masse. They almost all go along to get along.

And then of course there is the standard caveat about how the Republicans are worse. Yes, of course, they are. They are the ones committing the crimes in the first place. But I get them, I get their motivation. It's the stomach churning capitulation by the Democrats that's infuriating. Who respects a collaborator? Aren't those the kind of people you least want to be associated with?

The main advantage of the Democrats is that they know we have nowhere to turn. They know we're smart enough to not vote for these Republicans. And that might be true in the short-term. But we better be making plans to throw these bums out the next time around. Make a list of all the people who collaborated with the Republicans when it mattered. And in due time, they should all get a knock on the door, from a primary opponent. Let's make a list and check it twice. And never forget those names.

Young Turks on You Tube

< May I Politely Disagree with George Lakoff? | Bensday - Good addition! >
 Display:
On Olbermann last night they addressed another, darker, motive that you didn't here.  You seem to believe that they are doing this because they don't want to "win".  Maybe, the reality is, for certain powerful Democrats passing this law is "winning". 

We know Democratic leaders in Congress knew this was going on and did nothing.  Maybe some of them actually had a part in it and know that if the Administration is held accountable then so will they.  Reid and Pelosi as well as many of the others are scum.  Also, I am disappointed that Obama has yet to take a strong stand anytime any of these clear violations of the Constitution come around.  He typically votes against them, but as (now officially) a party leader he should be at the front of the charge against them.

Run, Republicans, run as far to the right as you can. It's your only hope! Any combination of Cheney/Jindal/Palin/Steele/ Limbaugh/Cantor/Gingrich '12!

by richardshort2001 on 06/20/2008 01:27:16 PM EST


It does make sense that some dems were protecting themselves by passing this.  Just as it makes sense that the fracking Iraqi war/occupation was ultimately about oil, which many of us wondered from the very beginning.  ARGH!!

by desertpear on 06/20/2008 01:31:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I keep on thinking the dems will get the message from their low approval ratings.  I keep thinking someone will come forward and explain to us that there is some good reason for their behavior and we just don't understand. I keep waiting for a strong fearless voice of leadership from those who purport to represent me.

You were right to be angry yesterday and I'm glad you showed it.  What the heck does it take for the dems to get some spine?  Bush is the weakest sack of meat to ever grace the white house.  Even Obama is afraid to raise a ruckus because of the campaign.  Always the politics and never the problems directly in front of us. 

I'm left hoping that we can win this election and that things will finally change.   There are a lot of "what ifs" though.

by desertpear on 06/20/2008 01:29:04 PM EST



God damn DLC and Blue Dogs - show your true colors and switch parties, ya bastards!

by MedfordTim on 06/20/2008 03:06:57 PM EST


FEELS.
REAL.
GOOD!

Don't you know a kabuki dance when you see one? Democrat congressional leadership was waiting for the right timing to spring this action.

There are only two possible explanations for why George Bush has easily defeated Democrats on every single issue since January 2001.

1. George Bush is right and Democrat (lawmakers) know it.

2. Democrats lawmakers are unfit to lead the nation.

Here’s a handy way to keep track of Democrat complicity in the actions of the Bush Administration.

All you need to do it take one of the following links, and plug it into one of the actions George Bush has taken that you don’t like.

While you're playing, sing this song.

“Democrats cave”: 26,000 hits

"Democrats defeated":
9,000 hits

“Dems cave”:
9,000 hits

“Democrats surrender”
:
7,000 hits

“Democrats roll over:” 3,000 hits

“Democrats capitulate:”
2,000 hits

“Dems surrender”:
700 hits

“Democrat losers”:
700 hits

by KenTX on 06/20/2008 03:56:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is the roll call for the vote.

I'd like to once again thank the entire Democrat leadership for once again supporting George Bush: Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Jack Murtha, Jim Clyburne, Mo Udall.

Did Democrats do it because George Bush is right in the War on Al Qaeda, and they were simply trying to do the right thing for the country?

Or did Democrats do it because they have no courage, and they are unfit to lead the nation?

I actually think that Democrat lawmakers were just trying to do the right thing. Maybe they're not so bad after all.

It's the MoveOn, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos crowd that needs to be rounded up and exiled to a socialist country.

by KenTX on 06/21/2008 02:32:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They are still going to raise your taxes.

Run, Republicans, run as far to the right as you can. It's your only hope! Any combination of Cheney/Jindal/Palin/Steele/ Limbaugh/Cantor/Gingrich '12!

by richardshort2001 on 06/21/2008 03:12:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It's not REALLY Democrats that we are "for".  It's for people who have a truly progressive mindset and are willing to go to Washington, D.C., put their nutz on the line and fight.

Of course, that tends to be Democrats (rather than Republicans).  But within the ranks of self-defined Democrats, there are all types.  Many of the wrong type, get elected.  Part of being a "wrong type" gives you an automatic advantage over those who are not willing to play games.

The only thing we can do is focus on getting as many progressives in office as possible.  I like what Cenk said about supporting Act Blue.  I'd considered doing so before, but he laid out a clear case for why I should do that, rather than some of the other options available to me.  The other thing is to do what our fellow member DCLawyer06 wants to do.  Identify progressives in swing states and send direct support to their campaigns.

It's another day in paradise...

by happyhominid on 06/20/2008 03:46:06 PM EST


I agree 98% with your lack of respct for the Democrats.

As I see it the Democrats and the Republicans are the two wings of the American Business Party.  What's the difference? It is the difference between working for someone who is an asshole or someone who at least treats you with a minimum of decency. Either way they still own the town and the rest of us are worker bees beholding to the company.

If we have to work for someone we naturally want to work for the one who doesn't treat us like shit, even if they are both ripping us off and taking the profits. 

So yes the Democrats are better employers, but they deserve less respect because they pretend that they arn't employers so they are being even more hypocriical in a way than the Republicans who say "We own it, and if you want any of it, then you've got to fight for it." Democrats are like the employer who says "we are one big family. but the paychecks are cut in the same old way."

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 06/21/2008 06:17:57 PM EST


Cenk said, "On the one had, Democrats will keep telling you that they can't get anything passed in this Congress because the Republicans have 41 Senators that they can filibuster any legislation with. On the other hand, the Republicans will now get this telecom immunity passed through Congress. So, do the Democrats not have 41 Senators, so they can block this bill? Of course they do. They just don't have the nerve. They are collaborators."

The question is why do Republicans stand together and the Democrats don't? Because the Democrats don't stand for anything.  Here's where Lakoff is 100% correct. The Democrats do not have a coherent political philosophy much less a cognitive strategy.  They have a big hole in their center.

The Democratic leaders have never cared who belongs to their party.  If they embraced Lieberman and Hoyer as Democrats you know they don't stand for anything. 

Its all about power, noting about principle or policy.

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 06/21/2008 06:33:33 PM EST


 Display: