Democrats Are Spineless Jellyfish

If this is accurate (Steve Benen thinks it may not be), I’m sure it will do a world of good to raise the American people’s opinion of Congress.

And yes, I’m being sarcastic.

Cross-posted at Liberty Street.



Filed under 05_kathy

14 responses to “Democrats Are Spineless Jellyfish

  1. You know, if Congress isn’t willing to simply end the war by refusing to fund it without a timetable, then maybe they ought to do the complete opposite–send a bill with no timetables in it, but loaded up with every other damn thing they want on their domestic agenda. Tell Bush, you can have your money through September, but we not only want a minimum wage increase, we want massive expansion in Medicare and Medicaid, we want changes in the prescription drug program including importation from Canada and the right to negotiate better prices with Big Pharma, and a few dozen other things as well. He can either have timetables or he can have all this other shit, but he’s not getting precisely what he wants–that’s the price of the 2006 elections. We may not be able to get everything we want past a veto, but dammit, we need to get something out of this.

  2. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    The Democrats remember that back in the 1960s when they did the right thing and ended formal segregation, enough of the white public deserted them to establish the GOP hegemony we all know and loathe today. They fear something similar could happen if they end the war–the fickle public might start believing the “stab-in-the-back” scenario that you KNOW the GOP will start pushing once we, inevitably, lose this war.

    I don’t blame the Dems; I blame those of my fellow palefaces who put their despicable bigotry above THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST. Mencken said, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard.” Too many of my fellow palefaces are now getting the government they deserve, good and hard.

  3. oddjob

    A guest commenter at TPMCafe has a post up where he mentions that the only time Congress has actually cut funds while troops were actually deployed was during “Mr. Madison’s War” (the War of 1812). He was a Jeffersonian and that also was an unpopular war that met with a lot of skepticism, especially in Federalist New England where there was a lot of trade with Britain and Canada, and where the ports were especially vulnerable to attack by the British Navy.

    Despite the unpopularity of the war, the funding cut so badly backfired in the faces of the Federalists that within a few years the party ceased to exist.

    No congress since has cut funds to troops still on active duty in hostilities, popular war or not. When funds for Vietnam action were cut in 1975 active duty combatants had been stateside for two years. Only military advisers were left.

  4. oddjob


    Please feel free to delete the duplicates!!

  5. DBK

    No Incertus. That sounds good, but no.

    Send a bill with a withdrawal timetable and let Bush pay for the war himself out of his own pocket if he vetoes the bill. Then pass the other bills separately and let Bush veto them. But keep passing them. Refuse to back down. I guarantee, with absolute certainty, that the American people will then elect a Democratic president in 2008 who will sign those same laws when they are passed again. The American people are dying for the Democrats to show spine. Let them show spine and not play politics with this thing.

  6. nightshift66

    Sorry, IBW, but I can’t let the Dems off the hook that easily. In the 90s, with the situation reversed, a GOP Congress bowed up and got a lot of its agenda through a Democratic president. But now the GOP is STILL going to bow up and get its way? Bah. It’s lack of will on the Dems part if they roll over.

    Incertus has a great idea, and I hope the Dems run with it. If they are going to fund this war, they’ve made it clear that this is on Bush’s head. Now, they need to get something for it to bring to their constituents. That’s basic politics, and they ought to know it instinctively.

  7. nightshift66

    You overestimate both ‘the American people’ and the Congress. ‘TAP’ are predominantly sheep who can be conned and manipulated with ease. Congress is far more concerned with its perks and privileges than with doing its job, and that’s true regardless of party in power. It is disgusting to see how inferior the Dems are at looking after their own interests, but not surprising.

  8. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Sorry, NS66, but I can’t let my fellow palefaces off that easily. It doesn’t surprise me that the Democrats have decided the American people can’t be trusted not to do a 180 on the Dems if the Dems go out on a limb again. The Stupid White Folks fell for GOP propaganda so easily–who’s to say they won’t fall for it again and leave the Dems stranded again? I don’t blame the Dems for being timid. I blame the Stupid White Folks for MAKING them timid in the first place. If I had put all that time, effort, and money into a political career, I don’t think I would want to risk it all on the virtue and intelligence of an American public that has consistently shown itself to be vicious and stupid. The Dems are failing Us The People because We The People failed them first. Selah.

  9. nightshift66

    You’ll get no argument from me about the Stupid White Folks (since SWF is already taken, how about SPP— Stupid Pale People?). I grew up in Mississippi in the 1970s; I know ALL about the folly of low-income caucasians aligning with money and power against their own economic interests over race. The current success of demogoguery over Latino immigration is evidence that nothing has changed in that respect.

    That said, it is the Democratic pols who chose to run for office on their given platform. The only legitimate reason to seek office is to enact the policies you think best. Since they aren’t willing to take any political risks to do what they know is right, that leaves me to conclude that they want the offices for the perks, pay, and privileges.

  10. burnt toast

    Cowards (with some rare exceptions)… and the stats show how America views Congressional performance …no matter how anyone attempts to discredit the numbers or lie with them.

    “…his arguments make statements about the Bush administration by already announced candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton seem polite and mild-mannered in contrast.” NYT

    I would agree… but only if the reviewer was attempting to make an enormous understatement. Here is the Al Gore I would have voted for if only he had the courage then to stand up and speak honestly without regard to political job security or partisan politics appearances:

    Al Gore Speaks of a Nation in Danger

    I have only read and listened to reviews at this date, but they are enough to make the point.

  11. burnt toast

    We are funding this:
    Baghdad District Is a Model, but Only for Shiites

    Attacks in Sunni Areas in Baghdad Kill at Least 29

    All US taxpayers are all part of the crime if this funding continues… especially knowing now that the US funded killing and destruction is all based upon a pyramid of lies and deceit.

    Enough is enough!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s