| Bernard Weiner |

When I was in Germany recently, addressing the Democrats Abroad chapter in Munich, most of us in the meeting hall were perplexed by the behavior of Democratic Party officials in Washington, D.C. What is behind those leaders' ongoing timidity that in some cases is making them enablers of the worst of CheneyBush policies, especially with regard to the Iraq Occupation, excessive presidential powers, and the trashing of the Constitution?

With those topics in mind, let's spend a bit of time here trying to figure out the possible genesis of this Democratic wimpiness, and what can be done about it.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid appear to be saying: "Given our relatively slim margins in both the House and Senate, and Bush's newfound desire to use the veto pen, we find it much more useful to try to peel off enough moderate Republicans to our side on a number of issues in order to get some positive legislation passed. Passing defunding-the-war resolutions, or ones authorizing an impeachment panel, for example, might make us feel good but they might well alienate the very moderate Republicans and Independents we're trying to lure to our side. We want to get legislation passed for the American people and that's where we should be focusing our energies, not on distracting, bash-the-Administration resolutions that stand little chance of accomplishing anything while making our legislative work more difficult."

If that is the motivation for much of the Democratic leadership's timidity, I would disagree with the strategy but at least I could understand the reasoning behind it. In many cases, however, I think that argument is a smokescreen for deeper motivations.

I haven't heard any Democratic leaders say this out loud, but it's likely that privately a number prefer the Iraq Occupation to continue through Bush's tenure because that way it's "Bush's War," a "Republican war," and the margin of victory for the Democrats in 2008 could be even bigger, given the massive unpopularity of the Iraq war in the country. If this cynical point of view is actually operable, those Democrats would have blood on their hands; all the U.S. forces and the Iraqi civilians will suffer in the next 15 months because some Machiavellian Democrats waited to act to remove the troops until after the presidential election.

What I suspect is actually going on for most Democrats is Karl Rove Syndrome. They fear that if they don't continue funding Bush's war in Iraq, they might be blamed if something goes even more disastrously wrong on the ground there (because they didn't "support the troops"); they might well be swiftboated as being "unpatriotic" or insufficiently "anti-terrorist." In short, these Dems don't want to do anything that could jeopardize their re-election chances or those of new Democratic candidates for Congress.

OK, though I find that attitude somewhat cowardly -- and immoral, as an awful lot of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians will be killed and maimed in the next 15 months -- at least one can understand its partisan political roots.

THE TENDENCY TO CAVE EARLY

But how does one explain so many other caves by the Democratic leadership? Good example from last week: The revised FISA bill contained a retroactive amnesty for the giant telecoms that violated the privacy rights of American citizens in the domestic-spying operation run by CheneyBush's National Security Agency. (Incidentally, we now have learned that the data-mining started early in the Bush presidency, long before the tragic events of 9/11). The Dems fought that amnesty clause but finally gave in. (Interestingly, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, who has accepted large contributions from the telecoms, capitulated early. )

But that's not the most flagrant retreat to which I'm referring here. Sen. Christopher Dodd, who is in the running for the Democratic presidential nomination, alerted Majority Leader Reid that he was going to put a "hold" on the bill, so as to not give Congress' imprimatur to unconstitutional law-breaking by giant corporations. Reid chose to ignore Dodd's request, which is a violation of traditional senatorial courtesy. Why would the Majority Leader diss one of his own senators in the face of Administration criticism? Looks like a complex cave to me, which, when added to so many others, underlines the unwillingness by Reid (and Speaker Pelosi in the House) to act like a true party of opposition.

Another example is Pelosi separating herself from the tough comments of Rep. Pete Stark, who denounced his Republican colleagues' upholding of Bush's veto of the S-CHIP bill extending health care to poor and lower-middle-class children. Bush said the bill spent too much money, but Stark reminded his Republican colleagues that they always seem to find the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to fund the Iraq Occupation but claim not to have enough money to help sick kids. Stark's courage in stating the obvious should be applauded, not dumped on by the Democratic leadership.

But maybe we shouldn't be too surprised by Pelosi's cowardice. After all, she gave away the game when she announced in the run-up to the 2006 midterm election that impeachment would be "off the table" if the Democrats became the majority in Congress. Impeachment is the remedy called for by the Constitution, the ultimate weapon that can be used against an Executive Branch that has run amok with its power. Pelosi's pledge means that the Republicans can carry on as usual knowing that Bush and Cheney will never face any accountability for their illegal, immoral and self-destructive actions.

Nancy Pelosi is my Representative in Congress, and I've written her numerous times to try to find out the reasoning behind her "off the table" decision. Her replies are generic blather without ever responding to the question. I can understand why she might have made that "off the table" remark prior to the 2006 election, so as to not scare away moderate Republicans who might be amenable to voting for Democrats. But the situation is different now, and CheneyBush have not altered their domestic and foreign extremism. Plans are proceeding apace for an air attack on Iran, for example. Thus, voters would understand if impeachment were to be put back "on the table" as a weapon-in-reserve to make CheneyBush think twice about continuing their rampaging policies.

Suppose, for example, Congress were to pass a bill saying that absent an imminent threat from Iran against the United States, a CheneyBush attack on that country would be, ipso facto, grounds for immediate impeachment. That might concentrate their minds a bit. Powerful forces inside the Pentagon, opposed to an all-out, shock&awe attack on Iran's military infrastructure and weapons labs, reportedly have made CheneyBush http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27889">alter their plan to one relying more on surgical strikes.)

DEMS NEED THEIR OWN "FRAMING" TERMS

Time and time again, the Democrats, who should know better by now, fall into the rhetorical trap of using the Republicans' framing language instead of going on the offensive by framing the arguments and language in their own terms. "Supporting the troops," for example, should not automatically refer to the funding of failed CheneyBush policies in Iraq, but to "supporting the troops" by arranging for them to depart the catastrophe that CheneyBush have helped create in Iraq. The so-called "War on Terror" is another one the Democrats have bought into without too much thought.

In short, the Democrats seem to have ignored the implications of their momentous victory in the 2006 election -- that they are now the majority and can start shaping their own agenda, in their own way, using their own framing mechanisms. Too often, they seem to be thinking and acting as if they're still in the minority, having to respond to GOP arguments and policies rather than creating those of their own.

Yes, their margins in the House and Senate are not great, and the Republicans are playing obstructionist games, but introducing bills that don't always pass is not the end of the world. It demonstrates to the citizens (who, at this stage, hold the Democrats in Congress in low repute because of their wimpiness) that the opposition party stands for something, has alternative plans and policies, and, if they were to obtain a veto-proof majority in the November 2008 election, those plans and policies would be implemented, the legislative logjam would be broken, and real change might well come to Washington, D.C.

But if the Democrats don't locate their political spines and stand tall in opposition to the worst of CheneyBush policies, they put at risk their likely sweep of the House and Senate next November, and certainly open the door to the possibility of a HardRight GOP presidential candidate keeping the White House in Republican hands for another four or eight years. And no true Democrat or Independent or moderate-conservative Republican wants that.

OTHER MOTIVATIONS

Finally, my address to Democrats Abroad stimulated some fascinating letters in response, including some that offer broader, more controversial reasons to explain Democratic timidity. Here, without necessarily accepting their premises, are excerpts from a few:





Well, you get the idea. The level of anger, frustration and fear are out there big time in the citizenry. Unless the Democrats get their act together soon and start behaving as an Opposition Party should, there is no predicting the ramifications of their lack of courage. But certainly the Republicans holding onto the White House, or Congress, for the next four years is a possible one. (And I haven't even gone into the likelihood of continuing electoral fraud.)

Organize, organize, organize!

-- BW

The media suffers from the same disease. They are afraid of the right wing noise machine. Dennis Kucinich is almost alone in being willing to face reality, him and a few lefty talk show hosts.

:banghead:

Insane.

if the world starts trading oil in anything but dollars our way of life comes crashing down. We are supported by a paper pyramid of cards. So these elite realize food prices are going to lead to starvation in this country and the only way to deal is clamp down and grab as much power as possible. You know the rest, why else would they be doing what they are doing?

A full answer will get this post pulled. So the toned down version is: they don't really believe what they preach. You might. They don't.

Democrat: "George Bush is a dictator destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and I mean it!"

GOP: "APOLOGIZE YOU SATAN-WORSHIPING, AMERICA-HATING, TERRORIST-LOVING, LIBERAL TRAITOR DEMOCRAT SCUM!!!"

Democrat: "I'm Sorry! I'm Sorry! I'm Sorry!" (wets pants)


Me: "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave MY ASS!"

They would rather be called spineless, than be exposed as supporters and enablers of all the same shit.

If Harry Reid were a leader, he would force the repukes to actually filibuster a bill, instead of letting it go dormant. You don't want to cut off debate? OK, keep on debating 24 hours a day. Don't whine that we don't have the votes.

But I guess they have more important things to do, such as attend a fundraiser for themselves sponsored by Rupert Murdoch, a PHARMA, or a Telecom exec.

:puke: :mad: :wtf: :argh:

because the DSCC and DCCC are being well funded by the newly Democratic business community and lobbyists....but the DNC doesn't have anything to offer that community and they are paying the price.

The DNC though it has no input and is not part of congress....gets the letters just like the congressional folks. That people are not going to donate.

Reid and Pelosi told Dean from the start that he was not to speak out. Two Florida lawsuits over the primary, one by a member of the GLBT community, and Florida party leaders saying to withhold funding....enough to hurt.

Way to go Democrats.

"TO: The Free World - FROM: The American People - RE: HELP!"

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/129

<eom>

of our Dems in war profiteering and funding from sources they'd rather not have revealed.

That they keep kicking the activists who got Dems elected and re-elected and worked so hard since 2000 Selection to try to rebuild the Party...would seem to show that they feel they and win in '08 by just raking in enought money for ads for Hillary. They don't need the activists/grassroots. And, they obviously are comfortable enough with the Repugs in power that they haven't done anything on Election Reform and even Rep. Jesse Jackson's promise to us in the "Conyers Basement Hearings" in 05 that he would introduce legislation to start the process to make Voting a RIGHT in the Constitution...has never materialized.

What piece of legislation have they given as a reward to the Activists who walked the streets and wrote the Letters to Editor, organized locally to build a stronger Dem Party? What did they give to the Citizen Journalists who researched the Crimes of this Administrtion, debunking propaganda and building and supporting a Blogosphere Journalism that would work tirelessly to debunk the Right Wings Hate and Disinformation and the Administrations Lies... What have they given us except more punches in the gut with boot cleats marked "Get the F**k Out."

I can't imagine how many more insults the Grassroots will have to suffer and the numbers of folks we will lose in the process before Hillary is Crowned for the Dems or Giuliani or Romney are crowned for the Repugs. And there will be 4 or 8 more years of insults and suffering as the War/Corporate Machine finishes off what was left of America that many of us thought we knew.

It's not good...its disastrous unless they create enough anger on the left for us to work to get a brokered convention. That's all we have left before capitualation. Many of us will have to move on to keep our sanity and prepare for this new American War and the Global Climate Change where we will be left to our own devices as the Military/Industrial machine bankrupts us.

ok, I'm not in the habit of believing the worst scenario, but I think the time has come to confront the real possibility that they are being strong-armed, black-mailed, threatened with real harm, whatever pressure can be used to "terrorize" them into toeing the line.

sure some are corrupt corporate sell-outs, some are inclined to be overly politically analytical, some are afraid of the rw noise machine calling them names, but we all know, and they all know too, that "the people", the vast majority of the country, are on to bushco and what's going down.

so the political angle just doesn't play, its just an excuse and so is the fear of the rw noise machine, that's political as well and only plays to the 24% that they aren't going to ever get votes out of anyhow.

their base, their real voting base, is not happy with them and they know it, they have to know it.

so the only thing in my mind that I can imagine, that would keep them from doing what would be the legitimate response to their constituency is either fear or money. Money can be followed, so that is less likely to be the cause, IMHO. I'm sure its in play in some cases, maybe quite a few, but not the majority.

that leaves fear. I mean real palpable fear. fear for their lives, their families, their homes, their reputations. we are dealing with people who lied to go to war. can you really put strong-arm tactics and threatening past them? can you put anything past them?

look at the history of dirty tricks in elections. look at the history of truly evil interference and intimidation in Latin America over the years. and in other countries around the globe. you think these guys haven't sent some spooks to visit key congress people some night alone in their office, or maybe in the dark in the parking garage?
these people make the mafia look like school yard bullies, you think they won't do whatever they think it will take? they've done it before, over and over again.

not here in America? why not?
they've done everything else they've done elsewhere that we said couldn't happen here. Its all happened here now, why not intimidation?

look again at Pete Stark. don't you see a guy who got taken aside and at the very least brow-beaten into submission? they scared him and they scared him good.

welcome to the police state!

mark my words it won't be long until you'll see this done right out in the open.
its even more effective then, sends a message to a lot more people to shut up and don't rock the boat.

And it's working.

and we didn't know it until the took power and changed as little as possible.

Collusion.

I've been angry for quite a while. Now, I'm scared.

They want to get elected, so they have to appeal to enough people to get enough votes. That's what happens in democracies: there are elections, and the parties with the most votes win. Since the majority of poeple (as determined by intensive opinion polling and focus group yapping) love discrimination, guns, capital punishment, war and all the other horrors visited on the world by the Right of all countries, Democrats can either stay out of office by opposing them or take a chance of getting elected if they don't. They may woo their core supporters by saying (as NuLabor did) that they will put right these things once they have office, but they won't. They want to get elected again and that means keeping the "centre" on-side. In free market societies, the "centre" is what old fashioned socialists used to call the right. So that is what we, and ever more countries, are stuck with. A Friedmanesque free-for-all in which the rich get richer and the poor poorer and every party in sight (except for a few stubbornly - and unelectably - socialist ones) has sold out to the dominant frree market consensus.