for
ASHCROFT LETTERS
...www.bushwatch.com
for
ASHCROFT LETTERS
...www.bushwatch.com
There has been some talk lately about giving up on the Democratic Party and forming a new party based on progressive ideals. But disgust at the apparent acquiescence of our Democratic elected officials to the illegitimate outcome of the 2000 presidential election, and supine acceptance of the mealy-mouthed bipartisanship pap issuing out of the illegally occupied White House should not blind us to political reality. Third parties do not work in America. In case you need reinforcing—third parties do not work in America. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We need to re-inflate the wheel we already have. Then maybe we can get somewhere We do not need a third party. What we need is a functioning opposition party—a Democratic Party that works according to the will of its members, and not according to . . . well, not according to whatever mysterious thing seems to be driving the national party these days. The results of the 2000 presidential election hold many encouraging signs for progressives. Gore and Nader combined garnered well over half the votes cast on Nov. 7. (By the way, let’s not waste any more of our much-needed political energy dissing Ralph Nader. He’s history. It’s the future we need to focus on). We gained seats in both House and Senate, although not as many as we had hoped. And WE WON the Presidential election. What we lost was the Supreme Court—and we lost that years ago when we “courteously” allowed right-wing jurists with puny legal credentials to be seated. What we really need is to fuel a progressive takeover of one of the two functioning major political parties in the U.S. Surely no one believes that could happen in this (or any other) Republican party. Which leaves us with the Democrats. We can take some lessons from the Repugs, though. I am old enough (don’t ask) to remember when the term “conservative” was a joke. Anyone pegged with that label was howled into political oblivion before you could say “knee-jerk.” Now, the term “liberal” is just as laughable to many Americans—even some who actually harbor liberal beliefs. The Republican Party turned things around. We can too. There were two main parts of the great GOP comeback after the 60s and 70s, as I see it. On one hand, they wrenched control of the language of politics for their own use. Increasingly they controlled the terms of debate, defined terms, even perverted the language to achieve their ends. “Liberal” became synonymous with “flag-burning, America-hating, drug-addicted, cowardly, anti-family, anti-white Christian male hippie.” Liberals lost control of their own definition—and haven’t regained it yet. We must start by redefining the discourse IN OUR OWN TERMS. Patriotism shouldn’t mean simply wrapping ourselves in the flag—it must mean defending the Constitution. For example, true patriots, in liberal terms, are those who know that the outcome of the 2000 presidential election was illegitimate. True patriots will not “get over it” because true patriots do not acquiesce in tyranny. And don’t ever let anyone tell you different. As my sainted mother used to say, “You can piss in my ear, but you can’t call it rain.” We may have been pissed on, but we all know that yellow stuff ain’t rain. The second thing the Republicans did to regain power back in the day was to energize and politicize their base—and get them to the polls and involved in other ways. Why do you think the Christian Right has such a powerful sway in the Bush Residency? We have to do this, too. Progressives can be the Democratic Party equivalent of the Christian Right (and wouldn’t that be Ralph Reed’s worst nightmare!) We may have to convince the professional Democrats that they need to pay attention to us, and that’s too bad. But there must be studies and doctoral theses and think tank reports out there that can tell us how the right wing did it. WE CAN DO IT TOO. But we have to work with the sadly deflated Democratic Party. It’s the only real option we have. Otherwise, by the time the wheel has been re-invented, and ready to roll, the right-wing takeover will be complete, and we won’t even be allowed on the political roads. --P.G. at Buzzflash, 2/9/01
I think it's ridiculous that you have pictures with Hitler mustaches up of the 8 Dems and don't have ANY Republicans, esp. the so-called moderates: Jeffords of VT, Collins of ME, Snowe of ME, Chaffee of RI, Spectre (sic) of PA, and maybe that Smith guy from OR (not really a moderate but sometimes plays one on TV). What are you, a crypto-Republican yourself??? IMO, the attacks on all 8 Democrats are counterprorudctive. If you want to yell at Dodd and Feingold, THAT is fine; they come from states where another Democrat has a good chance to win, and I find Dodd's vote inexplicable. Feingold's I understand but find ridiculous; I got deja vu all over again listening to his justification, because it sounded just like all the misguided Nader voters I talked to last fall. Anyway, I don't trust that campaign finance crap of Feingold's any more--who will it hurt most? unions? that's my best. And with the faith-based money pouring in to Pat Robertson's Republican troops, will it really matter? As for Byrd of W VA, I don't know--I think you need another really viable candidate in W VA before you go off picking on him. He is an old windbag, very Dixiecrat; but he is also one of those senators with his own little domain, so if you push him, he'll switch parties and likely still keep his seat, no matter who you put up; that's the way things are with the Byrds in West Virginia, I'm afraid. I could be wrong, but you'd better check with West Virginia Dems. As for Breaux of LA, I don't know, the Repubs seem out to get him to join their party--it was Smirk's number 1 priority, as far as I could tell. And remember, Billy Tauzin of LA did that and is getting lots of goodies. If Breaux switched parties, my guess is he too would win in reelection. So my advice is, let the Lousiana Dems call the shots; they know their state best, and we want to keep that seat Democratic. Remember, we only have 50 in the S3nate; in 2002 we can win 1-3 but we can't go losing others! And I REALLY don't think Dems have the right to bellyache much on Georgia's Miller or Nebraska Nelson--they ran for the senate (after much persuasions from the Dems) with the understanding that they would go their own way, and they helped give Dems the 50 in the Senate in 2000, in states that went for Bush by a wide margin, so we have to cut them some slack. And I also don't see any point in picking on Dorgan and Conrad. It's amazing we have Democrats at all from North Dakota; I think Bush won there by 30 percent! We just have to cut them a little slack too. They did what they think was best to please their constituents. Seems to me there are an awful lot of Nader voters who are now trying to call the shots with the Dems. Shame on you! I welcome you all back to the party, but you did help lose us the election, so let he who is without sin cast the first stone. --SP, 2/6/01
I live in Texas. Here, there is no viable state-wide Democratic party at all. The majority of Texans vote for Republicans in all state-wide offices: both senators are Republican, as are the holders of all state political offices, and all supreme court justices. The residents of several other Southern states prefer to have a choice at election time. Good for them! The natural way to present a choice to an electorate that has an open mind, at least in this country, is to give them a Republican candidate, and a Democratic candidate. But if an open-minded state electorate inclines toward troglodytic policies, the two parties must necessarily skew in that direction when they select candidates. At least if they want to win. That is why we have senators Breaux and Miller. We used to have senator Shelby too, but this self-interested hack realized finally, and correctly, that the only way to keep in office in Alabama was to become a Republican. That's Alabama for you. Fortunately, Alabama and Texas are not the nation. Other conservative states wish to have a choice. But because of their conservative bias, Democrats who are elected to statewide office, like senator and governor, are likely to be well to the right of the mainstream of the Democratic party. This is not extraordinary, and should in fact be expected. To reject such persons--when they are prepared to vote for Daschle and Gephardt for the presiding positions in the Senate and House--because they represent the views of Democrats in their state more than they do Democrats nationwide, is not only self-defeating, it is stupid. Democrats should continue to vote for Democrats from conservative states who cast disappointing votes. --WU, 2/5/01
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore . The Democratic leadership is bending over backward for what? To pick their battles? By the time they get to picking their battles the war will be over. Already we have an illegitimate APPOINTED President. We already have the "New and Improved" forget-the-past Attorney General Ashcroft and the "Environmentally safe" Interior Secretary James-Watt-wannabee Gail Norton. Now a tax cut is coming that says screw the working stiff, give the money to the wealthy so they can invest it and makes things better for the workers and the economy. Excuse me but wasn't "trickle down economics" a failure once? Isn't once enough? Why do the Democratic leaders think a battle with DUHBYAH and the Republicans will lose voters. More people voted against BUSH than for him....Let's cut the crap and start fighting more. -- John, 2/5/01
Russ Feingold needs to remember that he barely squeeked out a win in his last Senate race, a race in which he was running against an extremist right-wing nutcase, Mark Neumann. I don't think he realizes the extent to which he has alienated his base constituency here in America's Dairyland. If he doesn't come up with some sort of plausible explanation for his Ashcroft vote--as if there could be a plausible reason for putting this bigot into office--Russ will NEVER serve another term in the Senate. We won't foget Russ' sell-out. --Paul, 2/3/01
I read your website everyday, it’s funny and keeps me informed about the enemy. I read all the letters from others disappointed in their party (Democrats) I however am registered Independent, and looking at the current state of affairs, very proud to be one. In an article I read from your website, of the registered voters 31% are Republicans 33% Democrats and 35% are Independents. If you Democrats want to say something to your party, register as an Independent, not only will it scare them it will scare the Republicans. Not knowing if you have the votes will scare the shit out of both parties, who do you pander to? Not knowing just might make some be a little more honest, of course that is a lot to ask. I know a lot of Independent voters, and yes most voted for Gore, but Independents are not happy with the political system, and this election brought it home, could there be a more dishonest group of people. The only way to let the Democrats and Republicans know how mad you are, is to register Independent, you can still vote Democrat but boy will it do a lot to shake up the system, which sure needs it. This way you hold them hostage, not the other way around. Keep them guessing. --2/3/01, AN
The argument that the Dems "have to pick their fights" is total malarkey. The Republicans in Congress don't pick their fights, they pursue their agenda without fail. Standing up to Smirk would not hurt the Dems. For six years, the Republicans not only refused to work with Clinton, they actively went after him with investigation after investigation, and what did it get them? Control of Congress and the White House. So saying that the Dems have to be bipartisan in order to not turn off the electorate is total bullshit. Quite the opposite. They make themselves attractive to no one, the liberals are tired of being sold out, and swing voters won't gravitate to weaklings. Smirk looks good, his programs pass, he gets elected in 2004.--Mark, 2/2/01
We don't need a new party, 42% percent of our party voted with their conscience. We need to preplace the remaining 8% who've sold their souls to the political system in exchance for the prospect of a few more votes come election time. Republicans love this fracturing of our party, and every mention of disillusioned Democrats swinging toward Darth Nader brings a stupid Dubya-like grin to their faces. Believe me their are planty of Democrats in Conneticut and Wisconsin to replace the likes of Dodd and Feingold. We don't need a new party, we need new leaders. We must remain united under the principles of the party and cast off those who pander for votes and their own personal political gain. --MS, 2/2/01
Just a quick note to those "pick your battles" types. Moderate Republicans sat around in the minority for 40+ years. Moderate Demecrats could easily do the same. Say what you like about Gingrich, Lott, DeLay, Armey, et al, they fought Clinton from day 1 and won the day in '94. Six years later, they are still running the show. They are not moderates, "governing from the center," they are hard conservatives who have learned the spin game pretty well. A decisive defeat in 2002 will only be accomplished if the Dems fight tooth and nail, every vote, every nomination, every time. This govern from the center crap is a load of BS. If you add Gore votes and Nader votes, you come out with and incredible mandate for left wing policy initiatives. Bush learned triangulation from Clinton and is applying his lessons as we speak. If the Democrats don't start fighting now, a significant portion will be co-opted by the nickname man in the Oval Office, and then we are all screwed. --EO, 2/2/01
With the Senate divided 50-50 as it is, if every Democrat had voted against Mr. A, he still would have been confirmed. That much is clear. So I think Feingold could, in reasonable conscience, vote for confirmation with the idea that it might make passage of campaign finance reform a bit easier. And I can't disagree. After all, what is more important: a noble vote in a losing battle? Or success in important legislation? Of course, knowing that Feingold would vote that way, other Democratic Senators then felt free to vote with the majority for reasons of individual advantage, whatever those reasons are. This is a tried and true political tactic: when you can win, vote your conscience; when you're going to lose, vote expediently. The legislator whose vote secured abortion rights in New York, and who lost his seat for that reason, had voted with the majority on every previous vote that had denied those rights. To my mind, he was a hero. So I'm not inclined to damn the defectors out of hand. --MH, 2/2/01
I honestly think the Democrats in Congress expect that they can win some concessions from bush. They think since he knows they had the votes to block ashKKKroft by filibuster, he will act sensibly and fairly. I think that's just insane, but they think they can try this. Good luck. I will keep fighting anyone from any party who supports any of bush's insane, stupid, and destructive policies. 2002 is getting closer every day. NEVER let your elected officials forget that. --Bush Watcher, 2/2/01
I hope Dems are not planning on voting against Breaux, Dodd, et. al. To do so would be to engage in exactly the same sort of self-righteous idiocy as was practiced by Nader voters in the last election. Don't encourage such foolishness. --WU, 2/2/01
With the stealing of the election by Bush and his co-conspirators, the installation of racist John Ashcroft as attorney general, and the lack of true opposition from elected "Democrats", it is time for people of conscience to "take to the streets". However, we put forth the idea that in the year 2001, there are more effective methods of demonstrating than the traditional rally/protest: We live in the Electronic Age, where the world is connected by phone, often through the Internet. There are vast networks like AOL and IRC where thousands of people can "gather" at one time from all geographical areas. Further, chip technology has made long-distance phone calls cheap and instantaneous, as compared with 30-40 years ago. Many cellular phone networks routinely give their subscribers a large amount of free long-distance time. Let us discuss and come up with new ways to demonstrate, but this time we should harness the electronic power at everyone's disposal.... The advantage of electronic over conventional demonstrations is clear- hundreds of thousands, even millions of people can "gather" and "be heard" without being physically present. This makes it infinitely harder for "authorities" to harass and even physically injure the demonstrator.. a certain element of anonymity is present.. it is quick and relatively inexpensive- a demonstration can be organized and carried out within hours. There is great power in numbers. Let's consider these ideas and do whatever it takes to preserve what is left of our democracy. Almost ANY direct action will be superior to the current bending over of our "representatives". --jfw, 2/2/01
I honestly think that Ashcroft and the other Cabinet nominees being confirmed is about the best thing we can hope for in the world. You have to allow the man enough rope to hang himself don't you? Does anyone doubt that Ashcroft (amongst others) will end up being at best an embarrassment or at worst down right detrimental to the current administrations legitimacy? I didn't think so. The worst thing about this election is that it really has showed the true colors of the Republican party. Face it, the part of State's Rights defied State law in Florida. What it all boils down to is win at any cost. The cost? Loss of the Congress in 2002 and the presidency in 2004. --JS, 2/2/01
I think the time has come to forget Nader, he is no longer the point. Sure, we can argue that he bears the brunt of responsibility for Bogus W. Potus, but that argument only diverts attention from the truth. The truth is that we have undergone a bloodless coup d' etat in this country and our current 'leader' is a traitor to our form of government and he has been abetted by an equally treacherous extreme wing of the 'Party of Lincoln' and a corrupt Supreme Court. Just as Chamberlain landed in London all those years ago proclaiming 'Peace in our time' so our toothless Democrats proclaim 'Bipartisan co-operation'. They will be bitten by the dog they have lain down with just as Britain was mangled by it's mongrel while 'We the People' suffer the consequences. If the Green Party has a lick of sense they will forego any designs on winning the Executive branch and focus on winning some seats in the Legislative, particularly the House. They could actually accomplish this without hurting the Democrats too badly. If they were to focus on heavily Democratic states and replace a few Dems here and there, while letting the Dems focus on more centrist states where they might be able to grab a seat or two from the Repugnantkans. This strategy, if successful, would eliminate the current Repug majority from at least one house of congress and, if the Dems were to be successful in taking back the other house the usurper would be politically castrated. A fitting end to his assault on Democracy and a powerful smack to the Dems that we will resist being taken for granted because as we all know, the first step towards irrelevance is accepting being taken for granted. --WDM,2/2/01
One aspect of the furor over Ashcroft and the Bush Administration generally that you have not touched on is the apprehension of Jewish Americans. Based on conversations I have had with some, I would say that their degree of apprehension is rather high, and probably justifiably so. A business associate of mine who I don't consider to be paranoid called Leiberman's office, and told them, in connection with Ashcroft , that she "does not want to wear a yellow star, damnit". Bush consorts with and receives succor from anti-Semites in the Christian right; there are no Jews in the cabinet, he owes them nothing, "faith based" institutions will receive government patronage, Christian schools will have their vouchers, and the Republicans are turning pardoned Marc Rich and the four Hasidim into poster boys. It is a dangerous aspect of the Bush presidency, and I think it is real. --BH, 2/2/01
Even though I was gratified that my Senators in California voted against the confirmation of Ashcroft, I was extremely dismayed by the actions of Dodd and Feingold. In addition the refusal to fillibuster the process left me wondering if this was the democratic party I joined years ago. The one which furthered civil rights, a woman's right to choose, and seperation of church and state. Based on what has transpired, I have lost much confidence in the Democratic party. I have therefore changed my party affiliation from Democratic to non-partisian. Unfortunately, Nader's words are becoming more true. There is less and less difference between the two major parties. --JL, 2/2/01
This is a copy of the letter that I sent to my Democratic senators and Feingold. "I have been a Democrat for a long time. It was shameful how the Democrats abandoned Gore although he actually won the election; if the Democrats can't even stick together in voting down the Ashcoft nomination, I might as well vote for a third party candidate. At least I will know that my vote is wasted and not get any false hopes that the Democrats will fight the Republican self righteous regime who have no qualms about stealing an election. --JS, 2/2/01
Seeing today's cartoon brought back some memories. I was reminded of the verdict from President Clinton's impeachment trial, which had 5 Republican senators voting to acquit. Those senators were Collins and Snowe of Maine, Jeffords of Vermont, Chafffe of Rhode Island (now deceased) and Specter of Pennsylvania. At the time, we hailed them as heros, profiles in courage we said, for doing the right thing and voting their conscience. Granted 4 of the 5 were from the liberal northeast and most likely gave their re-election campaigns some serious weight in deciding how to vote. Back then, Republicans patted themselves on the back for their bipartisan vote, high mindedly pointing out that all the Democrats stuck together like glue and voted the party line. Fast forward to now and our roles have reversed. Just because all the Dems didn't vote like we hoped doesn't make them Hitler clones. The two senators from North Dakota most likely gave their re-election campaigns some thought when deciding how to vote. Ditto for Breaux, Miller and Nelson as all represent red states. I can't figure out the thinking of Byrd (maybe he's starting to lose it?) or Feingold or Dodd as all three represent traditionally Democratic states despite West Virginia going for Bush this year. All I know is the anger leveled on these men seems hypocritical to me. And hypocrisy is better worn on Republicans. Fighting amongst ourselves will get us nowhere. At this rate, rather than gain ground, we will lose it in both houses in 2002. Let the people of Wisconsin, Connecticut and West Virginia decide whether and how to punish their senators. Yesterday's vote did provide the much needed definition of Bush's idea of bipartisanship. Bush offers up his appointments and programs and this phenomenon of bipartisanship occurs when Democrats come crawling across the aisle to be initiated with a goofy nickname and a slap across the back. I guess we are witnessing the equivalent of pledge week. I can't wait to see what Bush has planned for Grecian Week - maybe keggers on the White House lawn, or maybe Lott's pink panties hanging from the WH flagpole. Should be fun to watch. --SH, 2/2/01
I just sent the National Democratic Fundraiser letter back with the message that no filibuster for Ashcroft means no money for Democrats. --EO, 2/2/01
The demos are picking their fights. Ashcroft was in and it was a show that the demo COULD filibuster if it suits them. We will learn the the true defintion of fascism and theoracy soon enough. --JA, 2/2/01
"If [the Democrats] fought [the Republicans] on everything . . . ." What have they fought the Republicans on thus far? Did I fall asleep and miss some rousing, democratic oppositional behavior? Or did I see what I know I saw: submission to the anti-democratic attack on "partisan bickering," and thus no "bickering"/opposition at all. Dump the DLC. Or hold it down until it surrenders and admits, "Okay, okay, we're really Republicans substituting for the Republicans who are now Reich-Wing stormtroopers!" The DLC has blown it with the "rank-and-file." --JN, 2/2/01 Perhaps the solution to this problem is not to find another party, but to clean house of all the Democrats who have become ladies in waiting to the Republican bosses. --Roberto, 2/2/01
It's hard for me to imagine why any intelligent person would continue to propagate Nader's pathetic shrill cry that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Would Al Gore have nominated someone like Ashcroft aka Adolph Hitler for Justice, or Gale Norton, aka BP-Amoco for Interior? Or made his first Presidential action an executive order forbidding the mention of abortion in international family planning counseling? Obviously not. As you should know, a party can't simply filibuster everything and still maintain public credibility. The democrats would, I am sure, filibuster Ashcroft if he is appointed to the Supreme Court. They're picking their fights carefully, as they should. --MM, 2/2/01
That is SO disgusting. Where's the damn guillotine? What a bunch of assholes, excuse my "french". I'm beginning to think that Daddy "CIA" Bush has so much dirt on all these jerks that they'd rather just go along with the Shrub and play nice. You COULD have a damn Shrub in charge and do a better job. When Pat Robertson and the Moonies come to my house looking for their contribution from my lousy tax cut (single people don't get any break I notice) I'm going to give them bags of cat turds. God help the environment under these losers. --LAL, 2/2/01
please, start a new party.... i like listening to dems complain it makes me warm inside keep em coming. --CP, 2/2/01
I am as mad a hell, too. But hold on: let us not throw the baby away with the bath water. We need the Democratic Party and it needs us. We must hammer away at the leadership that we do not like what they have done. And we demand that they explain clearly to Mr. Bush and his pathetic Cabinet that they do not belong there. To the media, who are falling all over to praise this "new charismatic leader" we simply need to explain to them that if they would do a little hard work, investigate, and get real, then his charisma will disappear. --JC, 2/2/01
While I would have loved to see a filibuster against Ashcroft, I am trying to see a silver lining in this debacle. For a while I have been thinking that all this attention to Ashcroft has been a clever ploy to take the focus away from Bush, himself, and the Florida recount. Maybe now some serious attention will be paid to Bush. Very little media attention has been paid to the recount that is proceeding slowly and steadily in Florida and may probably show that Bush used the courts to stop a count that would have proved Gore the winner. So what's the point? The point is to keep that Florida fiasco on the front burner so the electorate won't forget about it come 2002. If it diminishes or casts illegitimacy on Bush's Residency, so what? This is still all about Florida and what Bush did to assure his "victory." That's where our attention should be. Anything else is just a side show. --CP, 2/2/01
I'm not looking elsewhere for a new party. It ain't that simple, so quit parroting Nader's line. The present sorry state of affairs is question of simple political arithmetic. By taking their toys and going home, the Greens proved to the Democratic Party that liberal votes aren't worth the trouble. The Dems more than picked up enough votes elsewhere to win the election. The Republicans have a unified extreme wing to keep happy; the Democrats don't. So the Bushies throw Cabinet posts at the right-wing nuts; the Democrats have less incentive to keep the liberals and left happy. Dan Savage and others predicted before the election that if Nader cost Gore the White House, the Democratic Party would race to the right. That is now happening. The Naderites were full participants in this debacle and are as responsible for it as anyone else. So instead of running to a third party ill-equipped to run national campaigns and win, organize and stage a takeover of the Democratic Party. Liberals did it once in 1968; we can do it again. But a word of advice. When we get control of the Democratic Party again, we should be more astute in our presidential strategy. If a liberal had just once captured the White House (no, Carter wasn't a liberal), we wouldn't be in this jam in the first place. --EC, 2/2/01 Not one senator could be found to challenge the ill-gotten Florida electoral votes. Not one senator could be found to filibuster against the appointment of an obvious liar, a man who puts his religion above the law of the land. We are angry. We are very, very angry. You, Dem Senator, may think that you have helped soothe the waters. You may think that you have toned down the divisiveness in Washington. But then again, maybe you have made some pact with the Republicans. Only time will tell. We will know, soon enough, what they promised you in exchange for your meekness. You should know that you do not oppose a bully by appeasing him. And make no mistake about it, this is a bullying administration. You oppose a bully by facing him down. Bullies turn and run when you are brave enough to stand up to them. If only someone had had the courage to say no. But they didn't. Let it be on your head. --CK, 2/2/01
I am a loyal Democratic resident of Connecticut who has always had the highest regard for Chris Dodd. I was stunned by his vote and his rationale that he was not going to descend to the Republican level and do to Ashcroft what Ashcroft and the rest of the Republican Senators routinely did to Clinton nominees. A display of high-mindedness is not going to induce Trent and his Neanderthals to change their ways; the only thing that will get their attention is to respond in kind. Democrats are a higher grade of human being than Republicans, but I think Dodd's high-mindedness was a futile gesture in this case. --BH, 2/2/01
So I wake up today and find that Boy and Girl bands are in the top music spots, you have to dance before you can get a record contract, NPR is about to get cut,eminem is eating bad german ecstacy, Friggin Asscroft is in, and I ,who voted for Nader, am the cause of Herr W. being in office. I knew it would be a weird day. --DB, 2/2/01 Uncle Tom Daschle, Doddering Dodd and Russ Feinfart stuck it to us again. They're sending a message to the Bogus Potus, all right. "We're a bunch of disorganized, ineffectual a-holes who couldn't mount a donkey, let alone a measly filibuster. " The Democratic Party is DOA. Can it be revived for 2002? With lunkheads like these in "charge," brother, it don't look good. --PJ, 2/1/01
I am dismayed and disgusted to discover that the lying fascist bastard Ashcroft has been confirmed. People say the Dems have to "choose their battles." I say if it wasn't worth a battle to keep a lunatic like Ashcroft out of the Cabinet, then where in the world do you draw the line? What's next, a posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor for Byron de la Beckwith? David Duke on the Supreme Court?--EW, 2/1/01
Democratic Senate Leader Daschle today declared: "We have peace in our time !" He swore that Ashcroft will be the last Far Right candidate that Herr Bush will dare send up for confirmation. "After all, having Ashcroft confirmed without much of a fight sent a loud and clear message: we'll mean business next time !". In an unrelated development, twenty more Federal agencies announced they will be relocating to West Virginia.--RS, 2/1/01
I knew this would happen, but I'm still pissed. I am going to keep fighting even harder. We have our work cut out for us. It's up to us to make sure people know and understand what's going on. But don't be defeatist -- we are going to get the word out! Now we REALLY know we have to lead. We have to choose the fighters, push the wimpy "semicrats" out of the way, and hammer the right wingers. Get up in their faces. Demand respect and take what belongs to us. This is what I'm talking about: .--Mike, 2/1/01
I'm a lifelong democrat and I'm OK with the Ashcroft nomination. Let the people see just what kind people Bush want's on his team. I'm sure that Ashcroft will prove to be an embarrassment. I'll bet he doesn't last out the first term. I think Bush will prove to be a bust. If he's successful, so much better for the Country. I predict his administration will prove to be a n abysmal failure and we'll get rid of him and his kind next time, AND there's always a next time. I just hope we can find a better candidate than Al Gore, who I supported financially and spiritually, next time.--EB, 2/1/01
I don't think it's reasonable to say that the Dems have caved in, when 38 of them voted no against Ashcroft. A filibuster is awkward and embarrassing to the candidate, but hardly fatal. We can either fight for more unity and progressive strength in the party, or we can abandon the party, rendering it more conservative than we left it. The idea is to stand up for your liberal or progressive agenda with everyone you encounter, as well as fighting the tendency toward conservatism in the Democratic party. I'm not a Democrat because I'm pleased with the party as it is. But, as a progressive Democrat, I know that I must argue my case among Dems. I draw the line between the parties as they exist. What we can't do, is accept apathetically, the natural movement towards centrism in our party. We have as much of a chance of driving out the less stalwart politicians from our party, as they do of driving us out. But we have to turn more average Americans around, before we work on removing weak-willed Democrat politicians out of their offices. I'm struck by the fact that Nader received (even after being abandoned, at the last moment, by half of his followers, that went back to vote for Gore) 3 times as many votes as Buchanan. This is the worst time to splinter the left-of-center coalitions in this country. The left isn't politcally strong enough, to lose membership anywhere on the left of center. If our strength increases, we can afford to alienate some of the weaker centrists.--JP, 2/1/01
God help us if we start looking to Ralph Nader at this point in the game. He's the one that got us IN to this mess in the first place!!!! Please Please Please do not go encourage this third party thinking- it will be the end of us all. Republicans were funding Nader ads in California last October...they KNOW how valuable he is to maintaining their reign of terror. Please don't help them!!! I hardly think that no matter what kind of bought and sold panderer you may think Al Gore and the Dems are that they would have presented us with an Ashcroft, or a Norton or or or ....--GD, 2/1/01
Thanks for your comment today in re the Dem's cave-in, ass-kiss, bend-over, fuck-up. I'm getting sicker by the day over it, however, one thing I will do is this: Yesterday I received a mass mail piece asking for money for the Democratic Senate Campaign (2002). Well, needless to say I will return it sans money but with a nice note attached stating the money will follow when the current Senate Dem's show some fucking backbone and aggressiveness. It is sickening to see what is happening. In fact, my paranoid self is beginning to think this whole Dem cave-in is a ploy to strengthen the DLC. By caving in, Bush gets exactly what he wants and he does become our worst nightmare -- just what the DLC said would happen. Also, a kind of "we'll show them (progressives, populists, Greens, etc) there is a difference between R'sand D's". If you let the R's have their way without fighting them, there is a difference, but it doesn't have to be that way. -- Tom W., 2/1/01
I understand your outrage at the nomination and confirmation of Ashcroft as A.G. I also understand your frustration with this whole election and all that has transpired since then. However, I do not agree with your recent anti-democrat postings. There was nothing the Senate Dems could do to keep Ashcroft from becoming A.G. They did not have the votes, pure and simple. The fact that 42 senators voted against Ashcroft in no way signals that they would have all also supported a filibuster. It also seems silly to blame the Senate Democrats for not mounting a "formal protest" after Scalia stole the election for Bush. It was over. Their protest only would have hurt themselves, the party, and the future candidacy of whomever knocks of Bush in 2004. These behaviors do not reinforce Nader's "no difference between the parties" rhetoric in the slightest. Nader has the luxury to remain ideologically pure. He never has to compromise, he can always take the higher ground. Institutional politicians do not have this ability. There has to be some calculation of strategy at the occasional expense of ideology. If not, then you end up going down for nothing. Lets not forget the obvious fact that Ashcroft himself would not have been nominated had Gore won. Seems like a pretty big difference to me. --BH, 2/1/01
Agreed, 100%. I called the offices of the following Senators to express my outrage: Daschle, Dodd, Feingold, Kennedy and Schumer. I told them nearly verbatim what you said above. I am infuriated beyond belief. The legislative aide a Schumer's office even patronized me and said "that's how a democracy works." Had I not been so dumbfounded by this jerk's ignorance, I would have responded "but Bush wasn't elected, he was *Selected* by his cronies on the supreme court" (small letters for the small 5-small minded idiots who sit on this now disgraced court intentional). I feel like I'm a stranger in a foreign land now...--HM, 2/1/01
I know you're not a Naderite. The point is, Bush won the election (at least he's been inaugurated), so he gets to pick the cabinet. The average voter is tired of partisan warfare, if we start it right out of the gate it will bite us in the ass in 2 years. Tell the Naderites to cool it, don't screw up the elections in 2002 and 2004 like they did in 2000 by demanding ideological purity. Presidents are elected in the middle these days. That's why Bush sugarcoated his rightwing agenda during the campaign.--KD, 2/1/01
I know you're not a Naderite. The point is, Bush won the election (at least he's been inaugurated), so he gets to pick the cabinet. The average voter is tired of partisan warfare, if we start it right out of the gate it will bite us in the ass in 2 years. Tell the Naderites to cool it, don't screw up the elections in 2002 and 2004 like they did in 2000 by demanding ideological purity. Presidents are elected in the middle these days. That's why Bush sugarcoated his rightwing agenda during the campaign.--KD, 2/1/01
A suggestion for this group of traitors.....From now on they should be called the All Bark and No Bite Buncg.....these treasonous Democrats should switch parties...As a life long Democrat I take no pleasure in being critical of Democratic Senators, but this is too much....A policy and motto that has guided me for many years has been the concept that People Before Polictics was the most decent and honorable force to drive the Democratiic Party......no longer is that the case...Now it is Politics Before People, or Politics as usual....I am saddened by this turn of events....--Col. Bushwacker, 2/1/01
Isn't it ironic: Bush was just preaching on how members of his administration had to avoid "even the appearance" of ethical improprieties...just as he's pushing Ashcroft for A.G. - the same Ashcroft accused of abusing his elected office for political gain during recent campaigns, of misrepresenting a nominee's record. And the Dems bend over. Nader was right. The difference is only a matter of how quickly their knees hit the floor.--CL, 2/1/01
Of all the times to 'send a messege', this was not it. Ashcrotch is no good, the evidence knew it, the witnesses said so and the Senators just wanted to 'send a messege'? Would Ashcrotch accept the answeers he gave the committe invesitgating him? Hell No...they would be thrown out of court. --Lyle, 2/1/01
Oh please, spare me the "Nader was right" crap. Nader cost us the election, and his main position -- that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans -- has been shown to be complete bullshit by Bush's appointment of extremists like Ashcroft and Norton. The hard truth is that it's tradition -- we're talking over 200 years now -- to allow new presidents lots of leeway in picking their cabinets. That's what's going on. I bet you everything I own that if Bush tries putting a rightwing extremist on the Supreme Court there will be a filibuster. Democrats have to pick their battles, they can't oppose everything Bush wants to do, or else they'll generate sympathy for Bush from the swing voters we'll need to take the Congress in '02. Let's not have the Naderites call for the Democrats to form a circular firing squad over problems caused by the Naderites' electoral stupidity. THEY gave us Bush, THEY gave us Ashcroft, THEY gave us Norton. Not the Democrats. --DK, 2/1/01
Welllllll... I can't speak for the other states, but I seriously doubt Dems in Georgia are gearing up to defeat Zell Miller. I don't really think that would be possible. For one thing, in Georgia, like in other parts of the South, many Democrats are like moderate Republicans elsewhere (if they even exist anymore). Miller remains a very popular ex-governor (who was pretty good, actually, in many respects) who soundly defeated his very conservative opponent last fall. In truth, his recent sidings with the Repubs in Congress will likely increase his popularity here at home. Dems in Georgia, even liberal, progressive ones like myself, realize that a centrist like Miller is the best chance against the truly insane right-wingers that live here. Remember, this is the same state that has districts that elect the likes of Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich. Outside of Athens and Atlanta (the former is a university town, the latter a major urban center) and the black districts of the state, I doubt that there was much support in GA for Gore's efforts in Florida, for instance. While we have a lot of registered Democrats, most of them are closer to Zell Miller than Ted Kennedy, or even Al Gore. Heck, Miller campaigned on the notion that he would not be beholden to any particular party. One can only hope that his support of Asscroft (is that juvenile?) is a calculated political move that will give him some slack in his home state to be more sensible later on. (Although I am hard-pressed to explain his co-sponsorship of Shrub's tax plan, except to say that he also campaigned on tax cuts, specifically the repeals of the estate tax and the marriage penalty). If not, it will be a long four years for liberal Georgians.--CP, 2/1/01
While I am saddened that the Dems failed to mount a filibuster to stop the Crisco Man from becoming attorney general, I do see Senator Daschle's point that the Dems have to choose their battles wisely. If they fought junior on everything they would be labeled by the media and the middle-of-the-road voters as sore losers. No matter how true it is that junior was selected and not elected and that he isn't entitled to do anything in the Oval Office but clean the toilets in the presidential bathroom, the majority of Republicans, moderates and the media don't see it that way. That means it's the Dems against everyone else and we are fighting an uphill battle. Therefore, while saddened that they chose not to stick it to Crisco Man, I do believe that the 42 nay votes they mustered today means that if junior sends a "fringe person" to the Senate for approval to the Supreme Court the war will officially begin. There is no point in winning the battle if we loose the war.--SH, 2/1/01
I call it fascism and theocracy. Thank you for letting me know the ghastly news!--MR, 2/1/01
  Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed. Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. Duration of working link not under our control. Updated daily at various times. Send all e-mail to Politex.
|
