Democrats Doing The Bidding Of George Bush & Big Business: The Nation

[Itsthetruth]

The Nation Magazine
Editorial
March 24, 2005

Democrats: MIA

It's easy simply to blame the GOP majorities in the Senate and House when bad legislation passes those chambers. But too frequently it has been Democratic disorder rather than Republican treachery that has made possible the Bush White House's legislative victories. That's what happened with the mid-March Senate vote on a budget amendment that would have protected the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Seven Republican senators voted to protect ANWR from oil drilling. Had the Democratic caucus simply held firm in support of the amendment, it would have won by a 52-to-48 margin. But three Democrats--Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana--broke ranks to back the Administration. All three had their excuses, and if this had been the only bill on which Democrats failed to hold together, it might not be a cause for serious concern. But this is hardly an isolated example of Democrats doing the bidding of the President and the special interests that support him.

Consider the February Senate vote on tort "reform," another issue on which Democrats are supposed to be the defenders of the common good against the rapacious Republicans. The battle lines could not have been clearer: Bush and his allies wanted to limit sharply the ability of citizens to file class-action lawsuits against corporations that injure or defraud them. A united Democratic opposition in the Senate could have mounted a populist challenge that might well have won GOP allies for a fight to preserve the sovereignty of state courts, which will be lost under the legislation. Instead, Democrats helped give Bush the first major legislative victory of his second term. Only twenty-six Senate Democrats opposed the proposal, while eighteen--including serial compromisers Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh and some who ought to know better, like Charles Schumer and Jay Rockefeller--sided with the GOP. It was just as bad in the House, where fifty Democrats--including Rahm ("no mandate") Emanuel--backed the bill, handing Bush an easy win that provides momentum for an agenda that includes proposals to restrict asbestos litigation and curb medical malpractice suits.

Even more disappointing was the mid-March vote on legislation designed to make it harder for middle-class and poor Americans to declare personal bankruptcy, leaving crooked companies like Enron free to declare bankruptcy themselves and thus be protected from claims like those by employees who lost their pensions. The vote on the measure, which had been blocked for years by such progressive Democrats as the late Paul Wellstone and a timely veto from then-President Bill Clinton, passed by an overwhelming 74-to-25 vote. Eighteen Democrats--including Reid and key players like Joseph Biden of Delaware and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico--aligned themselves with the President and the credit card companies that wrote and promoted the bill.

House Democrats have been even less effective in their opposition than their Senate colleagues. Despite polls showing that the vast majority of Americans opposed federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case, only fifty-three Democrats opposed DeLay's move to override Florida state law and judicial rulings in a rush to satisfy the demands of the GOP's most extreme constituencies. Only thirty-six opposed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which Representative Jan Schakowsky correctly identified as a move to "put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech." And just thirty-nine rejected the Administration's demand for another $81.4 billion to maintain the occupation of Iraq and related military misadventures.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050411&s=editors1

[mikehiggins]

1. No more Beltway Pols

Things couldn't have been spelled out any clearer, if you ask me.

The Democratic Party has to turn to outsiders in 2008. Otherwise, we have the same old problem; nobody will vote for phony Repukes when the real things are right at hand.

Clark, Dean, Richardson, I'm sure there are others.

Anyone with a D.C. resume should be knocked out of the box as fast as possible. The last D.C. insider we managed to put into office was LBJ, and we know how that turned out.

[Snotcicles]

2. It's time michigan dems took a hard look at who we have in the senate n/t

[mike_c]

3. this is the bottom line for the democratic party, imo....

If they don't become an effective OPPOSITION PARTY with genuine alternatives to corporate governance and republican policies, rather than pale imitation, the democratic party is dead, IMO. It might take a long time for the rotting corpse to disappear, but it is dead nonetheless.

[Itsthetruth]

4. And Don't Forget Democratic Votes On Bush Appointments

Apologists for these egregious compromises would have us believe that Democrats, as a minority party, have little leverage. But the Social Security debate belies such claims; with Democrats sticking together against privatization, it is the Republicans who have found themselves under pressure to compromise. The same goes for the Democratic refusal to give ground on ethics issues, which has done so much to increase pressure on scandal-plagued House majority leader Tom DeLay. Unfortunately, shows of solidarity on Social Security and ethics issues represent the exception rather than the rule when it comes to checking and balancing the White House and its Congressional allies. Again and again Democrats have failed the basic tests of an opposition party. They couldn't muster the forty votes needed to mount a Senate filibuster against Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General, only twelve Democrats opposed the nomination of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State and none opposed the nomination of Michael Chertoff to head the Department of Homeland Security, despite concerns about Rice and Chertoff that were as troubling as those regarding Gonzales's role in approving torture.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050411&s=editors1

[paineinthearse]

5. The last paragraph is best.

Can a regular "Nation" reader take it upon themselves to post to the POLITICS fourm?

"Perhaps being shamed publicly, and being pressured by the grassroots, will help Congressional Democrats get their act together. Toward that end, we've initiated a biweekly "Minority/Majority" feature that identifies--by name--Democrats who give succor to the GOP. (It also praises those who've helped the cause of Democrats becoming the majority party again.) If Democrats don't define themselves as an effective opposition soon, they could end up being an ineffective one for a long time to come."

[OneBlueSky]

6. I'm glad The Nation has brought this issue up . . .

those of us who harp on it on DU are often castigated for not supporting the party despite their "occasional mistake" . . . "If you don't back the Democrats," they implore, "we'll have four more years of radical right Republican rule!"

to which I continue to say "Bullshit!" . . .

these are not peripheral issues . . . these are critically important issues, and what the Democrats are doing by enabling BushCo is more than a mistake . . . it is treason against the party, if not the nation . . . if they're going to vote like Republicans, we might just as well elect the real thing . . . at least they're honest about what they're trying to do . . .

btw . . . whatever happened to the concept of House and Senate whips? . . . if they still exist, they need to be replaced . . .

[KG]

7. truly. it almost comical the way some of the loyalists try to justify

the latest lame move by the the dems. there always seems to be a reason for not doing the right thing.

[Itsthetruth]

8. kick

eom

[Itsthetruth]

10. Whips Are Using Wet Noodles!

"btw . . . whatever happened to the concept of House and Senate whips? . . . if they still exist, they need to be replaced . . ."

It appears they are using wet noodles to whip up opposition to Bush's appointments and policies.

[Malva Zebrina]

9. It has occured to me that the Democrats are weak

is because they cannot be anything else BUT that given the ways of the beltway and the corruption that has seeped deeply into the carpet of the chambers.

It does seem to me that an outsider would be the best bet if sincere Democrats really want a change. I have the feeling that a strong candidate WOULD get a majority of voting Democrats behind him or her, and have learned that "electable" as defined by the DLC or whoever is fond of using that word, is pure propagandist nonsense.

Nevermind conferring sainthood upon Hillary, or Kerry or whoever else gets invited to the parties and hangs out embracing those on the other side of the aisel or networks to make influential contacts, because the perception of many voters now is that both parties are "the same". Nevermind posting voting records of the famous ones in congress who have proven to be utterly impotent carriers of truth--we have seen it is perception that matters in a presidential election and any Democratic candidate that has to spend time and energy taking away that perception by spinning or by obfuscation or by marketing techniques, has less time to devote to the real issues of his campaign.

I believe that inorder to knock down that perception and get the people back into the voting booth, a presidential candidate needs to stand up implicitly for what he or she believes as far as the Democratic platform goes, and does so without fear.