ForumGarden

February 15, 2006



Deadeye Dick Isn't a Lone Gunman

Democrats Shoot Their Own, Too

By DAVE LINDORFF



Dick Cheney may have demonstrated his ability yet again to go after the wrong target when he bagged his hunting companion instead of his quarry, but the Democratic Party leadership is proving to be even more treacherous in the field than Deadeye Dick.



Party leaders, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) recently pressured Cindy Sheehan not to mount a primary campaign against California Senator Diane Feinstein, a woman who has betrayed party principles, such as they are, at almost every turn and deserves to go down to defeat. (It was only after Sheehan said she was considering a primary fight that Feinstein announced she would support a filibuster on Alito.) Now they've killed the campaign of Paul Hackett, an Iraq War vet and sharp critic of the war and the president and a candidate who had a strong shot at snatching a Senate seat for the Democrats this fall in Ohio.



[….. Entire Story HERE ……]



Ordinary Democratic voters, according to the polls, want to see this president impeached by a margin of over 80% to 20%, yet not one Democrat in Congress has the guts to introduce an impeachment bill in the House the way the late Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas) did back in 1991 against President George H.W. Bush.



Candidates like Hackett and Pennacchio would have the courage and independence to do just that. That's why weasels like Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and yes, Howard Dean, would rather see the party go down to defeat in `06 than see them get into Congress.



My advice: If the party comes calling and asking for your support, tell them you’re a real Democrat, and won't be giving any money to the Democratic Party until it becomes a real party of opposition. I'm all for supporting individual Democratic incumbents who deserve it, like Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) or Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), but not a penny for the party, or for those incumbents or challengers to Republicans who have forgotten what the word "opposition" means.



Cheney is going to find it hard to get hunting partners after his latest display of marksmanship. Let's make it impossible for the Democratic Party to get grassroots financial support after its latest round of treachery.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



I would think an anti-Bush Iraq War vet would be just what the Dems would want. :yh_think

I would think an anti-Bush Iraq War vet would be just what the Dems would want. :yh_think
Yeah, you would think. Unfortunately, they're mostly not bright enough to realize what they've got when they've got it.

Party leaders, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) recently pressured Cindy Sheehan not to mount a primary campaign against California Senator Diane Feinstein, a woman who has betrayed party principles, such as they are, at almost every turn and deserves to go down to defeat. (It was only after Sheehan said she was considering a primary fight that Feinstein announced she would support a filibuster on Alito.) Now they've killed the campaign of Paul Hackett, an Iraq War vet and sharp critic of the war and the president and a candidate who had a strong shot at snatching a Senate seat for the Democrats this fall in Ohio.
I can understand them not wanting Sheehan to run. She's a bit of a flake and would do nothing but make the party look divided. I'm not sure about the Paul Hackett thing, though. He almost won last year, but he couldn't even beat Jean Schmitt. It could be they don't want the party divided. Sherrod Brown is a pretty strong candidate from what I've read, so he may be their best bet.

I agree that the democrats need to come out and say what they stand for. Howard Dean said he was going to do just that, but we've yet to hear anything. Republicans are organized, I'll say that much for them. If you've tried to use Wikipedia in the past few months, you've seen how slanted it has become towards the right. There was a news article a few weeks ago about how Wikipedia was trying to keep the information objective, but were failing.

As far as impeachment, democrats know they can't do anything until they gain control of the House and it would just make them look like fools if they tried something now.

Benjamin wrote: I can understand them not wanting Sheehan to run. She's a bit of a flake and would do nothing but make the party look divided. I'm not sure about the Paul Hackett thing, though. He almost won last year, but he couldn't even beat Jean Schmitt. It could be they don't want the party divided. Sherrod Brown is a pretty strong candidate from what I've read, so he may be their best bet.



I agree, though, that the democrats need to come out and say what they stand for. Howard Dean said he was going to do just that, but we've yet to hear anything. Republicans are organized, I'll say that much for them. If you've tried to use Wikipedia in the past few months, you've seen how slanted it has become towards the right. There was a news article a few weeks ago about how Wikipedia was trying to keep the information objective, but were failing.



As far as impeachment, democrats know they can't do anything until they gain control of the House and it would just make them look like fools if they tried something now.
I can't let the Wikipedia thing go by. Are you implying that the Republican Party has organized a movement to "conservatize" Wikipedia?? :wah:



As for the impeachment thing, in my mind it makes someone look much more foolish to complain impotently rather than take action. If the minority made a good case in public and were squashed without good reason, it would mean the end for the majority. The public are not as stupid as all that.

Accountable wrote: I can't let the Wikipedia thing go by. Are you implying that the Republican Party has organized a movement to "conservatize" Wikipedia?? :wah:
Yes. I'll try to find the story. I think it was in the Washington Post.



As for the impeachment thing, in my mind it makes someone look much more foolish to complain impotently rather than take action. If the minority made a good case in public and were squashed without good reason, it would mean the end for the majority.
That's a bit naive. Republicans control everything including scheduling hearings. Democrats tried to have hearings about the faulty intelligence used for going to war and they were shut down. This domestic spying investigation seems to be going nowhere.

Well, apparently democrats are doing it too.

Benjamin wrote: Well, apparently democrats are doing it too."It"?