Nathan Newman wrote:
>Ah yes, replies without substance are quite useful in discussion.
>But then that's typical of these debates on Democrats since actually
>discussing the substance of how Congress works is just so boring and
>irrelevant to discussing power.
-"Ok, let's discuss how Congress works. Some Congressional Dems offer -tepid criticisms of the thrust toward war. Then the war starts and -all agree the time for debate is over - as if the matter hadn't -become more urgent when potential turned into actual. An excellent -mechanism!"
Doug, you nicely illustrated the point I made-- which you failed to quote-- "Far better to analyze polticians rhetoric, since left fundamentalists think words at rallies are all that are important."
You are obsessed with "tepid criticisms" over actual votes. To repeat two-thirds of House Dems voted against the war authorization last fall, with Pelosi doing some of the key organizing of that dissent. All Democrats voted against the key procedural vote that brought Ashcroft's Patriot Act to the floor.
The problem is Democrats don't have the wide majority needed so that defections don't derail the progressive policies that their average member holds.
It is an inescapable fact that the most productive years of liberal legislation, 1936-38 and 1964-66 were periods of massive Democratic party majorities-- more than two thirds of the House and about the same in the Senate were Dems in those two periods. Such margins allowed them to overcome the inevitable defection by moderate and conservative Democrats -- and recruit more moderate Republicans who could be rewarded for their defections -- to pass such legislation
My view is that the real answer is to elect more Democrats, since periods of large numbers of Democrats in office coincide with better legislation passed.
But you don't like that answer and prefer to analyze rhetoric, as if that's far more important than anything as piciyune as actual voting power.
-- Nathan Newman