. . .8 Months" by Alexander Cockburn for The Nation

Quote :

"Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a 'confidence' rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year. The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for 'foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.' Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government. The row over the US Attorneys and the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been something of a typhoon in a teaspoon. The Democrats love it, since they imagine it portrays them to the public as resolute guardians of the impartial administration of justice, a concept whose credibility most Americans sensibly deride. The Democrats now plan to track Gonzales's firing of the US Attorneys back to that comic opera villain of the Bush era, Karl Rove, another great provoker of dust storms. The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping. Just as the Democrats work tirelessly to demonstrate to the voters that it makes zero difference which party controls Congress, the political establishment forces all candidates for the presidential nomination to sever any compromising ties to sanity and common sense. Right now they're hosing down Barack Obama because he said in the YouTube debate in South Carolina that he would be prepared to meet with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to hash over problems face to face. The pundits whacked him for demonstrating 'inexperience.' Experienced leaders order the CIA to murder such men. Then Obama drew even fiercer fire by saying he would take nukes off the table in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama told the AP on August 2, adding, after a pause, 'involving civilians.' Then he quickly said, 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.' I'm beginning to respect this man. He displays sagacity well beyond the norm for candidates seeking the Oval Office. He comprehends, if only in mid-sentence, that when you drop a nuclear bomb, it will kill civilians. He also realizes that strafing Waziristan with thermonuclear devices in the hopes of nailing Osama bin Laden is a foolish way to proceed. So Obama is being flayed for his 'inexperience,' first and foremost by Hillary Clinton, who permits no table setting that does not include a couple of nuclear weapons next to the sugar bowl. To recoup, Obama has declared his readiness as Commander in Chief to order US forces to hotly pursue Osama into Pakistan, whatever the government of Pakistan might think of this onslaught on its sovereignty. Has the left the capacity to influence the conduct of the Democrats? In terms of substantive achievement the answer thus far has been no. People didn't like it when I wrote here a month ago that the antiwar movement was at a low ebb. They invoke the polls showing that 70 percent of Americans want the troops to come home. This is presumptuous, like a barking dog claiming it made the moon go down. It didn't take an antiwar movement to make the people antiwar. People looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust. Their attention is already shifting to the economic crisis: housing meltdown, car sales meltdown, credit crisis, threats from the Chinese to destroy the dollar. What war? The left is as easily distracted, currently by the phantasm of impeachment. Why all this clamor to launch a proceeding surely destined to fail, aimed at a duo who will be out of the White House in sixteen months? Pursue them for war crimes after they've stepped down. Mount an international campaign of the sort that has Henry Kissinger worrying at airports that there might be a lawyer with a writ standing next to the man with the limo sign. Right now the impeachment campaign is a distraction from the war and the paramount importance of ending it. For sure, there are actions around the country: Quakers and Unitarians picketing outside shopping centers, campus vigils, resolutions by city councils and so forth. It's all pretty quiet, in a conflict that has now -- as my brother Patrick recently pointed out -- gone on longer than the First World War. At the liberal blogger convention, Yearly Kos, held the first weekend in August, the organizers nixed any serious strategy session on the war. John Stauber of PR Watch had to force an impromptu (and very successful) session with leaders of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush's police-state executive orders of July 17 -- the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them. And guess what? Just as their poll numbers are going down, Bush's are going up, by five points in Gallup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?"

http://www.alternet.org/story/59367/?page=1

The Democrats in Congress have done a horrible job since they took over. But don't believe me, just listen to their former left-wing supporters.

8/14/2007 12:16:35 AM

i wish they'd do more hearings

8/14/2007 12:17:38 AM

^ I have to point out that the writer's last name is "Cockburn." That is all.

8/14/2007 12:23:24 AM

^^ Yeah, that'd really get things moving. Maybe the Democrats should conduct hearings on themselves to investigate why they can't get anything done.

8/14/2007 12:26:08 AM

yeah, i see Pelosi as the 2000's Democrat version of the 1990's Republican Gingrich.

a good minority leader / revolutionary / rabble-rouser ...

... but a piss poor Speaker of the House.

I dont know what the precedent is for getting rid of a speaker in the middle of a term, but goddamn they better figure it out quick.

....

actually, on second thought, Pelosi is nowhere near the level of political brilliance as Gingrich

8/14/2007 12:29:26 AM

^ Ha! We agree.

BTW, you may think that I posted this just as flame bait, but it's not the case. I am simply pointing out that many on the left are feeling betrayed by the Democrats in Congress--and the criticisms from within the party and related movements are the most stinging, I'm sure.

8/14/2007 12:39:02 AM

no i didnt think this was flamebait, really.

its a serious development that the House Democratic freshmen from all those independent-minded districts better think long and hard about if they want to stick around for a second term.

8/14/2007 12:44:39 AM

^ You're damned reasonable tonight. In that spirit let me say that I am happy to criticize Republicans, too--but I just find Democrats' fuck ups to be a richer target, given my ideology.

8/14/2007 12:52:13 AM

I am glad the american people are finally waking up and are pissed at the politicians rather democrat or republican. time for a regime change in 08

8/14/2007 12:52:51 AM

I've posted here many times that if we could get a legitimate third party going, which to me means one that can win, I would be very happy and I think a lot of other people would be, too. It's not a panacea but it can't be any worse than the two-party either-or fallacy of a system we have now.

It would take a few decades to adjust to a third, a fourth, and maybe even a fifth party--not to mention the necessity for coalition governments. But I continue to believe that more people would get what they want if America were to break out of the Democrat-Republican merry-go-round.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 1:03 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 1:01:55 AM

Quote :

"^ You're damned reasonable tonight. In that spirit let me say that I am happy to criticize Republicans, too--but I just find Democrats' fuck ups to be a richer target, given my ideology."

You mean there is something the democrats have done thats worse than starting a trillion dollar war thats going to bankrupt the nation? I guess fiscal responsibility isn't part of your ideology.

8/14/2007 2:32:48 AM

There is plenty of good work being done in the house.... its just that Republicans are extremely overrepresented in the Senate (micro-minority rule) and are stymying any meaningful reform.

8/14/2007 2:33:48 AM

hooksaw: So you're saying that the Democrat's failure to end the war is causing them to drop in popularity?

You realize what that means, right?

Do you even process the crap you post or do you just green light/red light it based on whether it's anti-Democrat?

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 10:09:45 AM

Quote :

"I've posted here many times that if we could get a legitimate third party going, which to me means one that can win, I would be very happy and I think a lot of other people would be, too. It's not a panacea but it can't be any worse than the two-party either-or fallacy of a system we have now. It would take a few decades to adjust to a third, a fourth, and maybe even a fifth party--not to mention the necessity for coalition governments. But I continue to believe that more people would get what they want if America were to break out of the Democrat-Republican merry-go-round."

I have no faith in our government, and now I have no faith in the people. As much as I'd like to see a viable third party such as the Libertarian party (although maybe tone down their policies a bit), it'll never happen. And not because the Republicrats control the government, but because the people won't do a damn thing about it. Sure, everyone's pissed about how long the war is taking and how much it's costing, but the majority of people (who vote) in this country are so fucking gullible, myopic, forgetful, naive, stupid, take your pick, that the most we'll ever see is a lot of pissing and moaning. Maybe voter turnout will shrink even more than what it already is for the next few years, but I don't think that the inert mass that is the US people will ever seek reforms for any real change.

We'll whine and whine about how the Republicans are crooks and how the Democrats are spineless, but nobody will actually do anything to get reform. And all the politicians know it, too. They know how intellectually lazy this country is/has become. Why else do you think politicians always base their arguments on emotional appeals and sound bites instead of any actual numbers? They know that people would rather take the easy way out and just take their word at it, instead of what every citizen is SUPPOSE to be doing and holding a politician to his promises. When a politician promises to institute a program that will, for example, give more money to the schools, and then it inevitably doesn't happen, what's the politician's excuse? "Oh, well it failed because it didn't get enough money. Just keep throwing money at it and it will eventually work!" And people in this country will actually buy that excuse, instead of investigating and seeing that it's because the politician and his cronies mismanaged tax-payer money!

I've whined in the past about how the government gives free hand-outs, but what we've essentially got here is reversed roles; the people give free hand-outs to the politicians in the form of taxes and votes. We give politicians no incentive and no reason to at least try to stick to their promises. There's no public oversight, no riots in the streets, just a bunch of grumbling and complaining. Politicians' only concern is how they win over certain powerful (ie rich or has lots of votes) constituency groups, just so they can stay in office and milk the system even more, but they keep doing it (and probably even tempted to do so in the first place) because the people aren't going to do a damn thing about it. They won't do anything about it because they're stupid enough to believe a politician's lies about how he'll get them free shit, and then they're too lazy to kick the guy out of office when he fails to deliver.

Don't get me wrong, our system is definitely broken. Even though they're suppose to represent different values on the political and economic spectrums, both of our current parties are really one and the same. At this stage it doesn't matter who you vote for, because all of them will expand the government into areas that are none of the government's business, give themselves ridiculous/unconstitutional powers with virtually no oversight and checks and balances, and stuff the pockets of their constituents with your money while they're at it. We definitely need an overhaul. But we can't rely upon the government to fix itself. How can something which is broken be used to fix itself?

No, it's going to take the American people to do that, and I have no faith that they will. We've becomed so conditioned to believe all of the lies and to suffer the abuse and "stay the course," even long after it's painfully obvious that the approach we're taking isn't working, that I don't think the people will ever fully wake up. In fact, I dare say that the people DO want a totalitarian police-nanny state. The people have become so lazy and so fearful that I think they rather would let the government run everything, even though it has proven that it cannot run things effectively. Or rather, the government could run things effectively, but only if the people were breathing down the necks of their representatives, instead of allowing it to be the other way around.

Sure, we've got discussion of this problem going on. It's not as if NOBODY realizes that the problem exists. But I don't believe that there will ever be a day when enough people become acutely aware of the problem AND care enough to do anything about it.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 10:20 AM. Reason : blah]

8/14/2007 10:18:33 AM

everyone's working too hard on their 60-hour work weeks to fill up their SUV's, buy their flatscreens, pay off their excessive debts and keep their health insurance.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 11:30:20 AM

^dont forget all the people too busy from spending 60 hours a week protesting the war and filling up their VWs with ethanol, buying their carbon credits, etc

8/14/2007 11:54:36 AM

ummm that's exactly what i'm saying ISN'T happening all that much.

8/14/2007 11:55:04 AM

so your stereotypes are ok but not mine...gotcha

8/14/2007 11:58:10 AM

what are you talking about? mine are supported by facts. americans work long hours, have lots of debt and buy electronics they can't always afford. most americans don't protest. there are a handful that do. but not that many. i wish that there were more.

8/14/2007 12:05:56 PM

supported by facts lol...thats why "everyone" has an suv right and "everyone" buys electronics they can't always afford"

back on topic though i agree that a viable 3rd (or 4th, 5th, etc) party won't ever happen...but not because of apathy or people being busy per se, but more cause the democrats and republicans are all friends who like to make sure that if their own party isnt in power, its damn sure gonna be another elitist party of rich bastards and not any kind of 3rd independent party that could collapse their whole scam system

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 12:09:30 PM

Jesus Christ, you don't even unerstand what sarijoul is saying, TreeTwista10.

His comment wasn't an invitation for a stereotype debate. It was about the reason why few people notice or are trying to do anything to fix this seemingly broken system of government.

sarijoul is suggesting that the reason why is that most people are too busy working long and hard hours in order to participate in the commercial system that they don't have time and energy left to participate in the political system and make some changes.

But because you're fucking retarded, you pick up on a stereotype and offer your suggestion that the reason so few people are involved poitically is that they are too busy protesting the war and being envorionmentally conscious...when by fucking definition those people are already involved politically...the people protesting and being environmentally conscious are already involved--they are not "too busy," as you say.

Do you understand?

8/14/2007 12:34:30 PM

miages.google.com

8/14/2007 12:39:06 PM

Far left hippy douches like myself don't feel betrayed by Democrats, we expect it out of them.

Dems and Repubs = similar, corporately controlled parties that differ on maybe a dozen issues, maybe two of those issues not social/moral issues.

8/14/2007 12:43:46 PM

Quote :

"Far left hippy douches like myself don't feel betrayed by Democrats, we expect it out of them"

unfortunately, true.

8/14/2007 1:41:24 PM

lol at bridget calling someone a retard

hey boone

How would I save this file:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/audio/8_5_7_a_FDRFirstInaug_MSTR.mov

onto my PC? Quicktime won't let me right click -> save as unless I buy the pro version ( )

ps: ScottyP got what I was saying

8/14/2007 2:51:14 PM

scotty p wasn't saying anything close to what you were saying.

i was saying people weren't politically active because they were busy working, etc.

you countered that with "what about people who are busy protesting, driving their ethanol vw . . . ?"

it didn't make any sense

and then scotty p said that hippies weren't betrayed because they don't really expect democrats and republicans to be very different from one another.

i'm sorry, maybe that was what you were trying to say, but that is most certainly not what you said.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 4:05:53 PM

i did say i didnt expect democrats and republicans to be different from one another and i also said why, and i dont think its just because people are too busy although i've admitted theres plenty of apathy...what i said was

Quote :

"i agree that a viable 3rd (or 4th, 5th, etc) party won't ever happen...but not because of apathy or people being busy per se, but more cause the democrats and republicans are all friends who like to make sure that if their own party isnt in power, its damn sure gonna be another elitist party of rich bastards and not any kind of 3rd independent party that could collapse their whole scam system"

8/14/2007 4:10:30 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: So you're saying that the Democrat's failure to end the war is causing them to drop in popularity? You realize what that means, right? Do you even process the crap you post or do you just green light/red light it based on whether it's anti-Democrat?"

Boone-tard trying to fuck up a thread--as usual.

Many Democrats and liberals in general are saying that the failure of the Democrats in Congress to end the war, which was their signature issue, and their inability to accomplish a number of other goals is causing the drop in popularity. I was just agreeing with their assessment.

And your tired post concerning processing/comprehension is noted. Clearly, you are the one who is having trouble comprehending the current sociopolitical landscape in the United States--and you and those that share your lack of understanding may pay a price for it at the polls.

8/14/2007 4:13:46 PM

So what you're saying is...

the "Democrats in Congress have done a horrible job since they took over" because they've failed to stop a war that you support?

Dude... again... do you think these things out?

8/14/2007 4:56:24 PM

well if the Democrats really want to end the war...bring the troops home like the claim...do what the majority of the country wants...and then they win majority in Congress...and cant bring the troops home...sounds like they are failures

didnt you vote democrats into congress to end the war?? didnt they claim they'd bring the troops home???

If i wanted the war to end...and I voted Democrat...and they didnt end the war or bring the troops home, you're damn right they'd lose popularity...I can only guess you aren't getting such a mindlessly simple concept because you want to be contrarian

REGARDLESS of what republican obstacles they ran into in Congress, or Bush's cabinet, etc...why wouldnt it make total sense that they would lose popularity when their #1 platform hasnt had any progress?

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 5:02:09 PM

1) 2/3rds of the senate wasn't voted in in 2006.
2) some of the democrats who were voted in in 2006 don't want to pull out of iraq
3) some that do want to pull out of iraq don't want to pull funding for the troops
4) even if democrats were entirely united, they don't have enough numbers to override a veto (or even stop a filibuster) right now.

Quote :

"REGARDLESS of what republican obstacles they ran into in Congress, or Bush's cabinet, etc...why wouldnt it make total sense that they would lose popularity when their #1 platform hasnt had any progress? "

i think it's shortsighted to think that it hasn't made ANY progress. as i've said for months now, i think in september and the "progress report" i think more people will shift to demanding a withdrawal.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 5:18:04 PM

i realize terms overlap and hence not everyone is up for reelection at the same time and i acknowledged republican barriers, if you will...but the point was simply that Congress did indeed lose popularity for not being able to stop the war / bring the troops home

8/14/2007 5:19:58 PM

i think it's that AND that nothing much has gotten passed otherwise. this is the fault of the leadership of both parties, but mostly the democrats.

8/14/2007 5:20:52 PM

well maybe "no progress" was an overstatement but still...not exactly what the had in mind with their "100 day" plan

8/14/2007 5:27:39 PM

what was the 100 day plan? i remember the 100 hour plan.

8/14/2007 5:42:14 PM

I think the problem is that the Democrats didn't do a good job of managing expectations. The veterans in Congress knew full well what they would and wouldn't be capable of doing this year given the number of people they would have in office, their Blue Dogs, and the Bush White House. Yet they allowed their followers believe what they wanted, fueled them with plenty of snazzy rhetoric, and then were surprised when people actually called them on their over hyped expectations (Which is why I think it smart that all the major Democratic candidates are beginning to temper their Iraq rhetoric with more realistic plans).

People also forget that the Democrats don't have the same sort of lock-step, iron-fisted discipline that the Republican Congress maintained until the waning moments in 2006. They look at the GOP and then expect the same sort of resolve from the Democratic majority, an error given that the Democrats don't operate in the same fashion.

Minus the entire warrantless wiretapping nonsense, I think the Democrats have done decently given the circumstances. Sure, the radicals are pissed, but the radicals don't have to herd cats on Capitol Hill either.

8/14/2007 5:54:10 PM

yeah, a lot of the things that people are wanting now (aside from and to the war) like health care reform, social security reform, etc. are things that people have wanted for years and years and it takes a special set of circumstances for things like that to pass.

8/14/2007 6:01:36 PM

Quote :

"yeah, a lot of the things that people are wanting now"

and for them to not roll over like a bunch of pussies by passing FISA

8/14/2007 6:46:48 PM

Quote :

"and for them to not roll over like a bunch of pussies by passing FISA"

yeah, that was my breaking point.

i almost dont care anymore.

8/14/2007 11:46:21 PM

Quote :

"I can only guess you aren't getting such a mindlessly simple concept because you want to be contrarian"

TreeTwista10 to Boone-tard

I couldn't have said it better.

Quote :

"Yet they allowed their followers believe what they wanted, fueled them with plenty of snazzy rhetoric, and then were surprised when people actually called them on their over hyped expectations (Which is why I think it smart that all the major Democratic candidates are beginning to temper their Iraq rhetoric with more realistic plans)."

RedGuard

So, those Democrats lied, right? Right?!

Quote :

"People also forget that the Democrats don't have the same sort of lock-step, iron-fisted discipline that the Republican Congress maintained until the waning moments in 2006. They look at the GOP and then expect the same sort of resolve from the Democratic majority, an error given that the Democrats don't operate in the same fashion."

RedGuard

It's not "iron-fisted" to maintain party discipline. It's primarily the job of the whips--for the majority, in this case--who happen to be Dick Durbin for the Senate and Jim Clyburn for the House. Obviously, these two should look into this "resolve" that you referred to.

8/15/2007 12:41:46 AM

I think the Iraqi authorization was my breaking point.

FISA might be the suplex.

8/15/2007 12:47:38 AM

^ So, is Hillary's flip-flop on nukes the atomic drop?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/09/311439.aspx

8/15/2007 1:39:38 AM

Quote :

"sarijoul is suggesting that the reason why is that most people are too busy working long and hard hours in order to participate in the commercial system that they don't have time and energy left to participate in the political system and make some changes."

That is bullshit. Americans aren't blinded by their participation in the comercial system... Americans really don't give a rats ass. They don't want anything to interfere with their material-driven lives. They actively disregard things of substance and consequence because they want to pass the buck to someone else. Let me remind you that 18% of Americans couldn't identify the United States on a map. If they are so disinterested in learning that they don't even give a shit where they live what the hell do you think the average American cares about any sort of government policy. If they are confronted on a topic they can pull something out of their ass that seems logical on the surface (like "yeah, I think free healthcare sounds great!" or "dem aliens are takin' our jobs!"). They don't even care who is running the country, let alone what they are doing, as long as they can still hit the beach for the weekend.

8/15/2007 1:49:58 AM

Quote :

"and for them to not roll over like a bunch of pussies by passing FISA "

they got out-maneuvered by the administration on that one. don't blame "the democrats" on that one. after all, most of the democrats voted against it. blame the democratic leadership for letting people break ranks when the republicans threw a curve ball.

8/15/2007 7:30:25 AM

what.

In order to vote "yea" on the FISA ammendment the democrats that voted for it :
a) were in favor of the ammendment
b) did not read it before voting
c) read it and didn't care
e) were mentally handicapped and said "yea" instead of "nay"

These are all supposed to be republican traits and why the dems were elected.

What political manuvering could have possibly happened that would switch their vote from no to yes?

There is nothing here but massive failure by the democratic party.

Unless of course they aren't actually incompetent and are essentially the same as the republicans.

Or maybe option 3, both parties are terrible. Either way the dems deserve your blind support as much as the republicans.

8/15/2007 11:25:16 AM

From what I read the new FISA bill is a temporary measure until the democrats can introduce their own (the current one expires after a few months I believe). Here's to hoping they can put something decent together (don't hold your breath).

8/15/2007 11:27:14 AM

How about instead of voting to shit on our rights for 6 months they voted for not shitting on our rights for 6 months.

The patriot act was a temporary measure too.

8/15/2007 11:30:03 AM

I'm not disagreeing with you.

8/15/2007 11:37:00 AM

Quote :

"they got out-maneuvered by the administration on that one. don't blame "the democrats" on that one. after all, most of the democrats voted against it. blame the democratic leadership for letting people break ranks when the republicans threw a curve ball."

nevermind...


you're an idiot

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 2:06 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/15/2007 2:06:35 PM

about what? i really would like to know. i don't claim to be an expert on it, but from what i understand this is what happened: house and senate committees had worked out language for the fisa bill with the bush national intelligence head. then at the last minute, the administration introduced new language that went against the intent of the bill that had been worked-out. then all hell broke loose. lots of amendments were introduced, and a handful of democrats broke ranks.

that seems like the democratic leadership being out-maneuvered. i fault them for getting duped. i don't fault all democrats because iirc something like 40/49 dem senators voted against the fisa bill (not sure of the house members off the top of my head).

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2007 3:03:56 PM