Sirota Castigates DC Dems for lack of Unity re: Iraq War

Politics 101: Broadcasting Indecision & Disunity Loses Elections

Call me crazy, but I just do not understand how the Washington Democratic Party establishment can publicly say that in advance of the 2006 elections, there needs to be no Democratic Party unity on the Iraq War - the most pressing national security issue of the day. To make such a claim, you have to be either dumb; totally out of touch with the majority of Americans who want an exit strategy; deliberately dishonest because you are embarrassed you supported the war in the first place; disdainful of voters’ intellect; or all of the above. But, incredibly, that’s what Democrats in Washington are telling the media, and consequently, broadcasting to the American people.

Stories like this one in the Christian Science Monitor only reinforce the public’s image that the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C. stands for nothing. In the piece, for instance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi actually says “We don’t even have a party position on the war.” Why? Because “We don’t ask members to do one thing or another.” Right, why should they? They are only the leaders of the party? Why should they lead? Good god, what is wrong with these people - do they not see that their fear of actually leading and taking a real position is what is at the heart of voters’ reservations about supporting them?

Pelosi, at least, has publicly said she wants an exit strategy from Iraq. But her comments about party leaders not actually trying to ask their rank-and-file members to do anything is echoed by others. For instance, it was Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel who told Businessweek that in order to be a Democratic candidate for Congress, “There’s no checklist that you have to run on” - yet another public advertisement by party leaders in Washington that they actually want the “D” label behind a candidate’s name to have absolutely no real meaning at all.

Thankfully, according to Reuters, Senate Democrats are preparing to take a much different approach this week - one that could force a real debate on an exit strategy. Nonetheless, it’s obvious the Democratic Party in Washington is still plagued by the professional class of cynical election losers who continue to try to drive the party into the ground. These folks rant on about “change” and a “new direction” without providing any serious evidence that Democrats represent substantive “change” and a “new direction” is an insult to voters’ intelligence. It takes them for fools, which they most certainly are not. The fools are the professional election losers in the consulting/think-tank class who keep preaching this - and the politicians who keep listening to their inane advice. All you have to do is spend about 5 minutes outside the Beltway echo chamber to know that Americans want a real choice on the major issues - not just a meaningless choice on which set of blow-dried politicians get to call themselves “speaker of the house” or “chairman.”

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2006/06/19/politics-101-broadcasting-indecision-disunity-loses-elections/

http://www.davidsirota.com/

here in the usa the christofascists are united, the dems not united.
is there a commonality here?

Msongs

can you sing?
www.msongs.com/vocalistwanted.htm

Ask why the party is divided on this issue when the vast maority of dems and the majority of the public are advocating a timetable for withdrawl?

What is the hidden power that these spineless Dems quake in fear of?

If you want my guess: The Neocons/CIA/NSA have goods on a lot of the people who are "Stay the Course" deadenders Democrats.

The DLC holds the carrot in front of us in the form of an "electable" candidate that "they" have "chosen" for us. No nominations...no voting...just a candidate who is crowned "the electable one."

We, the voters, continue to pull the millstone that is attached to our necks, round and round in circles as we strive to reach that damned carrot that. is. just. out. of. our. reach..........That millstone represents the faith and loyalty we put into the Democratic Party and our leaders. It represents how hard many of us worked to get "the electable one" elected. But alas...all in vain. They tell us that we ALMOST got there. Almost reached that carrot. Ahhh, to reach the unreachable star. So we are told "Just be patient. Just wait four more years. We've learned so much. Next time....next time...next time...."

What else could possibly be the DLC'S reason for being other than keeping the party in turmoil? They obviously control a large bankroll of corporate donations which they have the power of dispensing to DLC members when they are running for office. I believe that that's the hidden power that you speak of. The DLC does not have to give money to anyone they do not WANT to give to. By controlling the Democratic party in this manner, they can keep us out of office at least long enough for the Republicans to steal the Government blind by allocating program moneys and no-bid contracts to their friends and allow them to reshape the American government in their own image and to their own liking.

I have been voting for over 40 years now and I have been a straight ticket Democrat all that while, and I have never known the Democratic Party to be as fragmented and disjointed and vulnerable and totally un-unified as it has been since the DLC has become active in determining the party's direction.

A few years ago I read on another website that DLC had forced itself on the Democratic leadership and those legislators who did not want to become members were sort of arm-twisted into having to do so. In the final analysis, our leaders felt that they needed the money for their campaigns, so they signed on, despite misgivings.

I think you got it right. They have the goods on them.

They are afraid, because they are incapable of answering the question, "Why?" Either, Incapable or they don't like the answer to that question.

And I can't understand WHY they can't do a better job of explaining their votes to us. Why can't they vote their consciences and then work real hard to help us understand even if we don't agree? And then let the chips fall where they may.

A more appropriate (and unified) vote would have been "present" on these nonbinding, BS, GOP-sponsored, dog & pony show votes.

Why go against the majority of americans on this?

There are ads running in ND they say and it may very well cost Pomeroy his seat. I wish they would have just denounced for what it was-a cheap political stunt and refused to even participate in the Republicons little show. I think unity would have been a good thing in this case,

We do need to show the people that we stand for something as a party. That doesn't equate to lockstep.

They had to do SOMETHING other than what they have been doing for two and a half years ...

Ds ... Note, accurately, the lies that led to the military overthrow of a sovereign country ... Note, accurately, how poorly executed it has been ... Note, accurately, the war profiterring and how our troops were not propertly geared up ... Not, accurately, that it is a civil war, and we cannot now "win" ...

Rs ... They are pussys, we are big and tough ...

Sad as it is, in america in 2006, game, set, match for the Rs ...

The Ds just wandered in, did the same darn thing that has been happening for two and a half years, and the Rs got the result they wanted ... As noted, the Ds had to do SOMETHING other than the same darn thing ... Take a stand EITHER way ... Everyone vote against it, or even let the Rs babble on for two days with no Ds saying a word, let them think that the Ds are not going to vote for it, then have ALL the Ds vote for it, with no comment, other than Pelosi to say, "the resolution speaks for itself" ...

SOMETHING other than leading the sheep to slaughter ...

oh, right on, Sirota!



Nailed it.

Whenever people talk about this i see myself at the door of some minimum wage worker's apartment, trying to convince him/her to go out to vote for my candidate so that some D can be chair of the judicial committee....right.

Yes, I know what that means, but tell it to someone who's job was outsourced by Clinton's NAFTA, or who is sanctioned from Clinton's welfare Deform because her babysitter got sick and she got fired for staying home to take care of her child....right.

And Iraq...Iraq...Iraq

Ask any DLCer (there are plenty on DU...easy to spot since they post on any and every post about the DLC) and they'll tell you....Clinton was the best President EVER!

Of course all they have to back this up is macroeconomic statistic....if the president is responsible for job making and home ownership rates rising.

The fact that he signed so many bills that put the needs of corporations above the needs of workers and the common man is irrelevant you see...it's all about GNP and unemployment claims!

See if the GNP goes up....every one wins! :sarcasm:

Saying "the majority of Americans" is meaningless, Mr. Sirota; elections are won on a district by district basis. Karl Rove understands this. Nancy Pelosi understands this. You don't, apparently.

What sells in Montana (where you're from), even with a {D} next to it, is way differnt than what sells in S.F. (Pelosi's district) - even with a {D} next to it.

For this war? Doubt it.

but Mr. Sirota's brand of wishful populism?

54 House Dems sided with the Republicans the other day - why was that? Could it be that they're in districts where a "cut and run" smear campaign could cost them their seats?

And what does "for this war" mean? For what Bush wants (whatever that is), or against a precipitous pullout? And who defines that? There are many degrees of Democratic "support" for this war - and not all of them fall into Sirota's black and white world.

First of all. Those 54 House Dems are cowards. I'm sorry but if you are afraid of being labeled a "cut and runner" you are a coward. Politics is no place for cowards. If they want to be cowards they should run as Republicans.

The Republicans have shown, time and time again, with Murtha, Kerry, and Cleland that they can smear anyone. If you don't give them an opening by standing up against the continuation of this ruinous war, they'll just make up something about you. Maybe they'll start a whisper camapign that you are a lesbian ("Anne Richards"), or say you have an illegitamate black baby, or say you lied to get your purple hearts, or conflate you with Osama Bin Laden. Hell they even do that to thier members of thier own team.

So what you, and the DLC, and the other Neocons are doing when using this line of argument is saying : "give in to the bullies".... meaning.... don't do what's right because the bully might hit you with it.

Well that's being a coward. You stand up to the bullies, you *might* get a black eye this time around but the rest of the bullies are going to think twice the next time. A fight isn't usually worth the battle for these jerks. They'll find easier marks.

"For this war" means you refuse to set a time table.

When close to 70 percent of Americans (and Iraqis) are calling for a time table for a pull out our party should have no problem finding the backbone to unify on a 1 year pull out.

I want my leaders in Washington to put what's morally, tactically, and financially right over the fear of loosing thier cushy jobs in D.C.

I'm sorry you disagree.

You really dislike David Sirota, care to explain why?

Once again - elections are won and lost district by district. Do 70% of Americans all agree on the same timetable? The same set of circumstances? It doesn't matter if 90% of the people in, say, Queens, for instance, want to pull out in a year as long as 51% of people in, say, Colorado's western slope, don't.

"Morality" has little place in politics - why else do you think crooks like Karl Rove have had such success? Politics is war - in fact, in the House of Representatives, it's 535 separate wars. And the terrain is different for each one - what gets a candidate elected in one district could very well lose in another.

I don't know how else to explain this. It isn't cowardly to not charge a machine gun (to continue with the war analogy). It's smart. Especially when you're leading in the polls.

There are three races in Colorado this fall that will be very close. We could win all three - or lose all three - and I would much rather the national party remained ambiguous on Iraq than say the wrong thing and possibly lose all three. Two of them are Republican right now and the third was, until 2004, held by Scott McGinnis (google him) - the very definition of right wing fundy nutcase.


-----------------

Why don't I like David Sirota? Well, this article is a good example. Sirota spends way to much of his time attacking other Democrats for my taste. And doing it in an incredibly divisive way.

Another reason -

Sirota is more than willing to bend the facts to fit his arguments - and that makes him a hack in my book. Example here - and be sure to read his original article... which is linked.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html

Please note that Yglesias is not particularly a defender of the DLC - he just found Sirota's article so full of shit he felt compelled to respond.

From my own POV - Sirota lost all credibility when he used the CO western district race (won by John Salazar - D) to justify his "economic populist" theories on how to win elections. It was just such absolute horseshit. John Salazar won that race because of water rights issues - a big thing here in Colorado. His Republican opponent had supported a ballot initiative in 2002 that would have sent western slope water to Colorado Springs (eastern slope) - Salazar had opposed it. That's why he won. Any pundit here would tell you that. It was a very conservative district then (McGinniss's, in fact), and still is now.

On issue after issue he exposes how Republicans and DLC democrats helped have sold out American workers and the middle class.

If you have 70% of the country favoring a pullout the only districts where you are going to find enuf people who are not going to vote for a Democrat because they have uninited on pullout timetable are going to be so "Red" that a Democrat would never have a chance.

As for attacking Democrats: which democrats is he attacking, and why is he attacking them?

Newsflash our party has been infilitrated by a class of people who side with the corporate agenda over the needs of workers and the middle class. I applaud Sirota for calling out the corporations first Democrats.

Yglesias is widely regarded as a water carrier for the D.C. Democratic establishment, including the DLC. Sirota is a threat to the DLC inside-the-beltway culture that is on the payroll of corporate America and tells our leaders to sell out the middle class and workers at every opportunity.

I know I'm not going to influence you in any way.

I mostly posted what I did for others to read.


--------------------

all I will say to you at this point is - I'm glad neither you or Sirota is working on any Democratic campaigns this fall here in Colorado.

because I'll take a DLC/Corporate Dem over a Right Wing Christo-Fundy Nutcase any day of the week. And out here in the hinterlands those are the choices.

It's either a Republican fundamentalist or a DLC Corporate Whore

I'm sorry, you are wrong. Brian Schweizer is neither. And he's the model for the future.

If you don't want either of them, get a progressive populist to run in the primaries.

better than I .

The last progressive populist to run statewide in CO (Mike Miles) got less than 30%. In the primary.

Way to recycle GOP talking points from CSM you tool!

it's a good gig -

The party is united; yet our cowardly "leaders" are not united.

What dissent or disunity to you think he promotes? Would love you to use his actually words to smear him rather then just insinuations and ad hominems.

The Dems can't get it together BS is loud and clear.

"What dissent or disunity to you think he promotes?"

He rips Democrats more often than Republicans usually repeating GOP tp to do so. Which is actually quite funny because one of his pet peeves is Dems repeating GOP TPs.

"Would love you to use his actually words to smear him rather then just insinuations and ad hominems."

When in Rome......

Ok so your problem with him is that he's not a party loyalist?

When he is criticising the Democrats it's usually because they've done something like support GOP lead corporations-first initiatives: like the bankrupsy bill, the medicaid drug benefit giveaway to big pharama, or the energy bill.

So do you think we should sit silently as our party is remade into the Republican's JV-squad?

The title of David's book pretty clearly reveals his bias: "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered Our Government - And How We Take It Back". In it he blasts Republicans and the DLC type Democratic sell outs who enable them.

Is your argument that he didn't use GOP talking points to rip Democrats?