Kos On Democratic Capitulation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:51:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Writing in The Hill, Kos brings a welcome antidote to the Netroots Identity Crisis:

D.C. is a funny place. No one seems to have gotten that resounding message, certainly not Bush and the new Republican minority. More surprisingly, Democrats also failed to get the message. On issue after issue, the Democratic norm has been to capitulate to the slightest pressure from the GOP. And while the public has meted record-low approval ratings for this Congress in response, the lesson apparently remains unlearned. Whether it’s Iraq funding or the Michael Mukasey confirmation, Democrats continue to give away the store without receiving any concessions in return. It’s a one-way street in a town that has ceded Article I of the Constitution for a unitary, non-compromising executive. The public is sick of this administration’s betrayals. Why aren’t Democrats?

Hear! Hear!

< A Netroots Identity Crisis | 2007 is Deadliest Year in Iraq >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Kos On Democratic Capitulation | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Total agreement here (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:44 AM EST

Great points by Markos. Compromise is one thing, capitulation is another. This Congress seems to do only the latter. Quite a disappointment.

KOS Roots R Missing one Very Important Point (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by TearDownThisWall on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:30:31 PM EST

This debate is still about Ideas and Solutions-
and
The country is basically a centrist/ right leaning country and is years away from the KOS vision.

Does it ever occur to KOS, that the representitives who "capitulate" on fighting BushCo....may actually support center/ right solutions/ goals?

How else does one explain it-
BushCo has been a disaster basically, but the ideas/ political will of the Right/GOP is still more attractive than the solutions (to our country's problems) offerd up by the KOS left....and I don't see this changing anytime soon.

: Who is capitulating? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:09:28 PM EST

The Democratic Leadership are dead certain that they will win the Presidency and a Congressional majority next year simply on the strength of "we are not called Republicans".
What motivations do they have to do anything differently? The Iraq occupation will not end, and none of the bullsh*t will stop, unless the Democrats become paralyzed with fear that they will lose congress and the presidency.
Never Give An Inch. Vote for them when they deliver, not when they just make empty promises to deliver.
Hillary has already said she expects the occupation to continue at least until 2013, and refuses to commit to killing the FISA bill.
Votes and contributions are the only leverage people have over them.
And they are counting on people not using it... out of fear of the greater of two evils. In other words they are selling fear. Same tactic the rethugs used so successfully.
If people don't use the only leverage they have, the exactly who is doing the capitulating?
It's a rock and a hard place situation, to be sure. But when you're between a rock and a hard place, choosing one or the other traps you.
That leverage is the only thing people have that can force a paradigm change. They know it. And they are certain that not enough people will use it.

To answer Markos's question (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:08:44 AM EST

for the netroots anyway, it's because we can't decide if we're players or activists.

: We're certainly not players (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:09:46 AM EST

Anyone with the delusion that they are needs to get over that quick.

Netroots aren't players yet (none / 0) (#4)
by tnthorpe on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:46:52 AM EST

because they don't control enough campaign money and while they can shape media agendas, they don't have nearly the impact of the establishment media, yet. Who knows how this might change in the near future?

As for the Dems, here's Sen. Schumer, making one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. From today's NYT:
"Should we reject Judge Mukasey, President Bush has said he would install an acting, caretaker attorney general who could serve for the rest of his term without the advice and consent of the Senate. To accept such an unaccountable attorney general, I believe, would be to surrender the department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington. All the work we did to pressure Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign would be undone in a moment."
---
The Senate must confirm Mukasey or that big mean president will put someone even worse in, that terrible bully. The position is fundamentally dishonest and cowardly. Voting for an AG who can't call torture by its proper name and is on board for the imperial presidency is not surrendering to Dick Cheney precisely how? This is the rationalization for the abdication of the Senate's Constitutional authority.This is capitulation where all sorts of tough compromises were possible.

Fake identity (none / 0) (#5)
by Saul on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:53:37 AM EST

One thing I learned in my life is that people who run for office are one person before they get elected and another after they get elected. Once elected they just can't stick to their true beliefs. They seem to morph into something they don't want to be. They might of believed in all the right things before they got elected but now after they are elected they feel the got to play the political game and fear for their political life if they don't. You just can't be yourself anymore after you are elected. Why? When I first saw Obama I said to my self, "What a refresing thing, a person that is going to run for president who has not been brain wash by years of experience in the political field. This is what we need. A person that is divorced as much as possible from learing the political game. He will speak his mind and say truly what is in his heart. He will be the most unpolitical canditiate and possible president we ever had and he will exercise his convictions no matter what. But as time goes by I see him playing the politcal game just like everyone else. He is not the same man I saw before. That my friend is why the Democrats said one thing in 06 and now are not the same today. The only candidate running for office that I have any respect for is Ron Paul. He speaks the same thoughts that the majority of people want. However, I fear he will change too as time goes on.

Hmmm (none / 0) (#9)
by chemoelectric on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:33:07 PM EST

Ron Paul is one of the craziest loons in Washington, a 'Libertarian' running as a 'Republican' for practical reasons, but his minute hand happens to point in the right direction on an issue, he speaks sincerely (he is a sincere lunatic), and so people flock around him and praise him.


: If he's a lunatic.... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:52:00 PM EST

maybe lunacy ain't so bad.
We might get to the point where trading public schools for peace and greater freedom might not be such a bad deal.
It's not just one issue, he's right on the drug war too, and thats a big one.

BTW (none / 0) (#8)
by chemoelectric on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:21:25 PM EST

By the way, anyone who sees a third party as a solution ought to listen to Bernie Sanders during his regular Friday appearances on the Thom Hartmann program. Try to raise Bush Crime Family issues with Sanders and you end up getting a speech about 'good-paying' jobs and how they raised the minimum wage.

There are no quick fixes. You can't simply move a few miles down the road the way Springfield did after Homer Simpson used the original as a garbage dump.

Democrats Apparent Capitulation to Bush (none / 0) (#11)
by Dad V on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:00:11 PM EST

Ho, Ho, me hearties!

Like just about every other swab bucket, you've gone and totally misread the reason for the scabby performance of the Dems. First, just some of them have bailed, and those are clearly in the same camp as the Liebermans. The latter, like nearly all "neocons" who are 99% Jewish, are defenders of Israel first, and the good ol' USA next (or last). This is so because, above all,
the code of the religion basd diaspora imposes such a structure on its loyal members.

Since Israel has long known that despite its current military superiority over Moslem states in the region, victory in an all out confrontation is still not a certainty, it has needed the power of our proxy military muscle, manpower, and money to reduce the risks associated with taking out their natural enemies: Iraq, Iran, and Syria. We simply do most of their dirty work, an outcome for which every Jew must assume a responsibility to assure.

The power of the Israli, (or if you prefer, Jewish) lobby in US politics is immense, and will always be so, if allowed to go on unchecked! Bush was not just paying allegiance to the oil lobby when he invented his justification for going into Iraq in the very first days of his administration; rather, he was primarily demonstrating an allegiance to Israel generated by the logic argued to him by neocons who, quid pro quo, could assure Jewish support at the republican voting booths, and especially, at fund raisers. All this, of course, was bolstered by Bush's faith in the god of the Jews and Christians, as promulgated by some of his best personal, religeous, and political friends. A pragmatic VP who foresaw that the strife resulting from a Mideast war would automatically drive up the price of oil didn't hurt either, since they all knew this would vastly improve the fortunes of those within Buah's coterie of political and religious friends.

But this power extends as well to rank and file Democrats, and to their chieftans, who, these days, are nearly totally beholden to the power of the Jewish purse and influence. So much so, that there hardly ain't no such thing anymore as a pure Democarat pol.

It's a shame. I did so love Jewish composers, entertainers, and lawyers; in fact just about anyone of note who knew yiddish). They always had special connections to great deals, great foods, and, by far, were always the best and the sweetest lovers. I still do, of course, but it gets harder and harder every day.