http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/dem...iraq/index.html

I find it nice that someone (Dean) is actually standing with Murtha, seems like he was just the victim of a shitstorm with no one standing with him. Another good reason to like Dean, he doesnt cower even when siding with someone who appears to be "unpopular."

Great story Rad, and I agree with your thoughts.

Check this story...

Give um Hell Harry

The Democrats do have a plan on Iraq:

Its called: "Stay silent, act concerned about the lack of 'progress', be politically correct, do not be controversial, do not appear unpatriotic, Say that We need to be successful in Iraq and Bush is doing a poor job, etc., etc., etc.

In summary, the Democratic party, with the exception of a minority like Dean, Murtha, Conyers, has behaved like the shitheads they are. I respect certain individuals who are members of the Democratic party. I have no respect at all for the Democratic Party as an institution, which needs to be purged of most of its members.

AntiFlagWaver

Unfortunately for AFW, he's bunching ALL Democrats with the most conservative of Democrats.
Mostly found as members of the DLC! (Democrats that wear Republican Underoos)


AFW, please, you really have to remember that though the Repugs speak as one voice,
The Democrats DO NOT!
And as I have said many times, this does not help the party!


If you will read about the voices of people like
Conyers
Reid
Dean
Boxer
Obama
Pellosi
and many more.

If you do you wiull find out that the Democrats DO have an alternative plan!
You don't help us any when you color all Democrats the color of the DLC!
I URGE you, research and learn who's who and the differances between the DNC and the DLC or the DCCC.

The DLC are not progressive Liberals.
And did you know that not too long ago there used to be what was a segment of the Republican party called
Progressive Republicans?
Don't go there though. You'll get confused.

seen an opinion piece about how Bush could learn a few things from Honest Abe:






http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lincoln/?page=1

Note: You need to go one post up from the quoted post to see what this is about, and why I would take a similar stand, although I should say that I consider Dean a complete liar, shifting with the wind.

Getting back to the point....

One need not bunch the Dems together to KNOW WHAT % OF DEMS THAT PREVIOUS post referred to....

The last Democratic Primary gave an excellent example of how many Dems are Liberals and how many are closer to yesterday's Conservative Republicans.

Tally the percentages that voted for Kosinich, Braun, and Sharpton, and that is the percentage of Liberals. It amounts to about 7% of the Dems.

The PREVIOUS POST to which the response above refers points out something altogether obvious regarding the Dems.... If you believe the Dems are even 10% truely Liberal your bordering on some sort of psychotic delusion.

Fact is, that the Dems, with very few exceptions, are much like yesterday's Republicans, and spineless as hell.

During GW's 1st Term it is impossible for me to recall a single vote in which they did not approve of whatever GW and the Repugs asked for, unless not approving 4 judges out of something like 180 Federal Judges is a big deal to you.

What do you suppose the Dems of the 70's would have done to a Cheney given a Haliburton?

My guess is trung him up by the balls.

Today's Dems didn't do squat. No official investigation was launched into corruption in the White House, with the exception of the Energy Polocy meetings, which I REALLY GOTTA SAY, at the time was NOT EXACTLY terribly interesting, nor followed to any great degree, by anything resembling a significant percentage of Americans.

NOPE!

The Dems are stacked with Conservatives, and a large number of spineless politicians that do whatever causes the least friction for them, with the Repugs and GW.

A "Purge" is EXACTLY the right word, as was used to describe what is needed in that Party.

ANYONE LISTENING to the Democratic Primary KNOWS FULL WELL the Progressives were so far out of the running, and so distant in their beliefs from the group of mainstream frontrunning candidates for the Dem Primary, that anyone seeking to make an argument that EITHER the elected Democrats OR the supporters of the Democratic Party are "Liberal" or composed of MANY Liberals is not going to convince anyone of anything, but that that person didn't even watch the Democratic Primaries, or even look at the election results!

There is and has been NO BETTER INDICATOR OF THE PERCENTAGE OF PROGRESSIVES that are Democrats, than tallying the votes for the Progressive
Candidates. 7% (approximately) is the percentage.

And one thing to never forget is the vote the Dems almost unanomously gave GW to use and and all means at his disposal to conduct a war against Iraq.

The "OOOHHH!! BUT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER VOTE!"
Excuse, famously sung by ALL BUT A HANDFUL of Dems was complete and total Bullshit. There was NO SUCH CONTINGENCY put upon GW by that Vote, and GW NEVER SAID he had any intention of coming back for a 2nd vote.

And what of the 180 or so BILLON to further the war, and put money into the pockets of Haliburton Execs???

YUP! Given to Bush on a Silver Plater by VIRTUALLY EVERY DEM, ONCE AGAIN!!!

Soz. But Platforms are bullshit words. The Votes by the people, and the Elected Dems are ACTI:ONS, and that IS THE ONLY THING that means dick!

BTW. Mr. Dean ain't no friggin Liberal either!

Thank you! I agree with most of what you said. Sky wants to compartmentalize the Democratic party but I see that most of them are as you have described in your post. They have let the Republicans get away with so much that you may as well call them Republicans-lite. And guess what? THEY ARE STILL DOING IT TODAY! Not one thing has changed. Bush and Karl Rove never had a better friend than today's Democratic Party.

Its not just so simple as saying they are conservatives. I'm not really condemning conservatives in the Democratic party, who may actually believe in how they vote. I'm talking about that "spineless, politically correct majority" of the Democratic party who either stays silent or supports Republican causes for pure political reasons, NOT because of how they really believe. These people have no beliefs of their own. They are simply watching the polls to see how a majority of the population feels to tell them which direction they should go. Kerry, Hillary, and so many other of the most prominent Democrats are like this. Its sickening beyond belief.

I want to point out that the Democratic party is NOT one voice,
as the Republican party IS ONE voice!

That in fact today we have 3 active political parties in the US.

Republican,
Conservative Democrats,
Liberal or progressive Democrats!


Now, if you still have issue with this, then as I have said before,
Propose a reasonable, workable alternative that Can Realstically
do battle with the greater evil in America today?

I have yet to see anyone propose a workable idea that could beat shit out
of that Neo-con, Evangelical, Conservative wall.

Mostly, all I have seen is wild unfocused bitching about a few specifics within the much larger picture.

The Republicans are bad, but so are the Democrats because this and this!
OK, then what is your viable alternative?

You are exactly right Sky. The Republicans are bad, but so are the Democrats because of this and this and this. It may be a different kind of bad, but its still bad. If you replaced the Republicans with the Democratic leaders of today, would you be happy with what you got? Probably not, Sky. I know I sure as hell wouldn't.

Don't tell me I have to choose between these two brands of "shit". I know there is a viable alternative out there.

You in fact, have to choose between 3 brands of shit!


Republican
Conservative Democrat
Progressive Democrat!


It's good to have options.



Sorry if you don't like your options.
Guess you won't be voting this year then.
(and your non vote will in fact help the bad guys!)


Jeez, reality sucks don't it?

So, what is it? What is your viable alternative (and please note; the operative word is 'viable')? I am positively breathless with anticipation that I might read something constructive from you; something other than the avalance of psuedo-intellectual pablum with which you routinely bury this group; something more constructive than the volumes of complaints and criticisms you heap on everyone who is not you.

Is it possible, could it be that you will actually offer a solution to what you see wrong in the American system of governance?!?