Houston Democrats

Ummm ... how is the case against Joe Biden in acknowledging the reality of a 45-55 Senate the same as selling out one's entire expressed worldview for a statue of one's self? Biden's the one who's pointed out the shortcomings of Bolton the best and managed to even get a few GOP Senators to concede the point (tearfully and otherwise). Bottom line - there's no Democrat that sold you or anyone else out on the Bolton nomination.

Well, they may not have sold us out exactly, but I know what PDiddie means. The time for making nice with Repugs of any stripe is long past, I'm sorry to say. I'd like a little show of passionate concern--even anger--even, goddammit, foam-at-the-mouth fury--from some of the mealy-mouthed of our Senate brethren and sisters about Bolton. Look where making nice with people with really bad intentions got Neville Chamberlain--and, shortly thereafter, the rest of us. What do Dems have to do to prove that Bolton is absolutely, totally unfit to represent this country anywhere, in any capacity? I wouldn't send him to wash pots at the Boy Scout Jamboree for fear that the Brillo pads would end up in the beds of the Scoutmasters he disapproved of.
And that's not so far-fetched, if you'll think about it. By now, it's an old Repug tactic to slip one or more of their hit men into an organization--think Ken Tomlinson, that rat who's trying to destroy PBS--and let him/them destroy it from the inside out. Think Karl Rove, who's setting his Antmen a good example by trashing the United States government. (Rove does, of course, have a wired puppet to assist him--if you can call that assistance--or maybe assisterance.) Anyway, I find it really disheartening to hear all of the evidence that says Bolton is the quintessential Repug operative--mean, mean-minded, vindictive, cruel, dishonest and piggish in most of the senses of that word--and yet Republican senators are going to vote him into the UN to undermine it as surely as if they were planting one of those Iraqi road bombs up by the river in NYC...the contribution of The United States of America to the establishment of order and peace in the world.
I'll tell you what, fellow Democrats: if you don't think our country will be irreparably damaged, not only in the rest of the world but at home, too, by sending that monster to the UN, if you don't think we should be raising the roof about him, I don't know you any better than I know those Republicans in Congress or the Fundamentalist crazies that they're trying to placate by bringing down the UN.
And furthermore, God bless Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer and even Senator Voinovich.(There are always, thank God, exceptions.)

That might be your bottom line, G.

But it's not mine.

The truth is Joe "MBNA" Biden sold out a long time ago.

If I had to hear someone say at this point that Bolton was going to be confirmed, it shouldn't have been any Democrat. Since Biden has obviously given up, he can go back to rehearsing for his recital now:

View image

Oh, and one other thing: Howard Dean speaks for me.

P Did ...

So he should have lied when asked how the vote looked? Yeah, ok, I get it ... you're more of a Deaniac than an afficianado of say - an actual elected Democrat. Congratulations, you score your brownie points with the readership while making a point so totally void of substance that I'm simply quaking in fear of what you'll throw my way next. A Kucinich quote, perhaps?

Yet still, there's no sellout on Bolton whatsoever. The votes just aren't there. As much as I lack an appreciation for putting an incompetent diplomat in the UN to serve as America's top diplomat, I think we'd all agree that there's better people for the job (last I checked, John Danforth was a stellar choice regardless of party affiliation). But the case you make against Biden on this is a rather uncharacteristic dodge and weave on your part. Lemme know when you come up with a direct answer to it (by Friday, if possible ;-).

Muriel,

If there's an example to be made of a Dem who has refused to play nice with the Bush administration on foriegn policy, it's Joe Biden. Though more hawkish than most readers of HoustonDemocrats.com, he's taken his differences public and made his point rather forcefully during the 2004 campaign with Kerry. So you wanted to see him give a rabidly partisan, fire and brimstone speech railing against the shortcomings of a guy who pretty much ensured that loose nukes were more plentiful for terrorists instead of the honest reality of the situation - that the votes just ain't there. A little frothing at the mouth, maybe, to please the natives. Not sure what anyone expects that to accomplish. Are we judging our elected officials by applause lines or accomplishments? There may not be enough votes to defeat Bolton, but we have effectively sown the seeds for showing the fault line among the other side: Voinivich, Chafee (maybe), and even newly elected Senator John Thune have all come out against Bolton. Others have put their reservations on record about the direction of their own party's foreign policy. None of that would have happened if we'd put forth a Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer to foam at the mouth on que rather than put forth a sane argument against Bolton.

Math is math ... we're down 45-55 in the Senate. There will be a great deal of votes where the votes aren't there. If you expect victory to derive from that calculus, you've gotta crack open the math books. If you want to affect a change in the formula, you've got to get involved and start looking at ways to win elections. Whining about how so-and-so Senator of Congressman didn't raise their voice loud enough is just a banal argument.

In other words: stop the whining and start the campaigning. Don't cry when your elected brethren (and sistren ... or whatever) give you the straight answer that we're in the minority. Turn off the TV, get off the sofa and do something about it. Heck, give the Radnofsky people a call. Last I checked, she was trying to cut down that GOP majority.

So he should have lied when asked how the vote looked?

If he couldn't say something helpful, a 'no comment' would've been just fine with me...

you're more of a Deaniac

Actually I was a Clarkie. You can confirm this with Keir...

Yet still, there's no sellout on Bolton whatsoever.

And I still haven't said so. There has been a capitulation, and Joe Biden IS a sellout generally, so I can see where you'd get confused...

Listen, Joe couldn't have sold out on Bolton because Joe didn't have anything to sell. He just rolled over. See the difference?

The vote's not going to happen until next week at the soonest, but Biden (and Leahy) have already given up. Publicly. We don't need that.

And Pastor Danforth had the job, but abruptly quit after seven months. To be fair he cited his wife's health concerns rather than the "spending time with family" copout. Copout, sellout; another small but important distinction. I'm still wondering what Danforth has to do with Biden, though. Talk about a dodge...

I think you have enough to get the point here, G-Man, and hey, it's only Wednesday morning!

I do understand the sentiment that there are some Democrats who don't always vote the party line on issues, like the credit card legislation, that go against Democratic principles and that is troublesome. However, I don't really understand why Biden's statement is so antagonising. It's not like he's going to vote for Bolten. He has been one of the strongest speakers against Bolten and has fought for the release of additional information. He's even been successful in convincing Republicans like Voinovich and Chafee to side with Democrats on this issue. During interviews on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, Biden has always appeared calm, levelheaded, and very well spoken on a range of issues, including foreign relations, crime, the environment, etc.

Granted his statement is disheartening, but it certainly does not make him a sellout. I sure have a very strong dislike of Bolten and think he will run amuck at the UN if given the chance, something that we will pay a price for in international relations. It is very aggravating to see that when the administration is doing something wrong or disadvantageous that their solution is to just do it worse.

I tend to think that if Biden is coming out saying that it appears likely that Bolten is going to go through, then he's just being honest about the situation and it's probably a reflection of the sentiment among Democratic legislators about the current balance of power on the Hill. I don't think that it is an indication that he or other Democrats will change how they vote on Bolten.

Personally, I would rather know the truth, whatever it is, than being kept in the dark. Biden at least is being straighter with us than the Republicans. We may not like reality, but that's the way it is right now. If Biden's constituents feel this is serious enough to vote him out in 2008 after 36 years of service, then there's nothing to stop them.

One question I have is: if Biden had instead said "no comment" or that the "Democrats are standing firm against Bolten," and Bolten is confirmed, what would you say then? Would it still be Biden's or the Democrats' fault then?

I do agree with Muriel, not necessarily that legislators need to foam at the mouth in fury, but they certainly could use with speaking much more forcefully and emphatically during Senate sessions. It would help to show the people that they have emotion and aren't another politician with no feelings in the Senate. While I liked Kerry's policies, he did have difficulty connecting with the audience at least in part because he kept most of his emotions wrapped up. You know what I'm talking about if you have seen how Edwards speaks and instantly gets the crowd going.

There's nothing wrong with showing some passion, although senators should be careful to not make it too easy for Republicans to come back at them. Dean has certainly exposed himself to attack with his blanket statements about Republicans when he actually was intending to refer to a certain type/class of Republican. Maybe we could send Democrats to the British Parliament to brush up on their debating methods and skills, so they can stick it to Republicans on the Iraq war and their other failed policies.

Marc, your comment about the British Parliament brings to mind one of my favorite daydreams. While watching "Prime Minister's Question Time" on C-SPAN, I can't help but imagine what a delectable sight it would be for the Shrub to be forced to undergo regular questioning from a tough and vociferous opposition party in plain view of the TV cameras! Just imagine how some tough and knowledgeable Dems could reduce Bush to a bloody pulp over this Bolton nomination in a "Prime Minister's Questions" sort of situation!

Let's put a bow on this with a couple of quotes:

"I think the support is just as strong as it was."

-- Senate minority whip Dick Durbin, after a meeting of Democratic senators to assess the strength of their opposition to a vote on Bolton

Democrats say have votes to delay Bolton vote

"In the face of their tactics, we cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices. We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose. As I have said on other occasions, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

If anybody wants to keep the discussion going, try answering the question I posted initially: "When is enough going to be enough for you?"

Do you realize the difference between delaying and defeating?

Seriously, though, P-Did ... this is one highly impressive dance you've invented. It answer anything but the question at hand and evades the very point you started out with, which I'm still willing to chalk up as out of character for an otherwise intelligent soul.

First off, you mistake acknowledgement of Senate math as some sort of sellout that it isn't and then you claim: "Joe couldn't have sold out on Bolton because Joe didn't have anything to sell. He just rolled over." One word for that flip-flop: WOW! Nevermind that Biden opposes Bolton. Nevermind that he's made the best, most effective case against him among any Senator in that body (none of this "he's a meanie" garbage - he's a certifiably bad negotiator who allowed ex-Soviet nukes to flee into the hands of terrorists AFTER 9-11). So while Teddy boy was hitting the fundraising circuit to hear himself gab, Joe's answering the charges and dealing with the Bolton nomination head-on.

Alas, it's far easier to tap dance around having a point and go for the easy applause lines: "Yay Dean!" ... "Yay Teddy!"

So it's come to this, P-Did? Have you just given up the fight and devolved to cutting and pasting pablum applause lines that emphatically state nothing whatsoever? Heck, at least it's an emphatic nothing. I guess that's all some people really care about.

Let's get to brass tacks, shall we? If Patrick Leahy and Joe Biden are sellouts by your standard, then by all means give us the definitive P-Diddy list of approved Democrats (of the elected variety, please). Just a hunch, but I think you'll be hard pressed to name more than 2 Texans no matter how hard you try ... that is, if intellectual consistency means anything to you.

Up for the challenge?

I certainly hope that Dick Durbin is right. I have no desire for a vote on Bolton moving ahead.

I do agree that there are some members in the Texas legislature, and at the US Congressional level on which constituents should rethink their position.

In response to PDiddie's question "When is enough going to be enough for you?"

I don't see how I can adequately answer that question when any explanation I can provide probably won't be good enough. Nevertheless, I will try.

I have had enough of Republican heavy-handed domination. Personally, I would dump the Republican radicals at the drop of a hat, but that's something out of my control since I can't vote multiple times everywhere in the US.

Call Republicans what you will, I believe name calling distracts from the issue at hand, and turns the argument into a degenerative one. While I agree with Howard Dean on many points, just look at how his comments have been taken up by the media and Republicans. What issues was he even speaking about at the meeting? What group was he speaking to? I can remember the quotes, but I don't remember the more important issues because his comments have been blown out of all proportion with regard to the issues he was focusing on.

He could have made his point much more effectively by not insulting all Republicans. Yes, some Republicans definitely deserve his remarks, but I have plenty of friends, who are Republicans, who don't agree with Bush and the administration, who feel they have been slighted. Why turn off potential supporters, if we wish to have any hope of regaining control of the country?

Take a look at George Galloway. He attacked the Republican leadership and Bush on their Iraq policies, but he didn't call refer to them with politically charge names that bring up other historical connotations and he made his points very clear and very effectively (testimony).

I prefer arguments that state what Republicans are doing, why it's wrong and ineffective, and then promote a Democratic solution and why that solution represents the people's interests.

Most people seem to be turning against the administration now. Bush's job approval ratings have dipped to 48% (52% disapprove). His favorability ratings have similarly declined to 48% approval (51% disapproval). 58% say that Bush does not have the same priorities that Americans have (41% say they are the same). (Poll numbers come from Polling Report.)

If these numbers are any indicator, and they are the best that I can come up with, then I think they show that people have had enough. Of course it remains to be seen in the upcomming 2006 and 2008 elections.

I quite honestly don't understand why we need to cut down Joe Biden when we have plenty of radicals here in Texas, like Perry telling gays to get out of the state, or others like Cornyn in the Senate saying that violence against judges is because of their judicial activism. Then there are plenty of outrageous comments from other Congressional Republicans and a great deal of negative news about Tom DeLay. What Joe Biden said looks really tame compared to that. What he said isn't discriminatory, derogatory, or in any way negative to us. It's an expression of what he believes will happen on the Bolton vote. While I sincerely hope he is wrong, I don't see Biden's remark as any proof of a sustained pattern of subversion on his part of the Democratic Party. I would much rather spend time showing how inadequate, misguided, and out of touch the Republican Party is with Americans, than cutting down one of the most highly regarded members of the Senate.

Dude. You're really kind of constipated about this "sellout" thing. I'll try again to help you push it out, but this is the last time.

Here, have a bran muffin: I liked it when Biden said we should close Guantanamo.

(I don't hate Biden, but I hope a real Democrat challenges him next go-round.)

Still not moving? OK, here's the Ex-Lax (I really thought we tried this earlier):

"Sellout" is different than "quitter". Biden and Leahy are running from this fight before it's even got going good.

If Patrick Leahy and Joe Biden are sellouts by your standard, then by all means give us the definitive P-Diddy list of approved Democrats (of the elected variety, please). Just a hunch, but I think you'll be hard pressed to name more than 2 Texans no matter how hard you try

Does Ann Richards count? How about Lloyd Bentsen?

Keep hunching, brother; you'll get it all out...

PDiddie, your response is exactly what I mean about degenerative conversation.

Muriel, Greg, and I have argued against some of your claims, and you have resorted to speaking metaphorically about constipation, which ultimately weakens and discredits your argument.

If this conversation is not going to be based on facts and evidence, then this conversation is pretty much defunct.

Marc:

Most of my comment is meant for Greg, who's a big boy and can handle it.

You're probably too young to remember that Joe Biden ran for President once before, and was forced to quit when it was discovered he got a little too creative with some things on his resume'. That was before his brain tumor and his hair plugs.

I count among my grievances with Joe Biden his votes for the debt peonage bill and to confirm Abu Ghraib Gonzales.

Mostly, though, his senatorial diplomacy has gotten too mush-mouthed for me over the years. Every time he almost says something critical of the Iraw war he seems to chicken out (that's also different from 'sellout'; don't make the same comprehension error Greg keeps making). But he lost me for good when he both criticized Howard Dean and rolled over on Bolton on This Weak last Sunday.

Ronald Reagan helped build a GOP dynasty that outlives him still today with one simple phrase: 'thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.'

Joe Biden needs to heed Ronald Reagan. And then he needs to pick up his sword and get back in the fight, because we need warriors right now.

...and one other thing while I'm chewing over all of these ideas (I love this kind of argument): Be careful, Buster, whom you invite away from TV and into the political fray. I hardly ever watch TV except for Ch.78 until I can't stand them anymore or until I'm hoarse from screaming at people like Jeff Sessions and George Allen. Then I watch Aaron Brown. Otherwise I'm on the phone to the offices of Kay Belly Hutchison and John Cornyn, whose office workers, let alone their boss, give me what Huck Finn called the fantods.(KBH's are not so bad. At least they're polite.)
I know I need to be reminded that we don't have the votes, and that grown-ups shouldn't call people bad names, but it took me so many years of my life to learn to swear that I hate to give up the habit now that I don't have to answer to kids. I, too, have friends who are Republican, but they still defend and admire George Bush. When they come to their senses and give that up, I'll give up--maybe--calling them Repugs. In the meantime, I think Joe Biden is doing the best he can--better than Leahy, who took some scata from the VP, if you remember--and I hope Howard Dean
won't let the Republicans or the press or those in our party who think they know how to do it better but haven't shut him up.
I do, by the way, have a lot of respect for reason, but how do you reason with the likes of our good gov, who's now started to play around with the Fundamentalists--just what we need?

"Does Ann Richards count? How about Lloyd Bentsen?"

Well well ... you manage to name two Texas Democrats who are not elected to any office that I'm aware of. Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten with time that Lloyd Bentsen was a big booster of big oil and that Ann Richards left office to go lobby for tobacco companies. But I guess it's easier to call someone a sellout when they're miles away, huh?

That you cannot name any Texas Democrats who are CURRENTLY elected to any office that meet your stringent requirements for partisan purity, I think we've at least revealed the situation for what it is - just an inane point you've raised, P-Did.

" ... his senatorial diplomacy has gotten too mush-mouthed for me over the years." This sentence alone tells me we're not even trying to be serious. Joe Biden??? Diplomaticly Senatorial??? Do you even remember the campaign of 2004??? Perhaps instead of looking for cures of constipation, you should be searching for cures of myopia instead.

You bemoan Biden's vote for Gonzales as a point. Well, I guess that means Russ Feingold isn't even pure enough. Bankruptcy - that massive issue that everyone so cares about so much - there goes quite a few Texas Dems on that vote alone. Is it coincidence that the last Texas Dem you name was elected a mere 15 years ago? ... or even faced voters as recently as 11 years ago? I think not. Blast those foul Democrats who have the temerity to actually {gasp} get eeeellected (ick).

Seriously, PD ... maybe the problem is a bit closer to home for ya on this matter. This is not the grand debate over partisan purity that you and even others attempt to make it. This is just a dissembling defense of a point made so poorly that you should have just fessed up early on that it was a goof on your part. Save the witch hunts for the real demons. If you're going to start labelling any Dem a turncoat who doesn't meet your strict requirement for frothing at the mouth at the slightest of issues, we'll be left to caucus in a phone booth pretty soon. I realize this might have worked wonders for the Clark campaign, but it doesn't bode well for the rest of us who are more content to actually build a sustainable majority (two words I hope you'll start caring about sometime soon).

That you cannot name any Texas Democrats who are CURRENTLY elected to any office that meet your stringent requirements for partisan purity

For Christ's sake, Greg, now you change the rules to "currently" elected? That sure limits the field, doesn't it? OK; Rodney Ellis and Jessica Farrar. Silly game with rules-you-change-on-the-fly over.

And I can't even really tell where you went with the rest of that rant, quite honestly. At least you moved away from the sellout fixation, though. That's progress...

I think it has something to do with the intraparty struggle between conservatives and progressives. Duh. You and I appear to be on opposite sides of that one. Double duh.

I've described my issues with Joltin' Joe Biden sufficiently, and your defense of him seems to be limited to "he's not the only one", or maybe "nobody's perfect", or something. Triple duh.

FWIW, ideological purity is something I'm not particularly invested in. I supported Richard Morrison -- financially, to the tune of a few hundred dollars, and by working a polling place on Election Day -- despite his most unpalatable stance on a woman's right to choose. (My wife and I also went to Austin this past session to lobby for Planned Parenthood.)

Going back in time aways, I was a Young Republican in college. I voted for Ford, Reagan twice, and Bush the Elder (and deeply regret it to this day). Clinton was the first Democrat who got my vote for President. I voted for lots of Democrats down ballot, which would categorize me as a classic Texas ticket-splitter and Reagan Democrat throughout the '80s. There were lots of us then.

But enough about me; let's talk about you for awhile...

Dude, in this little give-and-take we've had, I notice that you frequently jump to quite a few erroneous conclusions (in my case, about someone you barely know). You started off rather unhealthily focused on the word "sellout" and stayed that way despite several clarifications, presented a quiz with a false premise, and then changed the terms when I aced it.

Who's pathetic again?

Please tell me that's not how you are going about building a local coalition, podnah.

Anyway, I'm going to keep throwing rocks at Democrats who chicken out as well as sell out, and you're welcome to keep throwing rocks at me for doing so.

*shrugs*

Been a progressive all my life, thanks for trying to classify me.

The "currently" was implied. My bad for not dropping that in originally. Surely, I thought you could name an actual US Senator or two. Maybe even a current US Congressman or woman. Perhaps a Governor or two. Outside chance of a current candidate running for office here in Texas, even. But I guess we're limited to good ol Rodney and Jessica. Sheesh, was Sheila Jackson-Lee too moderate for you to include on that bold and daring list?

You're the one that started off saying:

"If it's 'impolite' to call them DINOs or Vichy Democrats -- hell, some on our side still think it's shrill to call the GOP fascists -- what kind of behavior is it going to take to describe it accurately? What -- as a matter of definition -- do actions that meet the description look like?"

And this is fitting for the guy who held up Bush's worst judicial nominees for the most of the past 4 years and another who has made the most convincing case against Bush's foriegn policy ... well ... ever.

So the short and nasty of it all is that I think you've jumped the gun and lumped a couple of otherwise fine Democrats into a category that belongs for the Zell Millers of the world. If you can't see the difference between the Millers and the Al Edwards of our world and other fine Democrats, it ain't I that's lacking for a defense of my party. When the name-calling (that you engaged in, I should point out) reaches to pretty much most any Democrat that just doesn't see eye to eye with you - not on a vote, not on a bill, but in the way they have the nerve to state what any 5th grade math student can figure out - we lose sight (pun intended) of where the real problem cases are. It isn't with Biden & Leahy. Simple as that.

While you weren't bothering to notice, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson just voted to confirm Judge Brown - easily one of the most egregious judicial picks any President has made in the last quarter century (probably longer).

But yeah, back to that despot, Pat Leahy!!!

Been a progressive all my life, thanks for trying to classify me.

Really, that was me? Coulda sworn that was you, with the little purity challenges and all.

From where I sit, you're just a little too conservative to meet my definition of 'progressive'. Hey, it's not personal; I'm just sayin'. For example, all the real progressives that I know favor a woman's unfettered right to choose, and what I have gathered from posts at your blog, that ain't you. Am I mistaken?

And I'm sure we could go on and on for another twenty posts *yawn* about who we like and who we don't, who's a tool *cough*Landrieu*cough* and who's not; hell, your cheesy little game was probably good for a few more rounds. Of course you need to get the parameters down and then stick to them if you want it to be anything but, you know, kind of an embarrassing sham on your part...

But seriously, go play it with somebody else, jefe. I have better things to do.

You're shaping up as one of those types that needs to have the last word, no matter how lame those words come out, so you go ahead on...

I'm done with ya.

Been a progressive all my life, thanks for trying to classify me.

Really, that was me? Coulda sworn that was you, with the little purity challenges and all.

From where I sit, you're just a little too conservative to meet my definition of 'progressive'.

Wow ... do you even read your material back to check for such inconsistencies as this? But that's ok ... at least I never voted for Reagan.

Hey, it's evidence that Republicanism isn't a terminal disease.

I'm living proof that one can be cured. Everybody should be happy about that.

Now this is what I'm talkin' 'bout:

Senate Democrats will not allow a vote on President Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador unless the White House hands over records of communications intercepts Bolton sought from the secretive National Security Agency, Minority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday.

"You can't ignore the Senate. We've told them what we've wanted. The ball is in his court," Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN. "If they want John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, give us this information. If they don't, there will be no Bolton."

But Reid said Bush is responsible for breaking the impasse -- not Democrats.

"The president is obstructing a vote on John Bolton," he said. "We've asked for simple information that Congresses over many decades that we have been in existence have been given by the White House."

Now if we can just work on the flawed logic as demonstrated over the course of your commentary in this post, P-Did.

;-)