Keith Olbermann: Purity Troll

The title is a joke. Based on his special comment tonight (C&L has the video):

Few men or women elected in our history—whether executive or legislative, state or national—have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq. Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;

. . . You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

Fair enough but time to keep working. Voting no on the cavein bill is what good Democrats should do. Let the GOP and the Blue Dogs pass it. Then, announce a date certain for NOt funding the Iraq Debacle.

< Harkin Introduces Bill to Close Guantanamo | American Idol: Congratulations, Jordin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When the "purity trolls" are (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:20:25 PM EST
    in the majority, they are neither.

    I am working, BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by clio on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:35:56 PM EST
    Writing, marching, calling; converting my friends in this deep red area of Michigan.

    Even got 3 or 4 of them to vote Dem for the first time in 2006.  
    And now what do I say?  
    That the Dem leadership folds under pressure from a  selfish, lying President?
    Wait for 2008?  

    I may hang on, but these people came on board to end the war.  They feel betrayed.  It would really help if the Dems would announce the next step to bring the troops home. Supposedly Levin has a bill.  Let's HEAR about it. Tomorrow would not be too soon.

    Right now the Democrats look like patsies.  
    Weak patsies.

    Managing Bush's funding bill for him (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by fairleft on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:32:57 AM EST
    What I don't get is, if Bush had the votes for unconditional & full funding, then why were Pelosi (especially her) and Reid creating a bill to do that? Don't they know what 'oppose' means?

    Reptilian Blue Dogs and Republicans should have been out front during the entire process, taking the heat for their bill. Antiwar people got absolutely nothing for letting them hide up till now.


    Olbermann understands (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by chemoelectric on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:36:07 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann says the Democrats were sent to Washington to end the occupation. He does not say that ending the occupation was sent to the Democrats to transform them as a political party.

    Keith Olbermann understands, and in fact devoted a section of his speech to the topic, that Bush would purposely deprive the military forces to blackmail the Democrats into submission. Whether he would venture so far as to say Bush would do this after a defunding-date certain I do not know, but Keith Olbermann understands how this works.

    Keith Olbermann 'understands' that George W. Bush is 'monomaniacal', but this term actually means being pathologically stuck on one topic. I suspect Olbermann meant 'megalomaniacal', which means 'a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.' The Mayo Clinic has some interesting resources on this sort of disorder that people ought to read.

    The Democrats can end this occupation and then they can go to hell, for all the American people care, and for all that I can care, though I have never had or been attracted to any other political party. They, from the top to the grass roots, ought to just start thinking like citizens instead of partisan operatives.

    It is good that the Democratic politicians have made this egregious error, because it is the only way they will learn. But for others it may end up that the only way to learn is to have Bush starve the troops yet still refuse to bring them home. We must not be even that little complacent.

    Just my friendly opinion, of course. :)

    Monomaniacal (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LarryE on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:00:26 AM EST
    You're right that the word actually means "obsessively fixed on one subject or idea," but in fairness to Olbermann, in non-clinical use it's often used to label someone as mind-bendingly inflexible and stubborn.

    Unfortunately and sadly, the Dum leadership has utterly failed to realize that sometimes the only way to deal with such a person is to be "monomaniacal" in return.

    What they should have done is either throw up their hands and say "we're not going to send any bill until the White House is prepared to accept actual, meaningful conditions," or, perhaps better, send back the same damn bill and say "look, this is the deal. Here's your money, these are the conditions. If you want the money, you accept the conditions. Take it or leave it."


    pneumatikon, on the phone today w/ jerry nadler's (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by conchita on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:28:28 PM EST
    office wanting to set up an appointment for reps from groups from his district to meet with him to discuss impeachment. after this, i can't see any other alternative. so, we are denied a meeting and i am spoonfed this pablum - congressman nadler agrees that the president has done things that warrant impeachment, but...it would distract from getting other things done, there isn't enough time.  they don't get it.  they have accomplished nothing with regard to the most pressing issue facing this country and the middle east.  they are out of step with their constituents, yet they continue to make excuses for doing nothing.  the people of this country are crying out for leadership to take a stand they can get behind.  i heard jerry nadler speak at an ACT meeting last month where he talked about increasing the majority in congress but at the same time making sure the democratic party does not become too moderate.  it's too late.  not only is it too late, but he is part of it.  he broke ranks with the progressive and out of iraq caucuses and voted in favor of the house supplemental.  it is clear that change is not going to come from our elected leadership.  it is up to us.  as you said:  We as a people need to decide what our next move will be.  

    Heh! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    It looks like you might have another supporter for defunding, BTD.

    An Overton Troll, no less. With media power to boot. One who may have just kicked open the window.

    Maybe I should stop being as nice to the Democrats as I've been?

    Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    KO has a blog. Invite him.

    He's got the music in him... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:00:00 PM EST
    Why bother? (none / 0) (#11)
    by talex on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:03:09 AM EST
    To read here and at dkos everyone is ready to destroy The Party prior to the elections.

    I love KO but calling for the heads of Reid and Pelosi was not helpful.

    6 months out from an election that could decide the fate of the world and the Left blogosphere is intent on destroying the party!!!

    There will be no Date Certain or a Veto Proof Majority if this keeps on. We are handing the election to the Repubs.

    Can anyone here imagine if the blogosphere calls for the replacement of Reid and Pelosi as some are at dkos? Does any think average voters would elect a party in such turmoil to anything?

    Kiss it goodbye unless people come to their senses. And past performance does not indicate they will.


    You know how wrong you are if you'd actually (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:39:02 AM EST
    read here. and at Dkos.

    Hey now, I read and post at both (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    places ;)  Course most of my posting is about supporting defunding or whatever you want to call it and that didn't used to be a very popular position until just recently.

    another perspective (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sumner on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:33:50 PM EST
    No timetable.

    cf. "Darfur? It's the Oil, Stupid..."  -- by F. William Engdahl

    Even Pravda Forum is in on disussing this.

    Check: vote no, hand it to blue dogs/gop (none / 0) (#10)
    by hhex65 on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:57:22 PM EST
    and then set a date certain.  That's what good Dems will do. The others still think with Raskob's Razor or whatever that's called, the dopes.

    What a bunch of rubes we are.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:51:01 AM EST
    democrats are elected for the same reason republicans are elected...to serve wealth and power and give the illusion to us rubes that we have a say in the matter.

    I partially agree (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:27:38 AM EST
      The people who have been elected, in both parties have overwhelmingly served wealth and power.

      However, it is not an illusion that those without wealth an power have the ability to change that. The ability is real it is just not exercised because so many peopl do  not vote and so many people who do vote on the basis of emotional even visceral reaction to personalities and controversies rather than for "objective self-interest."

       If most people voted and most voters voted for their actual self-interest we would see a very different government.


    I agree.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:20:33 AM EST
    the capability is there, but the citizenry does not excercise it.  

    I gotta give the DNC and GOP credit, they play us like fiddles by using wedge issues to illustrate the minor differences between the party's stances.  We lap it up.


    The thing that most bothers me (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:49:17 AM EST
     is that the we have as a national Party have largely surrendered on all the major economic issues.

      Our "bold" initiative is a piddling increase in the minimum wage. The real  problem isn't  the minimum wage It's the number of people who casn't find good jobs that pay decent wages and provide decent benefits and job security. A 5$ minimum wage would be fine if there were enough jobs for laborers trying to raise families  that paid much more and  the minimum wage jobs were mostly limited to the very young and simply working low-paying jobs while in school or training programs.

      We need to return to the goal of achieving a society where everyone who is willing to work hard can make  enough to raise a family at a decent standard of living and live without constant fear of displacement.

       Saying we have to pay convenience store clerks and busboys a slightly higher amount isn't any answer. The answer is providing those people with the option  jobs that pay more because they produce more even if they require no more "skill."

      That's obvious but we don't see much effort from our leaders to reform policies that encourage "capital" to invest in domestic manufacturing and pay a decent wage because that really would hit power and wealth where it lives.

      The Democratic Party seems only marginally more concerned about the need for a large and strong "blue collar" middle class than the Republicans and sometimes even more desirious of a country where the middle class is limited to those with education and training relevant to a service economy.

       Until we get back to advancing the cause of the working class in the economic realm we have no one to blame but ourselves for the apathy of many and the oppsition of others who vote Republican based on explotative appeals on social issues.



    Very well said sir....n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:07:16 AM EST
    I find it sad that this may be how (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    Americans come back to appreciating and participating in voting and how we all will insist on facts verses political advertising and commercials spouted by the media.  Poverty, displacement, and death is how we all will learn to participate fully in the democracy again.

    I agree with your post below (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:30:04 AM EST
    and mostly with this. However, I do think that it IS partially if not mostly an illusion that those without wealth an power have the ability to change that.

    For one there is an active agenda by those on the left to keep many individuals from voting as demonstrated by the recent Gonzalas scandal.

    There is also a strong campaign to get people to vote against their self-interests. This campaign's goals are met by psychological tactics perfected in the advertising profession as well as the requirements of compulsory education that is standardized throughout the country. All of this has created a malleable population of citizens.

    Finally, in economics, where the pursuit of self-interests prevail, some people's self-interest has more influence than other people's self-interest - and I am talking about those with wealth.

    The only way to change that is for the majority to recognize that together we have a power that can combat the minority of wealth holders in America, but as long as we remain passive and compliant, this will not happen. When the majority are hungry and out of work, then we will see change. Perhaps we are closer to that day than we realize.

    The Democratic Party representing the Wealth that recognizes this split in our country that is not sustainable realizes it is in their interest to do something, even if it is just raising the minimum wage. In comparison to the Republican party who could care less about the split and would rather just build a large domestic police force that looks a lot like Blackwater, the Dems are still an option that looks much better.


    first those tactics only work (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:37:28 AM EST
     at all where the potential voters are apathetic.

     If you show up on election day without being properly registered and without proof of identity and proof of residence, you're not engaged in the process. If the entire extent of your effort was filling out a form provided to you by a political operative and trusting the political organization to ensure everythig is done properly you're still not very engaged in the process.

     We could defeat those efforts with little problem if those targeted by "voter fraud" efforts were engaged and thought the very minimal effort actually needed to ensure the vote was worth a tiny bit of advance planning and effort. That requires more than hastily and ineptly organized voter registration efforts in election years.

       We need for more people to decide for themselves that particpation is important and to go down to voter registration with ID and proof of residence and register to vote for themselves. When party activists simply conduct mass registration campaigns and submit often  admittedly questionable paperwork, probelms are inevitable.

      We decry the efforts to disqualify people registered in these drives but we don't ask the deeper question of why this is the only way we can get people to register. The answer is that we don't give them much reason to make any more of an effort to ensure they are properly qualified.

      If we were really doing things which more people were convinced were vitally important to their lives we wouldn't need to spend millions and millions of dollars hiring people to register to vote using methods that ARE subject to legitimate challenge in many cases.

       Instead of wasting so much effort and emotion bemoaning the ease with which these registration drives are sometimes offset, we should spend the time asking what we need to do to truly motivate these people.

      As for the GOP using advertising techniques and social hot-button issues,  that's free speech and they are not going to stop and we can't make them. The real question is why do the appeals  work. It's not because people are stupid; it's because many don't think we offer a better alternative and on the bread and butter issues they may have a better and more accurate perception than the people who think these blue collar voters are  being fooled.

      We have to offer them something substantially better than Republican economic policies or the blue collar people are being perfectly rational in deciding to trade very slightly worse economic policies in exchange for closer alignment with their social views.



    I agree with your suggestions (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    but, the question is can it be done.

    Being Apathetic is a choice. And Dems should attempt to make those who choose not to be involved understand that their self-interests are at stake. Or are they?

    We have to offer them something substantially better than Republican economic policies

    Yes, this must be done but it is not being done. It won't be done until people demand it be done and not when Dems offer it - because all they have to do is look better than the Repubs. They are as perfectly willing as Repubs to ignore the disenfranchised and blame all of their problems on their choice to remain apathetic. At least, it seems that way to me. And Dems will continue to do this until this growing segment of the disenfranchised rise up and demand that they be represented with sensible economic policies.


    I guess (none / 0) (#26)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:17:18 PM EST
     there is a "chicken/egg" aspect to a degree. Your point is essentially people must become engaged and demand change for the Party to change and my point being the Party must change to inspire people to become engaged.

      I don't doubt the present accuracy of your position, but I think this is an instance where LEADERSHIP is essential and that it is more likely that top-down reform will cause change than a "grass-roots" mobilization.

      As individuals and small groups many do feel powerless and that does indeed translate into actual loss of (or failure to obtain)  power through the "self-fulfiiling prophecy" phenomenon. It is unlikely large numbers of people will collectively become engaged out of mere disaffection.

      We need leaders  to articulate (and mean it and show the ability to translate ideas into actions) the interests that are present but disassociated and provide people with the belief that there is a mechanism they can influence and we have  a leader(s) who provide the mechanism.

      It's a process not an event but we must begin providing people with identifiable targets for support that will advance their interests. When from the day after an election our "leaders" are traveling hat in hand seeking money from the very rich and powerful who don't want change it's not to be expected that many people wil identify our leaders as the answer to their needs and wants.

      We need  candidates who are willing to challenge directly the status quo on the most vital of issues, but doing that means a huge amount of potential campaign money is going to the others who pay vague lip service to the "common folk," but  with a wink and a nod to the insiders makng sure it's understood any action will be window-dressing and the rich and powerful  will get to keep all their power and money.

      That's basically what we have been doing for a generation and next to no one still believes the Democrats are the Party of the "little guy."

       That's because it's true. The "little guy" no longer has a Party. He has a choice between bad and worse and he knows it. That doesn't mean though that the "little guys" can't get a Party and that it can't be us. We need leaders who inspire people who are not exercising their inherent power because the leck of them simply widens the gulf between the haves and have-nots and we have been guilty of lusting more for power than for helping the people.

      Despite that, we do poorly and in the absence of the GOP royally screwing things up we have trouble even approaching parity. So, we get the worst of everything.

       now, we have a shot. The GOP has srewed up beyond belief and we probably just have to avoid the most incompetent and foolish campaign in history to win. but, it will be a temprary lull in a progressive dimunition of influence unless we seize the opportunity and accomplish real change that benefits people. Otherwise, once they get over the disgust with this Administration we are back where we started.



    Leaders (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:32:44 PM EST
    I agree that we absolutely need leaders. I don't know where these leaders will come from. I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. I think Kucinich is closest to articulating the desires of the little guy. I cannot fathom why he does not have more support among the people. My only answer is that he does not bring in any money and is thus marginalized and ignored by those who provide the money.

    That leaves me with the impression that when leadership comes it won't come from what is offered by democrats, but rather someone working outside the system who will basically overturn the system we have in place. I don't know exactly how that will play out, so I ain't promoting nor do I want any part of it once it happens. You will find me in the northwoods of Minnesota hiding out in a little cabin slash Yurt with solar and wood burning heat laying low until the smoke clears.

    In the meantime, be it Hilary, Obama, or anyone else the Dems nominate, they have my support.


    Kucinich (none / 0) (#28)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:56:02 PM EST
     isn't a viable candidate. He's not running to win. He still serves an important purpose by keeping some small degree of attention on issues the others would rather ignore but it would take a lot more than money to make him a contender. He's simply not "Presidential material" to pretty much anyone.

      I'm not sure what you mean by someone "outside the system." If you mean a a famous and charismatic person who is not a career politician who enters the system at the highest level (meaning seeking the Dem nomination) I'd say it is extremely unlikely that would succeed. If you mean someone actually becoming President as an independent or 3rd Party candidate, that would be about as close to impossible as it gets.

      I think it is going to have to be an established political figure within the Party who simply breaks away from the status quo and runs a "subversive" campaign from within.

      Obama does not strike me as that candidate. He's essentially been running non-stop for nearly three years and I see little more than a carefully crafted and packaged product, willingly stage-managed not to offend and provide a  "pretty" alternative to Clinton. Maybe he's not just an empty suit but he sure hasn't dared do anything to show it. In his defense, it may not be possible for a black man to be his own man  and have any shot whatsoever in this country  at this time.

      I'm not touting him as a great leader by any reckoning and his camppaign so far, has been poorly conceived and poorly managed but if I had to choose today, I'd choose Edwards. Of all the candidates with a real campaign I think he does have strongest understanding and connection with the "little guy."



    Wellstone (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:05:02 PM EST
    would have been the one.

     I think it is going to have to be an established political figure within the Party who simply breaks away from the status quo and runs a "subversive" campaign from within.

    That is what I am referring to. One of my whacko conspiracy theories that I cannot get rid of is that he was bumped off. Hey, I got no proof and I think the ones who go around saying he was assassinated are about as kooky as you can get.

    Still, he had the charisma and the power. He was the one Dem going into 2004 who could say he didn't vote for the Iraq resolution. Dean was no Wellstone and the groundswell of support Dean got when he was a virtual unknown tells me that Wellstone would have recieved the Dem nomination and destroyed Bush. The establishment wanted someone they could trust and whom Bush could probably defeat. Kerry was safe. Wellstone was killed. I am a whacko.  


    But ya can't deny.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:42:32 PM EST
    the odd coincidence of the very few Democrats who might have been the leader we are looking for wound up dead.

    JFK, RFK, Wellstone....I'm no big Kennedys fan, but I think both the bros were sincere about ending Vietnam.


    well JFK (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:09:13 PM EST
     was President during a time we were increasing our effort in Vietnam and was very much an ardent Cold-warrior. He was killed before we went in with both barrels, so we'll never know what he would have done but he was hardly opposed to the use of force to achieve objectives.

      LBJ gets all the blame but he inherited both the situation on the ground and the NSC, DOD and other advisors from Kennedy.


    We'll never know.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    if JFK was gonna fix his mistake.  I've probably seen and heard Oliver Stone's movie too many times.

    Decon (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    And, I agree with you about Kucinich not "presidential Material."

    But, I don't know how I decided that and who told me exactly what "Presidential material" is. I can make up my mind. I know what a president should look like and should act and I know that Kucinich falls short of that. But, how do I know that? Is it the same process that tells me that Beauty is a blonde bombshell who weighs 99-110 lbs and has DD's?  


    i can't "define" it either (none / 0) (#37)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:18:27 PM EST
      but looks, demeanor, personality, delivery-style, eloquence, voice, etc.,  favor some and impugn others.

     You don't have to be movie-star good looking to succeed in politics (obviously), but you generally need to be at least average looking and have some real strengths in those other areas if you are merely average looking. Funny looking little men with bad voices and disconcerting tics and twitches have a tough row to hoe in the television age.

      Do you think Lincoln (not that I am comparing them in any sense other than lack of physical good looks and gracefulness) could succeed now?


    Or FDR?...n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    Lincoln (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:22:44 PM EST
    Well, Lincoln has probably had some influence on what is Presidential. He was tall and there is a certain dignity that he carries with him from photos, even if he was not exactly handsome.

    I suppose he could be elected today and if Kucinich was 6'4" we might consider him Presidential material.


    I can't do that anymore..... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    I feel too much like a sucker.  Kerry was the last time for me....third party or anti-incumbent from now on.

    Better to let the GOP win 'em all till things get bad enough for the people to clamor for change.

    I'd say the DNC is at best a band-aid, but even that is too kind.  More like a dirty band-aid that gives you an infection.

    Also, I couldn't agree more about a true leader having to come from outside these two rotten parties.


    I can understand and empathize (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:32:02 PM EST
     with that frustration, but as I said I do not think it is realistic to think we have a better hope than a "better" Democratic Party. The last "new" Party to rise was the Republican Party in 1860-- as we approached Civil War and it was a far different country then.

      My point, and it's not a popular one here, is that we have it upside down. We are to "the Left" on the divisive social issues and to the center-right on econominc issues  which is a losing balance. The left-wing social positions gain us next to no votes that would otherwise go to Republicans and cost us votes among potential swing-voters.

      If we want to have a winning coalition we need to GAIN among those with centrist positions on social issues not scare them away. If we want to gain votes on economic issues we need to provide a real difference on economic issues.

      I'd rather win and make some progress than lose and see things go futher in the wrong direction. those who want to enforce litmus tests requiring blind obedience to one side on highly divisive issues are helping weaken us and make the country worse.

       I cringe every time I read some yahoo here scream that a candidate must support abortion rights or oppsose religious initiatives to be acceptable. I am amazed at how few speak to the need for tax reform, workers' rights, jobs, social welfare spending, and the things that will define our future while frothing at the mouth because a new Catholic law school  is formed.

       It's small wonder many fear that the "powerful" component  of our Party wants to force them to change and succumb when they don't want to do it and cares nothing about actually helping improve their existence.

      Then we call them ignorant christo-fascists and wonder why they left the Party.  If you don't want people with different values in the Party then go ahead and keep doing what we've been doing, but don't expect to win many elections and don't expect failing to support peope with moderate or even socially conservative views will lead to increased streinght and vitality of liberal ones.

      In the end, if there is a new party that somehow manages to rise-- it will be one in the Center that helps really marginalize leftist position on social issues by consigning them to a minority party with no chance of electing very many people at any level in our system. In the absence of proportional representation in legislatures such a strategy is the ticket to irrelevance.


    Was the 'fight' just 'political foreplay'? (none / 0) (#18)
    by fairleft on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:41:53 AM EST
    You get support from the paragraphs below, found at the bottom of a CNN article on the funding 'fight'. I was hoping the following were just more propaganda to deflate and alienate the antiwar base, but probably not:

       A senior Democratic senator said late last week the last-minute attempts by Democrats to get a withdrawal timeline was "political foreplay."

        A Democratic leadership source told CNN some two months ago that Democratic leaders knew they would have to send the president a war funding bill without a timeline, and that would likely mean a bill with significant Democratic defections and GOP support.

        The maneuvering over the past several weeks has been a Democratic attempt to show their anti-war base that party leaders were trying until the 11th hour to stand up to the president, the source said.

    by Aaron on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    When the people's representatives ignore the will of the people, democracy is at an end.  What follows is tierney and dictatorship, and there's only one answer that the people can offer up against such forces.


     "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."