You guys hate one-party rule, right?

Considering what's happened when your gang of barely-domesticated animals controlled all three Branches of Government between January 2000 and December 2006?

Remind me again which party:

*failed to quickly rebuild the Gulf Coast after Katrina

*failed to rebuild Iraq after it authorized a needless invasion

*failed to fully fund NCLB and pretty much every other serious Federal initiative

*failed to address the continued decline of GDP growth sans Equity Mortgage Withdrawls

*failed to properly account for all funds used in Iraqi reconstruction efforts

*failed to address clear and acknowledged violations of US Statute by the Executive Branch

Here's a hint: it wasn't the Democratic caucus.

There were some posts on the previous thread (or maybe the one before that) about the substantive differences between the Blue Dogs, DLCers, and the Blue America candidates (Howie Kleins' organizagion). None of the Blue America candidates voted for the FISA amendment. Obviously, supporting those candidates worked and was part of what gave us our so-called majority.

One of the highest priorities is/should be to replace as many of the DINOs with more Blue America candidates. In both houses. Not to mention replacing as many Republicans as possible, too.

CHS at FDL had a post up yesterday(?) linking to DWT re: who etc., and if you check my archives here, I posted it at least twice.

What you smell is my fear that another neocon will be elected president, especially given the complicity of the MSM (why I read GG in the first place). I take nothing for granted.

Please demonstrate with a link to any comment you have made on this site that might give anyone some indication you actually care more about America than your party, that America means something to you beyond a gameboard to be taken.

how shooter would react to a comment thread full of people complaining about the Democrats based on adherence to core principles rather than Party loyalty.

Unsurprisingly he simply failed to notice.

How does that distinction hold up in the face of decisions to allow searches of laptops at the border without a warrant?

Cite them. From the highest court(s) possible, please. I am at home and don't have my own Westlaw account - and besides, the onus is on you to cite those cases.

Back when I was a dirty nasty grunt in the US Army...

...when Private Joe Snuffy showed up to formation looking like a rag bag, boots shined with Hershy bars, a low and loose haircut (as opposed to the high and tight)...

...it was conventional wisdom that Private Rag-bag was a direct reflection of his chain of command...

The inversion of this wisdom holds true with Reid and Pelosi--they are a direct reflection of their party's representatives: craven and weak.

They deserve nothing, but scorn and unemployment.

So, those of you who want to excuse the group for the individual continue to learn nothing of the brutal environment that we are in.

I believe it was LWM (if I'm wrong--all props to the author--my bad) who asked what happens when an aggressive tribe encounters a peace loving tribe...

I'll answer that one: extermination of The Weak by The Strong.

Gone are the times of patience and compassion--the parties are broken beyond repair...the paradigm MUST shift...

Considering what's happened when your gang of barely-domesticated animals controlled all three Branches of Government between January 2000 and December 2006?

-- Iokannan in the Well

Three branches? Don't you mean Four? Are you only counting Dick Cheney once?

If the Democrats suck so bad, where are you going to go?

To the street. Preferably with a roofing truck and a crate of chicken feathers.

No president can ever take hypothetical military action off the table.

This is both the essence of the $440 Billion MCI budget, and the Democratic cave-in. It isn't true. What is true is that no president has ever tried.

The Democratic base is energized.

Respectfully, I am part of the base that is supposed to be energized. At least, that is what the globally-warming-volume of campaign and contribution mail and email I get from the DNC, the DSCC, Howard Dean, Joe Trippi, Jim Dean, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Chuck Schumer, and everybody else tells me.

This energizer bunny is turning off the switch. If they want something from me, they have to dance at my show this time, I'm sick of being represented by the Captains of Industry, and I won't forgive people who vote against the People's interests.

Energized? Yeah, to have a repeat of the 1968 convention maybe. I am not energized to support another handler addled blob. My phone is being tapped and I have no habeas corpus rights due to being a member of an alien subculture from the sixties. Energized? That enormous sucking sound you heard over the weekend was the wind going out of the Democrat's sails as their base realized they have no interest in getting us out of Iraq, no interest in protecting us from surveillance, no interest in ending torture, no interest in anything except the next cocktail party, the next hedge fund buck, and the next prissy content-free appearance on TV.

No, the base is no longer energized. The leadership doesn't deserve it.

there are no shortage of people who want to claim that the poor Democrats had no choice and had no ability to prevent this from happening.

-- GlennGreenwald

The perception is that they are weak. But greysky was suggesting something else. Even Dodd said he prefers to stay in the dark on Intel issues so he can talk about it freely. I don't like DiFi any more than Ondolette but if there is even a 60% chance of an incident occuring in the interim, and they are privy to that info and we are not, it is a smart play.

greysky... Calculation, not capitulation

I see the Democrat vote not as a capitulation to Bush, but as a shrewd calculation. (And I think that's a good thing. The Republicans have been outpoliticking them for years, and the Democrats have finally learned to play a shrewder game to counter their Machiavellian tactics.) I think they are simply trying to run out the clock of the Bush administration. So give Bush the surveillance expansion. It's only for 6 months. This buys Democrats 6 months. If there is a domestic terrorist attack within that time period (please, no), Republicans (and Joe Klein) won't be able to pin the blame on weak Democrats.

And DCLaw is probably right, I'm inclined to look for a pony or two, but I have a 2 pony limit. After 2004 I was pretty angry. I sent angry e-mails to Kerry's campaign because they had chosen not to respond to the Swiftboat smears at first. If these guys don't snap out of it after 2008, I'll fan them. But unless something pretty drastic happens, they are going to take the WH. Maybe their strategy is to lose a few congressional seats and take the crown. SCOTUS appointments, anyone?