This morning's CQPolitics has a piece about how Democrats must win back their base:

""It's easier to beat up on your local congressperson, even if they voted the way you wanted, than it is to organize around the country and go after more votes," DeFazio told the talk radio hosts.

The reality, though, is that DeFazio and plenty of other Democrats won't have the luxury -- at least for a while -- of deflecting the anger their base feels over the leadership's retreat from forcing Bush to bring the troops home. Last week's completion of a funding package that no longer challenges Bush demoralized many of the party's most committed supporters, raising the risk that some might simply stay home in 2008 if they don't see a greater change on the single biggest issue that put the Democrats in power: the war."

Let me say that I join 'em.

And it isn't even about the Iraq War or the War Against Iraq or Operation Spend All Our Money to Kill People whatever the hell we're calling this thing now a days. Its the whole idea of what the Democrats are doing.

There was the First 100 Hours very productive - team building. Go Team! But since then what have they done but pass another Iraq Spending Bill that has no hope of doing anything but... well SPENDING.

The article addresses the "liberal base" and I don't consider myself liberal. I'm pretty realistic about what can and can't be done. I understand that I don't have all the facts about what is going on there on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not a single issue person - I look at the whole package - and I'm 100% party lines. But I feel so deceived by this hope of leadership and courage that I am forced to feel nothing but disappointment.

It isn't about Iraq - I wish we could resolve it - I wish we could put our majority minds together in a giant Democratic Caucus of brainiac bravado and bring on some actual accountability. It isn't the policy that I'm pissed about - its the candy ass way that they don't stand and fight like it matters.

"House Democrats have passed most of the priority initiatives they promised in last year's campaign, but almost none have been signed into law. They pushed a lobbying overhaul through the House last week, but only after narrowing it significantly -- embarrassing Democrats who had campaigned on ethics and providing an opening for Republicans to broaden it on the floor."

The man is at 28%.... he could blow up a Starbucks and his numbers would have no choice but to go up. And Congressional Democrats think a genuflect is progress?

"And the party's Capitol Hill leaders alienated some supporters by striking a trade deal with the Bush administration earlier this month, agreeing to let some new trade pacts move forward if they include internationally recognized labor and environmental standards. Some Democrats are skeptical that the administration would really enforce such standards."

I spent most of the 2006 cycle trying to convince people that we had TWO parties and one was clearly better than the other - not one party with the lesser of evils.

"Even for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, one of the main advocates of a higher minimum wage, the victory was almost an afterthought in his remarks at a news conference a few hours before the vote."

And the cleverly worded suggestion by CQ is Step 1: Admit you have a problem. You see - because the country has something like 60 people running for President and every state in this country has decided to have its Primary Elections two weeks after the last election there is no longer an urge to govern. They are "too busy keeping their jobs that they've forgotten to do their jobs."

"Some Democrats think the party needs to work harder in the coming months to change the public's perception of who's responsible for the safety of the troops. As long as Bush is able to convince the public that Congress is to blame if the funds run out because of a showdown over withdrawal plans, lawmakers are at a disadvantage, said Democratic pollster Guy Molyneux. In fact, he said, Bush has the power as commander in chief to move the troops out of harm's way if the funding is in danger."

But in a way they are in a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Blame them if the funds run out - blame them if they are funding it - blame them because its still going on and I'm sure Rove is over there giggling like a little girl he's so excited the White House ain't the ones catching the backlash. The reason: EVERYONE knows the President is inflexible and has no perception of reality. He's a lame duck that really has no concept of success or failure. That's our Bush!

But with Congress - we worked to elect them with the perception that something would be done. That someone would take charge - grab the reins away and say - alright go back there and take a nap while we pull the map out and ask directions to figure out where the hell we got lost. Instead they just refueled and picked up some pork rinds.

Does anybody feel the same way or am I alone here?