"It's My Party, I'll Cry If I Want To."
Why would I be saying this? Why should any body care? Well it seems that there are a great many folks in the Democratic Party who believe that, if you question an elected Democratic representative, you are displaying the greatest disloyalty to the Democratic Party. Just this week a new acquaintance has suggested that I am ”…spouting anti-Democratic propaganda from the same folks who brought you the "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" lie.” and that this Blog, ”exists to demonize Democrats who don't toe the Green Party line.”
What has brought this latest round of “loyalty checking”? Apparently Chantel read my previous entry on Congressman Brian Baird's (D-WA3) recent statement that he favors a continuation of the so-called surge in Iraq to be an attack on Democrats. She equates my questioning of his rationale for his position as somehow blaming him for the mess there. ”Look, Baird may be wrong about extending the surge, but the war is not his fault.” In point of fact, my post said exactly that. Baird voted against the invasion of Iraq but that his current position on the "surge" is wrong. Oh well....
OK, so this is how it works. In a democracy (or representative democracy to be more precise) I am offered a choice for the person who will represent me in Congress. As I have pointed out above, the Republican platform essentially knocks any of those folks out of contention. In an ideal world, I would then be left with a choice of Democratic candidates who would vie for my support in a primary election. I would then fight for “my candidate” until such time as the primary would declare an official Democratic candidate for the general election. (Now, as I found out last year, even fighting for a candidate who is not an INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT can get you in hot water with some folks.) After the primary I am free to support the Democratic nominee or simply sit on the sidelines and vote “D” in November. ---Oh yeah, as for the Green party thing, I wouldn’t mind seeing more parties involved in our elections but, until they can do a better job of articulating a platform and fielding candidates at more levels of government, I am not spending much time with that notion.
But we are not talking (entirely) about an election here. We are talking about those who have already been elected and are now on the hook to do the actual job of governing and representing the people. As a citizen of the United States I have a right and an obligation to hold any and all elected officials ACCOUNTABLE for the things they say and the way they vote. It is a foregone conclusion that no matter what I say, I will not have any affect on how any elected Republican congress member (Hastings, McMorris-Rodgers, or Reichert) votes. I have however contributed money and time (in the form of the written word) against all three of them and I expect I will do so again in 2008. No, my time is best spent attempting to influence the very people who seek my vote and profess to represent my Democratic Party values. When any member of the Democratic Party begins to use the same language as the Republicans, it is the obligation of every Democrat to challenge them and to hold them ACCOUNTABLE. To do less is blind allegiance.
If what I write encourages someone to challenge a Rick Larsen or a Brian Baird in a Democratic primary, then so much the better for our democracy.
Finally, lest some think this needs saying. Just as in any family, I reserve the right to say anything I feel compelled to say about my siblings but let someone from outside my family offer anything resembling criticism or challenge and I will be the first that you must pass.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
posted by Chad Shue | 12:38 PM
21 Comments:
" When any member of the Democratic Party begins to use the same language as the Republicans, it is the obligation of every Democrat to challenge them and to hold them ACCOUNTABLE."
I couldn't agree more. And when people call those who disagree with them 'spineless' or 'weak', they are using the language of Republicans. So I hold them accountable. :~)
Seriously, Chad, it's fine to question your Democratic electeds. But many go further than that. They call their fellow Democrats names, they call for their defeat, and they generally insult their intelligence and reasoning skills.
If I have a question about why a Democrat voted a certain way or holds a certain position, I ask them about it. I listen to what they have to say. If I disagree, I don't pound the wall and whine that they need to be replaced. I focus on the things I DO agree with that they stand for. It's the inability of many on the far left to do the same that frustrates me.
Go ahead and question all you want, but using your family analogy, I get angry with my kids and husband all the time, but I'd never ever ever chew them out on a blog.
Getting stuck on a single issue is harmful to the Democratic party. There are those who care nothing for reality, call Democrats names for not starting frivolous impeachment procedings or for their position on war funding. To every other issue, they say 'so what'...be it choice (a biggie for me), or health care, or the environment, or anything else. Democrats are better on those issue than Republicans. Period.
That's my opinion, and I too will cry if I want to...especially when single-issue stubbornness harms the potential for doing good in so many other areas.
This is not single issue:
Baird voted wrong on the bankrupcy bill which was a credit card industry bonanza.
Baird has not signed onto HR333, a non-frivolous bill which represents standing up for the constitution itself.
Baird is proposing a health care bill which will enable corporations to further strip workers of their health benefits and require individuals to pay for their own insurance.
Baird has legislated an anti-environmental logging bill of Federal lands.
Baird touts that he got a sales tax deduction restored for Washington residents when only 37 percent of Washingtonians get any tax benefit at all, mostly upper income residents.
And of course finally, he is wrong about staying the course in Iraq.
So I am not talking about a single issue when I criticize Rep. Baird. And it is our duty as citizens to hold him accountable when he doesn't represent our democratic values or the Democratic platform.
And one of the ways you hold him accountable is "chewing him out on a blog".
He is not my child, he is someone that is supposed to be standing up for me and my values.
*yawn*
Great. So after Baird's eight years in Congress, you disagree with him on four votes and you're mad at him for being one of the 381 reps who haven't yet cosponsored HR 333. Also you opine that the sales tax deduction didn't go far enough.
Yes. Let's replace him immediately. By all means. Let's gin up a big ole' protest with signs and costumes and noisemakers so we can show the public how much we hate our Democrats in congress when they defy our will!...let's show him that, by God, he WILL be with us 100% of the time or he WILL be seen as the enemy! How DARE he disagree with us on four or five points??? We MUST hold him ACCOUNTABLE until he AGREES with us on EVERYTHING!
Um, no.
Oh! You probably meant H RES 333, not HR 333. HR 333 deals with allowing disabled veterans to receive disability and retirement pay. It has 54 cosponsors. Sorry for taking you too literally. :)
H RES 333 is the impeachment of Cheney thing. It's frivolous because he's not going to be removed, and all your claims otherwise don't make it so.
Next...
Hi Chantel,
Great to see you here today!
Just got back from my pre-op and packing my small bag for my visit to the hospital this week.
I would like to say that Chad has said what needs to be said for me on the current topic as well. I would like to disclose that I agree with Chad far more than 67.7 % of the time but I don’t think I could ever call him spineless if I disagree with him. I think it would be more like this.
“Hey Chad, why do you have this position on that issue?”
Chad would probably forgo the form letter that I would get from my congressman trying to support their position
.
Chad might email me or call me on the pc and discuss it.
But I can assure you anyone any representative I would consider calling SPINELESS or any other accurate metaphor deserves it!
I promise you that the day will come when these insulated politicians will come out of hiding and have to truly face their base. I will be there (in my district) to confront them with their lackluster ( Shitty Job) they are doing on my behalf.
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source Main Entry: spineless Part of Speech: adjective Definition: cowardly Synonyms: amoeba, emasculate, faint-hearted, fearful, feeble, forceless, frightened, gutless*, impotent, inadequate, ineffective, ineffectual, invertebrate, irresolute, lily-livered*, nerveless, pithless, soft, spiritless, squeamish, submissive, timid, vacillating, weak, weak-kneed, weak-willed, yellow* Antonyms: bold, brave
I am confident the current group of weak leaders in the democratic party are getting their butts kicked as we speak on their sellout passing of increased spy powers given to Gonzales!
The tune will change in about two weeks on that screw up!
Jus a point of fact the term Spineless Democrats is being use by mostly the Dem Base Rightly so!
Bush Tool gets it!! Chad Gets it! I get it! Millions of Democrats Get it!
When is this inadequate leadership going to get it? Unless we vote them out and intelligent leaders in we will get more of this inaccurate rhetoric that seems a minority are convinced of.
TTFN
If you are sleepy “* Yawn* “ take a nap =)
Most of your statements are yours and don't reflect what I said. I was just addressing your statement about one issue complaints.
"It's the inability of many on the far left to do the same that frustrates me."
That's a Bill O'Reilly talking point if I ever heard one.
As Mr. Shue points out, it is OK to criticize elected officials and run people against them in the primary. That is what is called a democracy. It makes our country and our party stronger. What has weakened our democracy is the fact that once many candidates get elected, they are no longer accountable to anyone and they act accordingly.
Sorry you're off to the hospital, Ozy! :(
Yeah. Insulting people always persuades them.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps standing up to the symbolism-obsessed far left is in itself a display of backbone? To stand up and say "No, that's not the right thing to do at this point. We can accomplish more by doing it this way, and that's what we're doing."
Just puttin' it out there.
Also, impeachment is frivolous because there will be no removal from office. Just thought I'd say it again. :)
Ok, bushtool. If you think running people against our Democrats is going to strengthen the party and make it less likely we'll lose seats, then good luck to ya'. That ain't the way politics works.
Brian Baird is a fine Democrat, a great representative, and we're darn lucky to have him instead of a Republican. I've disagreed with him and gotten explanations, which I've sometimes accepted and sometimes not. The problem is that too many self-styled guardians of ideological purity won't take "hey, we disagree on this" for an answer.
Well that's not me.
Know what bushtool? Hey, we disagree on this.
:`)
Thank You Chantel.
As far as this statement
"Ok, bushtool. If you think running people against our Democrats is going to strengthen the party and make it less likely we'll lose seats, then good luck to ya'. That ain't the way politics works."
These "people" I assume will be qualified Democratic challengers.
"That ain't the way politics works."? I hope you can educate us in your personal view of how politics work Chantel.=) I am eager to learn. I have been studying under some very qualified people in that area but I have an open mind about the whole political thingy.
One thing I do know is.I will never know everything and I know that these congressional reps will never walk on water nor do they deserve any more respect than my neighbors do. This “I am not worthy garbage” that some folks submerge themselves in when a congressman or Senator comes out into the light is embarrassing to say the least.
By the way what is the approval rating of congress lately?
50% 40% 30% hmmm oh 22% that tells me there is room for a teeny tiny bit of improvement. What do you think?
Maybe we should re-evaluate the performance of a few of these incumbents and make an educated decision as to a possible few who might need to be replaced. How about that for an idea? Lets fire the under performers like we have in the White House and hire some smarter, more qualified individuals to take their place.
Maybe we can get a bump up to say.. 38%
Just a thought.
Ozy
Ozy, the Democratic party is formed for the support of Democrats.
If you can't understand why attempting to defeat Democrats in a primary is bad for the Democratic party, then I can't help you...but I do mean it when I say I'm sorry you have to go through surgery.
As far as elected officials being somehow above criticism, of course they are not. However it is a reality that anything and everything they do every single day is going to spark outrage somewhere. The party that helped get them elected should be ready to stand behind them in my opinion, not stand ready to pick a fight over every single issue.
I am a Democrat. Proud and without apology. The Democratic party, as flawed as you may believe it to be, is all that stands between us and a world that would make life under Bushco seem progressive. If we start tearing each other apart over petty fights, it's over.
Go ahead and condescend all you like but it won't change reality. That I could come under such cynical attack here for saying "hey, our Democratic party is pretty good" is very sad. I'm a big girl and I can take it, but it's very sad to see so many unwilling to cut Democrats any slack.
Thanks for the Karl Rove talking point about congress' approval ratings. Be sure and pass that one along to the RNC. But it is the height of arrogance for you to imply that congress' approval is low because they disagree with you. Very sad indeed.
Oh, and before you say something snappy like 'they should have thought about that before they got into politics' you should remember that even people in politics are human beings. Sounds like you may have an issue with elected officials. You may want to work on that as most of them are quite approachable when they're not being hollered at. They're really just like everyone else in that regard.
Chantel,
You say, "If you can't understand why attempting to defeat Democrats in a primary is bad for the Democratic party, then I can't help you..."
WOW! So what do I do now? On my primary ballot I see the names Jean Berkey and Brian Sullivan both vying for the same office. What to do? I mean one way or another a Democrat is going to lose.
Is it your opinion that the Democratic voters of Connecticut were being disloyal when they defeated Joe Lieberman in the 2006 and forced him to run against the "party's nominee" as an Independent in November?
Finally I believe that you overstep when you accuse Ozy of Rove-speak when he states simple fact which appears in the public record. The approval rating of the congress is, in fact, lower that that of George W. Bush. I think the RNC already knew that. Too bad you didn't before you started your "My Democrats, Right or Wrong." crusade. And, by the way, the approval rating has been on a steady downward trend ever since they started passing "non-binding resolutions" and voted to continue un-restricted money for Bush to continue his occupation of Iraq. They certainly did themselves no favors by voting to extend Bush's warrentless wiretapping program.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
"Also, impeachment is frivolous because there will be no removal from office. Just thought I'd say it again. :)"
In other words, if the end result of fighting for something that anyone should know is right (that's right as in morally right) is failure to right the wrong and we know that will be the result before trying to right the wrong, trying to do so is frivolous.
And that, my friends, is exactly is what IS wrong.
Ok, Chad. First off there is no incumbent Democrat in the council race. You're off point there. But that's fine. You believe that attacking Democrats is in the best interests of the Party. I don't.
Thanks for bringing up the wiretapping bill. Every Dem from our state voted against it. Yay for them for standing up!
But then, you are on record as saying that you are under no obligation to praise Democrats for doing the right thing. You simply expect them to do good and criticize them when they do wrong. How convenient.
And Ozy, yes. Beginning impeachment when we know it would not result in removal is frivolous.
Too many Americans value symbolism above substance. That is the real problem. Results are more important than process, and so few seem to get that.
Oh, and by the way it looks like someone named "bill" who is active in SnoCo has disagreed with my AFSCME post. I haven't verified that poster's identity, but could it be that I've been lucky enough to have been called out by Chad Shue and Bill Phillips on the same day? What a lucky lady am I.
Democrats are good, the party should stay strong, and AFSCME needs to quit mucking with our executive. How those statements are controversial is way beyond my comprehension.
Anyway...I've enjoyed the exchange. *group hug* Here's to civil debate! :)
"And Ozy, yes. Beginning impeachment when we know it would not result in removal is frivolous. "
Some said that about the Nixon Impeachment. Guess what, halfway through the investigation, the votes turned and Nixon had to resign. Bush makes Nixon look like an angel.
Frivolous? No! Standing up for the constitution and demanding justice. Yes!
Each signing statement Bush attaches to a law is a violation. He has made thousands of them.
Do you think that anyone in our government should get away with violating his or her oath of office, Chantel? The Congress has been complicit in not protecting the Constitution thus violating their oath of office.
Chantel do you support the DLC as well?
I find you very unique in your views and I must say I think it was not I who started casting the stone of condescension.
Thanks for your sincerity.
I must say I don’t want to spend the rest of my life following your line of thinking and being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Sorry but I think we should take action and vote replacement Democrats for some of the DINOS who have infected the party.
You know, Chantel, if you work hard you may help to eliminate the primary election process all together with your stance. After all, why have a primary when we have a minority of people picking our candidates for us?
TTFN
"And Ozy, yes. Beginning impeachment when we know it would not result in removal is frivolous."
Let's try again:
frivolous adj. Unworthy of serious attention
Is anything like the following "worthy of serious attention"
from Frank Scott
I agree with you that the Senate will probably fail to convict Bush, but it's still very important that the House impeaches Bush and Cheney, if only to show future presidents, and those in their administration, that they will be held accountable for their actions.
Members of the House and the Senate took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and letting these criminals get away with all of their illegal and unethical actions will be a violation of that oath, even though it may benefit them politically to avoid doing what they should.
Yes!
What he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chantel,
"Ok, Chad. First off there is no incumbent Democrat in the council race. You're off point there. But that's fine. You believe that attacking Democrats is in the best interests of the Party. I don't."
Civics-101: The end goal of a primary election is to determine the best Democrat to fill the role. It is apparently your determination that once we elect someone we will live with that decision for life or until the elected decides to step down. It is that thinking that has given us "Term Limits" and why, in far too many cases, good Democrats are forced from office even though they have been performing quite well in their position.
No. It is the people who should take the role of "term limitor" by having spirited debate and making choices from a good field of challengers (including incumbents who MUST be held accountable to the voters at the end of every term)
Having said that, while I have enjoyed these exchanges, I hope you will excuse me if I limit my responses and move forward. I leave you with this: In doing some checking (on a purely informal basis of course) I am curious as to why I don't see your name appearing on any current database of Snohomish County Democrats? I mean, someone with your passion, I would think would be leading the charge as a PCO or, at least, a campaign volunteer. Here's a thought: Rick Larsen will need new cheerleaders/volunteers for 2008. I'm sure he would welcome you with open arms.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
To Chad and those above:
I can agree that debate and push back are good and needed components in our democracy and fielding a primary opponent is fair game, especially when the incumbent D does not represent their district.
In Brian Baird's case I think it is a more true statement that the votes cited do not reflect my views and your views, Chad, than it is accurate to say that these votes do not represent his constituency. After all this is the district that elected Linda Smith for Dog's sake. Our state has as many federal elected officials as it has for one simple reason and that is that we have been good at bending Seattle standards when judging candidates from tough swing districts.
I expect each of you were as exasperated as I was in both of the last two presidential elections as I tried to come to terms with who the vast geographic center of our nation was willing to support. It is the voter who needs to tune in, get real, wake up and change in most cases. It is far less common that the elected like Brian Baird is failing to represent and even to challenge his district.
No, I am not saying be quiet. I think Brian needs feed back even when it comes from outside his district. Step back and look at Jay Insley. As a West WA member of congress he is a hero and yet he was ousted from his seat in East WA for taking a few too many good votes. Had he not relocated we would never have had benefit of his leadership on so many issues for the simple reason that he would not be in office. The simple fact is that each district is different and we need to decide if one vote is compelling enough to suffer the loss of seats like the one held by Brian. If we could have the house and senate in DC take immediate majority votes to end this war and get our people home by Nov of 08 then I would be all for that even if it caused a shift. But we cannot get a majority and even if we could we cannot get everyone out prior to when the majorities would shift and in the spring of 09 they would just ramp back up. So for me it is still a game of hold and build. Hold our seats. Hold our water on votes like impeachment. Elect a D president and a D in the 8th CD and a few more D US Senators. Then we can bring our nation back.
Yes!
What he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PM,
What a pleasure to have you here at The Left Shue.
I have to say that I am confused by your reading of the post here and, therefore your conclusion. I don't believe anyone here is calling for the removal of Rep. Baird. In fact, this post is specifically in reference to his recent statement in favor of extending the Bush "surge." I believe that assesment is in error but feel that it is because of statements like this that the Democrats will not, in the end, meet their promise to the voters in November, to bring this clusterf&*k to an end before Bush leaves office.
We also have a reasonable disagreement over an impeachment vote. For the apparent majority of the Democrats, pursuing impeachmnet without a guaranteed outcome of conviction is "off the table." In my mind (and the minds of many other Americans) impeachment is a Constitutional process that should be viewed and pursued outside the context of politics. Even so, the historical evidence would suggest that there has yet to be a presidential impeachment which has resulted from removal from office (resignation not withstanding).
Andrew Johnson impeached - Senate verdict; "not guilty."
Nixon articles of impeachmnet drawn and voted - resigned before the Senate trial.
Clinton impeached - Senate verdict; "not guilty."
Finally, you suggest, "It is the voter who needs to tune in, get real, wake up and change in most cases." In case you haven't read the latest polling information, the American voters voted for real change in November. The American voters are the ones who are saying "Out of Iraq" and "No to Warrentless Wiretapping."
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home