Democrats Blink- Here's buckets of money and no timeline

[trumptman]

IBD (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264727642819830)

Only a short time ago, Democrats were cockily promising they would send the president a pullout bill as many times as it would take, until finally he would have to relent. Just last Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were insisting on a timeline in negotiations with the White House on a war funding bull.

But the tables have now been turned on congressional Democrats. All of a sudden, it is they who face a deadline: If Congress does not manage to pass a war spending bill that the president is willing to sign before the Memorial Day recess, Democrats become vulnerable to the charge of refusing to fund our combat troops.

And so, faced with the president's famous "stubbornness" (so often portrayed as a character flaw by liberal Democrats and the media establishment), Democratic leaders have been forced to blink, dropping their insistence that war funding be linked to a troop withdrawal timeline — even a nonbinding one.

Second source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22cnd-cong.html?ei=5065&en=2d27446ebbab5252&ex=1180497600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

So we now have a Democratic Congress that has given President Bush exactly what a Republican Congress would have given him.

This says a few things to me. First, you can't authorize a war and then attempt to de-authorize it without taking it to the chin politically. Second, when faced with a decision that pitted principles and their own campaign promises against politically expediency, they choose the easy route.

This plus the continued lack of any work regarding their various complaints about torture, Guantanamo Bay, criticisms of the Patriot Act, etc.. all shows me that it was really not about anything more than getting elected and tossing around some rhetoric. When we add in the lack of legislation to fix fundraising, lobbying, etc. and we see the real problem with the last Congress was Republicans were acting like Democrats and now Democrats, well they act like Democrats as well.

Somebody please find us some real Republicans again!
Nick

[@_@ Artman]

This news makes me think our democracy is an illusion. They knew Bush would veto any bill that required a timetable and it was political theater when they made him actually do it. They have done nothing. They just want to give us the illusion of choice.

Pepsi? :no: Coke?

[midwinter]

So we now have a Democratic Congress that has given President Bush exactly what a Republican Congress would have given him.

Yup. Except it's worse. Now it's bipartisan.

This says a few things to me. First, you can't authorize a war and then attempt to de-authorize it without taking it to the chin politically. Second, when faced with a decision that pitted principles and their own campaign promises against politically expediency, they choose the easy route.

It's worse than that. It shows that Democrats are completely out of touch with mainstream America, who want the troops OUT. It shows that the Democrats completely misread the midterms, which were about electing people to bring the troops HOME.

And they have failed. Spectacularly. Why? Because they suck. It is a bloody wonder they all don't fall down more.

This plus the continued lack of any work regarding their various complaints about torture, Guantanamo Bay, criticisms of the Patriot Act, etc.. all shows me that it was really not about anything more than getting elected and tossing around some rhetoric.

Looks that way. But hey, NO ONE can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democrats!

When we add in the lack of legislation to fix fundraising, lobbying, etc. and we see the real problem with the last Congress was Republicans were acting like Democrats and now Democrats, well they act like Democrats as well.

Nah. Republicans were acting like Republicans, hypocritically screaming about tax and spend Democrats even though their policy of don't tax and spend MORE is worse.

Somebody please find us some real Republicans again!
Nick

I remember in the 2000 election, someone made a song..."I want a brand new pair of candidates...."

We can only hope Kucinich gets the Dem nomination and Huckabee gets the GOP nod.

[southside grabowski]

The people are frustrated with the stat e of the war, but the people do SUPPORT WINNING the war. The Dems know this. Doing anything that can be considered getting in the way of victory would be political suicide for the Dems. This is about American ego. The people don't want to back down to third world grenade chuckers. This is a real political dilemma for the Dems..

[Frank777]

I remember in the 2000 election, someone made a song..."I want a brand new pair of candidates...."

We can only hope Kucinich gets the Dem nomination and Huckabee gets the GOP nod.

And what do you think the odds are of that happening?

[midwinter]

The people are frustrated with the stat e of the war, but the people do SUPPORT WINNING the war. The Dems know this. Doing anything that can be considered getting in the way of victory would be political suicide for the Dems. This is about American ego. The people don't want to back down to third world grenade chuckers. This is a real political dilemma for the Dems..

The people also support not killing puppies. The people support goodness and truth. The people support Big Daddy's on Bourbon Street. The people support keeping the sky where it is. The people support their children's little league baseball team winning the cham-peen-ship.

The people clearly want the troops to come home.

[midwinter]

And what do you think the odds are of that happening?

Pretty slim. But a man can dream, can't he?

[Jubelum]

Troops out. Lower Taxes. Smaller Government. A real choice for real change.

This shameless, redundant message brought to you by Friends of Ron Paul.

[SDW2001]

Yup. Except it's worse. Now it's bipartisan.



It's worse than that. It shows that Democrats are completely out of touch with mainstream America, who want the troops OUT. It shows that the Democrats completely misread the midterms, which were about electing people to bring the troops HOME.

And they have failed. Spectacularly. Why? Because they suck. It is a bloody wonder they all don't fall down more.



Looks that way. But hey, NO ONE can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democrats!



Nah. Republicans were acting like Republicans, hypocritically screaming about tax and spend Democrats even though their policy of don't tax and spend MORE is worse.



I remember in the 2000 election, someone made a song..."I want a brand new pair of candidates...."

We can only hope Kucinich gets the Dem nomination and Huckabee gets the GOP nod.



Couldn't agree with you more. Actually..strike that. One thing: I will say the Dems DID know what the "people wanted." They just don't have the balls to do it. They could stop the war in 30 seconds if they wanted to. All they have to do is pass a resolution cutting off funds. Bingo. But they simply don't have the balls for that. Can't really blame them...it's political suicide.

[trumptman]

Yup. Except it's worse. Now it's bipartisan.

Well, they did say they wanted to bring bipartisan cooperation back to Washington. I just don't think this is what we all had in mind.

It's worse than that. It shows that Democrats are completely out of touch with mainstream America, who want the troops OUT. It shows that the Democrats completely misread the midterms, which were about electing people to bring the troops HOME.

While I agree that they do want the troops home, I think the real issue is that the poll questioning allows choices of ends without means. The same polls also clearly show support for winning the war, etc.

It would be like polling America if they would like to collectively lose their excess weight being met with an overwhelming yes, and then noticing that the question after this that noted it would require diet and exercise was being met with an overwhelming no.

And they have failed. Spectacularly. Why? Because they suck. It is a bloody wonder they all don't fall down more.

I think I lost you a bit here. Perhaps you shouldn't be varnishing tables and posting at the same time.;)

Looks that way. But hey, NO ONE can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democrats!

Don't worry, Republicans are becoming more like Democrats in that way each day.

Nah. Republicans were acting like Republicans, hypocritically screaming about tax and spend Democrats even though their policy of don't tax and spend MORE is worse.

It wasn't this way in the mid-90's but of course those tattoos around the bicep were so popular then too. I do remember a Republican Congress balancing a budget. I cannot say this about a Democratic Congress, but the fact that I can only say it about a Republican Congress as part of a VH1 retrospective really doesn't count anymore either.

I remember in the 2000 election, someone made a song..."I want a brand new pair of candidates...."

We can only hope Kucinich gets the Dem nomination and Huckabee gets the GOP nod.

I keep having this weird dream where the Republicans decide they can't win and so they nominate Newt as sort of bombastic speech sacrificial lamb. I wouldn't like the election results, but damn would the coverage be fun.

The people also support not killing puppies.

Not true, they are euthanized by the thousands every year.

The people support goodness and truth.

I've seen the Nielsen's on goodness and truth and I assure you they support Sleaze and Sex.

The people support Big Daddy's on Bourbon Street.

Yes, but they won't buy him levees.

The people support keeping the sky where it is.

Actually they support destroying the sky, but purchasing sky offsets to make them feel better.

The people support their children's little league baseball team winning the cham-peen-ship.

Stop being a dinosaur. Everyone's kids are playing soccer with all the illegal immigrant children.

:D :D :D
Nick

[@_@ Artman]

The people are frustrated with the state of the war, but the people do SUPPORT WINNING the war.

SCREEECH. Win? Win what. "Hearts and Minds"? "Terrorism"? "The Mission"?

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/markpoyser/uggabugga/2003/mission-accomplished-thanksgiving.jpg

Please inform me of the definition of winning in an occupation. :???:

[midwinter]

Couldn't agree with you more. Actually..strike that. One thing: I will say the Dems DID know what the "people wanted." They just don't have the balls to do it. They could stop the war in 30 seconds if they wanted to. All they have to do is pass a resolution cutting off funds. Bingo. But they simply don't have the balls for that. Can't really blame them...it's political suicide.

I can and will blame them.

[SpamSandwich]

Troops out. Lower Taxes. Smaller Government. A real choice for real change.

This shameless, redundant message brought to you by Friends of Ron Paul.

You beat me to it. But I brought the linky (http://www.ronpaul2008.com). :D

[midwinter]

SCREEECH. Win? Win what. "Hearts and Minds"? "Terrorism"? "The Mission"?

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/markpoyser/uggabugga/2003/mission-accomplished-thanksgiving.jpg

Please inform me of the definition of winning in an occupation. :???:

I love the photoshopped "mission accomplished" in the background.

[dmz]

Top off this with things like Jack Murtha's earmarking meltdown, the self-righteousness surrounding the 2006 elections was nothing short a complete mocking of the intelligence of the electorate.

from the WSJ:

...Under an ethics rule passed by Democrats this year, House members are banned from blocking earmarks based on the way a Member votes. But what do they do now that one of their own is caught doing a Tom DeLay imitation?

The altercation went down as Mr. Murtha tried to adorn an intelligence bill with $23 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center in the narcotics hotbed of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Michigan Republican Mike Rogers questioned the earmark for a project that has been tagged even by the mainstream press as a "boondoggle" and the House Government Reform Committee called an "expensive and duplicative" use of scarce resources.

But when Mr. Rogers proposed using that $23 million for other intelligence work, Mr. Murtha blew a gasket. "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills," Mr. Murtha told him, "because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever." Mr. Murtha administered a similar lashing to Republican Todd Tiahrt for his objection to the same $23 million. Cameras rolled as a crimson Mr. Murtha barreled up to Mr. Tiahrt to express his displeasure on the House floor, finger wagging.

All of this has a certain sandbox quality, but then Democrats did campaign last year against the same kind of earmark abuses Mr. Murtha is now committing. Back in November, reforming Appropriations was a key goal for Democrats who rode a wave of anger over Republican earmarking scandals. One way to do that, Nancy Pelosi said at the time, was to require that sponsors be identified. We're all for transparency, but in practice some Members may refrain from challenging earmarks from Congressional heavies if they're threatened. Mr. Murtha surely considers himself one of these, and his reaction to the recent challenges doesn't suggest a sunny atmosphere about earmark sunshine.

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117980196111410413.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)

YouTube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63_YGntnj0)

[MaxParrish]

Top off this with things like Jack Murtha's earmarking meltdown, the self-righteousness surrounding the 2006 elections was nothing short a complete mocking of the intelligence of the electorate.

from the WSJ:


Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117980196111410413.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)

YouTube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63_YGntnj0)

What do we need, a road sign:

Congress on the people's wishes on:

the Iraq War..."We don't care".
earmarks and pork..."We don't care."
illegal immigration..."We don't care."

'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'....we will get fooled again (IMO).

[Jubelum]

You beat me to it. But I brought the linky (http://www.ronpaul2008.com). :D

Always have to one-up people, don't you. You heartless winger. ;)

I do appreciate it though, because it gives me another chance to say...
A real choice for real change. RON PAUL 2008

[shetline]

...was nothing short a complete mocking of the intelligence of the electorate.
The electorate deserves to have its intelligence mocked, severely and frequently.

They are the ones stupid enough to have voted for Bush not just once, but twice. Even given all of the faults of the alternative Democratic candidates, to have fallen for Bush twice in a row in numbers anywhere close to 50% (even if stolen, the 2000/2004 elections never should have been anywhere near close enough to steal anyway) astounds me.

It seems hard to underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate -- blindly, dumbly standing by, waiting for their emotional hot-buttons to be pushed, responding in predictably shallow, unreasoning ways.

Democracy isn't a great system -- it's just better than all of the alternatives.

I really do believe the American public is stupid enough to both blame the Dems for not getting us out of Iraq, and to blame the Dems if they were to use the ONLY veto-proof tool they have to do the job, namely cutting off funding. It's lose/lose.

Whether it's a rationalization or not, I can see myself being a Congressional Democratic and thinking that the cost in lives, dollars, and international relations of staying in Iraq for a few more months (and not putting the hammer down on funding until September) is a lesser cost than the potential damage of handing all of Congress and the Presidency back to the same Republicans who made this huge mess in the first place in 2008.

And if it sounds like I'm bashing American voters in particular, I don't mean to -- it's just that we're talking about American politics here. I'm sure that the world is full of stupid voters of all races, creeds, and nationalities.

[southside grabowski]

[QUOTE Please inform me of the definition of winning in an occupation. :???:[/QUOTE]


In my opinion, the window to success is closed. I do believe that most Americans don't want to leave feeling defeated. If the Dems mandate a troop pull out, they will forever be credited with loosing the war. It might be the right thing to do, but the politicians obviously are not confident that it will be popular with the American people

[MaxParrish]

IBD (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264727642819830)



Second source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22cnd-cong.html?ei=5065&en=2d27446ebbab5252&ex=1180497600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

So we now have a Democratic Congress that has given President Bush exactly what a Republican Congress would have given him...

This plus the continued lack of any work regarding their various complaints about torture, Guantanamo Bay, criticisms of the Patriot Act, etc.. all shows me that it was really not about anything more than getting elected and tossing around some rhetoric. When we add in the lack of legislation to fix fundraising, lobbying, etc. and we see the real problem with the last Congress was Republicans were acting like Democrats and now Democrats, well they act like Democrats as well.

Somebody please find us some real Republicans again!
Nick

I am not sure if the first lesson is that whoever has the power is helpless. Republicans could not do shit when in control of both houses, terrified of losing power. RINOs always undermined their initiatives (or the President).

Now that the Democrats are in power, and are responsible, their DEM lites (recently elected Congressman) are equally terrified of losing marginal districts as are many old liners. If the illegal reform goes through, as bad as it will be, it won't be as bad as when the Republicans were in power...back then they went crazy with hubris and undermined the whole party.

Of course the old complaints (plantation house, DeLay, etc.) and new complaints (Att General Gonzales) are just show topics, and show trials. 90% of the people that clean restrooms, wait tables, repair cars, or sell real estate have more character, integrity and modesty than 90% of Congress - most of them are vermin, hungry roaches on humanities dinner table.

[dmz]

The electorate deserves to have its intelligence mocked, severely and frequently.

They are the ones stupid enough to have voted for Bush not just once, but twice. Even given all of the faults of the alternative Democratic candidates, to have fallen for Bush twice in a row in numbers anywhere close to 50% (even if stolen, the 2000/2004 elections never should have been anywhere near close enough to steal anyway) astounds me.

It seems hard to underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate -- blindly, dumbly standing by, waiting for their emotional hot-buttons to be pushed, responding in predictably shallow, unreasoning ways.

Democracy isn't a great system -- it's just better than all of the alternatives.

I really do believe the American public is stupid enough to both blame the Dems for not getting us out of Iraq, and to blame the Dems if they were to use the ONLY veto-proof tool they have to do the job, namely cutting off funding. It's lose/lose.

Whether it's a rationalization or not, I can see myself being a Congressional Democratic and thinking that the cost in lives, dollars, and international relations of staying in Iraq for a few more months (and not putting the hammer down on funding until September) is a lesser cost than the potential damage of handing all of Congress and the Presidency back to the same Republicans who made this huge mess in the first place in 2008.

And if it sounds like I'm bashing American voters in particular, I don't mean to -- it's just that we're talking about American politics here. I'm sure that the world is full of stupid voters of all races, creeds, and nationalities.
I suppose, but however impotent the Democrats are, that's not what Pelosi and Murtha and the gang promised. "It was going to take a women to clean up the House."

It was all meaningless.

In reality, if you look at your local state/city/borough needs --bridges, roads, wastewater plants, parks, goofball projects -- it becomes pretty clear that the lifer energizer bunnies in the middle management of the state, and the people we elect understand each other perfectly: get up to D.C. and bring me some candy.

We are the whores, or rather, we would be if we cared enough to find out how things functioned.

[Jubelum]

The electorate deserves to have its intelligence mocked, severely and frequently.

They are the ones stupid enough to have voted for Bush not just once, but twice. Even given all of the faults of the alternative Democratic candidates, to have fallen for Bush twice in a row in numbers anywhere close to 50% (even if stolen, the 2000/2004 elections never should have been anywhere near close enough to steal anyway) astounds me.

It seems hard to underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate -- blindly, dumbly standing by, waiting for their emotional hot-buttons to be pushed, responding in predictably shallow, unreasoning ways.


The Democratic "party of the People" huh? Your contempt is apparent. People cannot be intelligent unless they vote for your side? Nice. That arrogance will one day sweep Democrats from power once again. And it does not matter anyway. You do realize how many millions of dollars the prospective Democratic nominees are spending to counteract the message you are sending? I would personally buy the national airtime to hear Obama or HRC state what you have stated above. It would be a landslide, even with the Chimp in Chief pissing off everyone.

The same old left wing thing. None of us "idiots" is smart enough to handle our own money, guns, freedoms, or votes. We should look to powerful liberal Democrats to tell us how to live, spend, and be "saved." We're just TWO STOOPID. That ought to play well in middle America. Kerry says we'll all get shipped to Iraq.
:lol:

It's the same thing you guys claim to hate about the right... that they tell people how to live.
:no:

The real issue is not one of Bush, no Bush, Dem, Rep, whatever. The American people are targets of a massive and complete psy-ops campaign that started in the early 90s. Those that want to control have very powerful means to affect the will of the people.

[sammi jo]

What the hell is up with the clump of weasels masquerading as democrats? What a bunch of spineless wets. Have they never heard of the word "opposition", or "constituents"? Since the mainstream GOP is of course too invested in the war, is there anyone out there who is prepared to listen to the people and say "enough's enough"? Here's two...take your pick:

On the right: (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)
On the left (http://kucinich.us/)

[MaxParrish]

What the hell is up with the clump of weasels masquerading as democrats? What a bunch of spineless wets. Have they never heard of the word "opposition", or "constituents"? Since the mainstream GOP is of course too invested in the war, is there anyone out there who is prepared to listen to the people and say "enough's enough"? Here's two...take your pick:

On the right: (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)
On the left (http://kucinich.us/)

I must say, I am taking a certain delight in the left of center carping about their own - it's a deje vu' moment of the many times I felt the same about our spineless wienie's in Congress for the last 6 years. There are a few refreshing aspects though:

1) The DEMS backed down over a real issue, not over the dozens of bogus hysterics that were ginned up against the Republicans.

2) The President (for the first time) has shown a willingnesses to go to the mattresses. Bush has been unable to veto anything EXCEPT stem cell research and a limit on his war.
Might show what could have happened had he been an actual conservative President with guts.

Ms. Pelosie is far shrewder than I gave her credit for...BUT for those of principle on the Left is a bitter pill. Its even a bit bitter for me as I think the war ought to be termanated in a clean manner, and I would have voted for a termination date next year.

Your right, if the Democrats were serious they would have sent the same bill back over and over, and tested if the President was willing to issue orders to take resources from South Korea, etc. in order to keep the war going...although you have to be willing to let him do so or the humiliation from backing down is even worse.

My thinking is next September, unless things turn around, the Democrats can do a face down and win it. One thing is for sure, the LAST thing they want is to take over the Presidency while most troops are still in Iraq - if so, we may be staying for much longer.

[giant]

The same old left wing thing. None of us "idiots" is smart enough to handle our own money, guns, freedoms, or votes. We should look to powerful liberal Democrats to tell us how to live, spend, and be "saved." We're just TWO STOOPID. That ought to play well in middle America. Kerry says we'll all get shipped to Iraq.
You think that's a feature of left wing politics?

[Jubelum]

You think that's a feature of left wing politics?

Yes, and, uh, please read my entire post before hitting "reply." I said more than that... the part about the right also telling people how to live. The only candidate that will deconstruct all of this is the one you keep ignorantly accusing of astroturfing. Do you want someone telling you how to run your life, from left OR right?

[jimmac]

IBD (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264727642819830)



Second source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22cnd-cong.html?ei=5065&en=2d27446ebbab5252&ex=1180497600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

So we now have a Democratic Congress that has given President Bush exactly what a Republican Congress would have given him.

This says a few things to me. First, you can't authorize a war and then attempt to de-authorize it without taking it to the chin politically. Second, when faced with a decision that pitted principles and their own campaign promises against politically expediency, they choose the easy route.

This plus the continued lack of any work regarding their various complaints about torture, Guantanamo Bay, criticisms of the Patriot Act, etc.. all shows me that it was really not about anything more than getting elected and tossing around some rhetoric. When we add in the lack of legislation to fix fundraising, lobbying, etc. and we see the real problem with the last Congress was Republicans were acting like Democrats and now Democrats, well they act like Democrats as well.

Somebody please find us some real Republicans again!
Nick


Well before you do a dance and celebrate this I suggest you remember that it was you and people like you that were protesting that the democrats should move on. That they're not getting anything else done. Well now what we have is Bush being responsible for us still being there and holding back the democrats from doing anything else. This will be remembered in the next election.

In the mean time Iraq is only going to get worse.


Enjoy!

[SDW2001]

The electorate deserves to have its intelligence mocked, severely and frequently.

They are the ones stupid enough to have voted for Bush not just once, but twice. Even given all of the faults of the alternative Democratic candidates, to have fallen for Bush twice in a row in numbers anywhere close to 50% (even if stolen, the 2000/2004 elections never should have been anywhere near close enough to steal anyway) astounds me.

It seems hard to underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate -- blindly, dumbly standing by, waiting for their emotional hot-buttons to be pushed, responding in predictably shallow, unreasoning ways.

Democracy isn't a great system -- it's just better than all of the alternatives.

I really do believe the American public is stupid enough to both blame the Dems for not getting us out of Iraq, and to blame the Dems if they were to use the ONLY veto-proof tool they have to do the job, namely cutting off funding. It's lose/lose.

Whether it's a rationalization or not, I can see myself being a Congressional Democratic and thinking that the cost in lives, dollars, and international relations of staying in Iraq for a few more months (and not putting the hammer down on funding until September) is a lesser cost than the potential damage of handing all of Congress and the Presidency back to the same Republicans who made this huge mess in the first place in 2008.

And if it sounds like I'm bashing American voters in particular, I don't mean to -- it's just that we're talking about American politics here. I'm sure that the world is full of stupid voters of all races, creeds, and nationalities.

I think you are in fact bashing the American public. We just disagree on this issue. Voters on the whole are smart, most of the time. Sure, they can be manipulated. But I've seen it many times...you just haven't seen people get really outraged about an issue. That's when they are at their best. I recall two years ago when we voted out two PA Supreme Court Justices who pushed through a big State Government pay raise that was passed literally in the middle of the night and in direct and obvious violation of the PA Constitution. Just an example. I think it was the first non-retention of PA SC justices ever.

I do take serious issue with your notion that people were "stupid enough" to vote for Bush. Elections are between two people. More people thought Bush should win as compared ot Kerry. Obviously I agreed with both the 2000 and 2004 outcomes, and you did not. But I don't see why you need to indict all Bush voters, all 60 million of them. I mean, you can't really believe all those people are stupid. Can you?

As for lose-lose, it's not about stupidity. The Dems have put themselves in this position. Their power base rests with the left...who want out of Iraq, now. Since things aren't going well, a good number of people who initially supported the war now feel it was a mistake. They took advantage of that, and also tapped into more conservative voters with some of their candidates. Additionally, they didn't just win because of Iraq. The Republicans, as I've said, really lost the election with overspending, inaction and various scandals.

All of this played into the Dem victory. The Dems now have a fragile coalition that just can't last. To appease the center, they have to "support the troops." These people are important for 2008. But to appease the Left...where the real money and power is...they need to fight Bush and get out of Iraq. It's really a serious political problem. Right now they are trying to stradle the fence. If they picked a side they'd be in better shape, but I don't think that will happen. And just watch what happens if the troops surge is seen as even moderately successful.

Finally, I find your "rationalization" more disturbing by the second. If that is their position, it is truly and amazingly cynical. Here are these Democrats who have this supposed moral outrage at the War Based on Lies (TM), and yet they think stopping it is now less important than stopping the Evil Republicans in 2008? Hmm...isn't that called...politicizing war and peace and putting politics and party above the lives of American soldiers? How can you defend that?

[OoTLink]

You guys are so full of hot air it's funny.

Will you stop preaching to the choir already?

if you highly opinionated idiots went and really made your voices have some weight we'd be like 1984 with republican rule. DUN DUN DUN DUHHH!!!!! SALUT THE DICTATOR BUSH!

[Jubelum]

You guys are so full of hot air it's funny.

Will you stop preaching to the choir already?

if you highly opinionated idiots went and really made your voices have some weight we'd be like 1984 with republican rule. DUN DUN DUN DUHHH!!!!! SALUT THE DICTATOR BUSH!

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jubelum_ammo/lurk.jpg

[southside grabowski]

And just watch what happens if the troops surge is seen as even moderately successful.

Oh yes, mainstream America is hungry for something in Iraq to feel good about. The Dems understand this. Given any sign of success, public opinion will quickly shift in favor of the war. The Dems are scarred s-less about bringing the troops home with the perception of failure. The Dems will talk tuff to appease the left, but they will not pull the plug on the troops. That would be political suicide. Unfortunately, that would be less popular than continuing to let them die in combat.

[trumptman]

The electorate deserves to have its intelligence mocked, severely and frequently.

We get it. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid, ill-informed and doesn't deserve the right to vote, speak or have an opinion in any fashion. Next, I suppose you 'll be worried about the loss of "reason" within the country, oh wait, that was Al Gore.

They are the ones stupid enough to have voted for Bush not just once, but twice. Even given all of the faults of the alternative Democratic candidates, to have fallen for Bush twice in a row in numbers anywhere close to 50% (even if stolen, the 2000/2004 elections never should have been anywhere near close enough to steal anyway) astounds me.

Obviously the public remains unconvinced by people who preach a good idea, but do not practice it or lead by example. They were not convinced by a man who's father supported segregation, who got rich from tobacco, oil and mineral interests, and who now lives quite lavishly and demands that we all delay our own gratification for the benefit of such kings.

Likewise the public remains unconvinced by a man who is a Catholic but disagrees with the church so badly as to drive the followers of that faith away from his own campaign. His verbal gaffe of voting for and against the war, simply illustrates that no one is stupid enough to by the bumper sticker slogan of supporting the troops while not supporting the actions they take.

This vote in Congress is going to do to every Democrat what happened to Kerry. You can't claim to support someone and then undermine, oppose, etc. their actual actions.

It seems hard to underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate -- blindly, dumbly standing by, waiting for their emotional hot-buttons to be pushed, responding in predictably shallow, unreasoning ways.

This comes from a party that always sounds what they believe to be the right rhetoric and then loses because they don't follow through with similar actions. Republicans even bough that line and guess what, they lost too.

I really do believe the American public is stupid enough to both blame the Dems for not getting us out of Iraq, and to blame the Dems if they were to use the ONLY veto-proof tool they have to do the job, namely cutting off funding. It's lose/lose.

We got it. Americans stupid.

Whether it's a rationalization or not, I can see myself being a Congressional Democratic and thinking that the cost in lives, dollars, and international relations of staying in Iraq for a few more months (and not putting the hammer down on funding until September) is a lesser cost than the potential damage of handing all of Congress and the Presidency back to the same Republicans who made this huge mess in the first place in 2008.

Sure, because the paradox of somehow supporting the troops, authorizing and funding their actions and then claiming to support them while attempting to deauthorize and defund their actions will magically disappear in a few months.

And if it sounds like I'm bashing American voters in particular, I don't mean to -- it's just that we're talking about American politics here. I'm sure that the world is full of stupid voters of all races, creeds, and nationalities.

What a line of bullshit. I guess you'll buy it from yourself, but when 50% of everyone else out there doesn't you can continue to rant and moan about how they are too "stupid" to see how smart your views happen to be.

Nick

[trumptman]

You think that's a feature of left wing politics?

Right wing politics meddles in sex.

Left wing politics meddles in, pretty much everything else.

I really like sex, and since I'm a married man, the right won't meddle with that.

However the everything else, from the food I buy, the energy I use, the car I drive, the programming on my radio and television, etc. I really desire to have left alone in terms of having lifestyle choices dictated to me.

The left doesn't get this.

Nick

[trumptman]

Well before you do a dance and celebrate this I suggest you remember that it was you and people like you that were protesting that the democrats should move on. That they're not getting anything else done. Well now what we have is Bush being responsible for us still being there and holding back the democrats from doing anything else. This will be remembered in the next election.

In the mean time Iraq is only going to get worse.


Enjoy!

Bush is not holding them back. It is entirely possible to override a veto.

Veto History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes)

Bush would be the first president since Lyndon Johnson not to have a veto overturned by Congress. You make something that happens to every president sound like an impossibility.

Nick

[SpamSandwich]

The electorate deserves to have its intelligence mocked, severely and frequently.

They are the ones stupid enough to have voted for Bush not just once, but twice. Even given all of the faults of the alternative Democratic candidates, to have fallen for Bush twice in a row in numbers anywhere close to 50% (even if stolen, the 2000/2004 elections never should have been anywhere near close enough to steal anyway) astounds me.

It seems hard to underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate -- blindly, dumbly standing by, waiting for their emotional hot-buttons to be pushed, responding in predictably shallow, unreasoning ways.

Democracy isn't a great system -- it's just better than all of the alternatives.

I really do believe the American public is stupid enough to both blame the Dems for not getting us out of Iraq, and to blame the Dems if they were to use the ONLY veto-proof tool they have to do the job, namely cutting off funding. It's lose/lose.

Whether it's a rationalization or not, I can see myself being a Congressional Democratic and thinking that the cost in lives, dollars, and international relations of staying in Iraq for a few more months (and not putting the hammer down on funding until September) is a lesser cost than the potential damage of handing all of Congress and the Presidency back to the same Republicans who made this huge mess in the first place in 2008.

And if it sounds like I'm bashing American voters in particular, I don't mean to -- it's just that we're talking about American politics here. I'm sure that the world is full of stupid voters of all races, creeds, and nationalities.

As much as everyone likes to think otherwise, we have a republic, not a democracy. There is a difference.

[SDW2001]

I can and will blame them.

Coming from a liberal, that's a good thing. For my part, I blame the Republicans for being more interested in holding on to power by spending gazillions and doing nothing on immigration.

[midwinter]

Coming from a liberal, that's a good thing. For my part, I blame the Republicans for being more interested in holding on to power by spending gazillions and doing nothing on immigration.

Indeed. See, I still hold a grudge against Clinton and Obama for voting to confirm Gonzales. They had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to lose by not voting to confirm.

I spoke with some poli sci friends today (one a presidential scholar; the other a congress guy), and they did not understand why the Dems blinked. They *suspect* that the deal is that next year, they're going to vote to cut funding in association with a timeline and use this compromise as a rationale for that.

I think that's completely, utterly, stupid. Bush stood his ground. The Dems went up against him. They blinked. So now, liberals like me are pissed at them and Bush looks strong.

Ugh.

[BRussell]

Indeed. See, I still hold a grudge against Clinton and Obama for voting to confirm Gonzales. They had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to lose by not voting to confirm.

I spoke with some poli sci friends today (one a presidential scholar; the other a congress guy), and they did not understand why the Dems blinked. They *suspect* that the deal is that next year, they're going to vote to cut funding in association with a timeline and use this compromise as a rationale for that.

I think that's completely, utterly, stupid. Bush stood his ground. The Dems went up against him. They blinked. So now, liberals like me are pissed at them and Bush looks strong.

Ugh. I don't think it's that complicated. Democrats simply knew that they couldn't stop the war with Bush in office. He doesn't care about funding or about Congressional approval. He'd just keep things going no matter what Congress did. And what did Bush win? Nothing. Things keep going on along in Bush's war, getting worse and worse, and someone else eventually becomes president and cleans up the mess.

[midwinter]

I don't think it's that complicated. Democrats simply knew that they couldn't stop the war with Bush in office. He doesn't care about funding or about Congressional approval. He'd just keep things going no matter what Congress did. And what did Bush win? Nothing. Things keep going on along in Bush's war, getting worse and worse, and someone else eventually becomes president and cleans up the mess.

While I agree that that's the logic, my point is that by blinking, the Dems now look weak and mealy-mouthed and like they did this all just for show, while Bush looks like the steadfast troop-lover that he is. If this is about that logic, then WHY DID THE DEMS NOT SAY THAT? Simple: because that is the logic of riding out the bad patch rather than fighting to do what they were elected to do: stop the war and rein in Bush.

Edit: rein ≠ reign

[BRussell]

While I agree that that's the logic, my point is that by blinking, the Dems now look weak and mealy-mouthed and like they did this all just for show, while Bush looks like the steadfast troop-lover that he is. If this is about that logic, then WHY DID THE DEMS NOT SAY THAT? Simple: because that is the logic of riding out the bad patch rather than fighting to do what they were elected to do: stop the war and reign in Bush. Yup. The poll numbers are quite astounding right now. People, by really quite huge margins, support Democrats making Bush pull the troops out. But Dems apparently would just rather let Bush have his unpopular war and win the next election on that basis. Politically, I'm not sure it's the wrong path, but morally, it isn't exactly courageous. Hell, Republicans are willing to run with something if they've even got 35% of the public with them. Dems apparently can't do it even if they have 75%.

[midwinter]

Yup. The poll numbers are quite astounding right now. People, by really quite huge margins, support Democrats making Bush pull the troops out. But Dems apparently would just rather let Bush have his unpopular war and win the next election on that basis. Politically, I'm not sure it's the wrong path, but morally, it isn't exactly courageous. Hell, Republicans are willing to run with something if they've even got 35% of the public with them. Dems apparently can't do it even if they have 75%.

Exactly. And what's worse, the GOP will make the Dems EAT THIS in '08.

[midwinter]

Feingold, Kerry, Dodd, Sanders and Leahy to vote against (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/24/feingold-stand-up-on-iraq/) this bill.

Good on'em.

[Jubelum]

HRC and The Clean Black vote against funding the war. Ahhh, the joys of primary season.
Welcome, Hillary and Barak, to the stance Ron Paul has held since day one. Glad you could be here. :smokey:

[midwinter]

The Clean Black

:err:

[Jubelum]

:err:

I love Joe Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efloppingaces%2Enet%2F2007% 2F01%2F31%2Fobama%2Dthe%2Dclean%2Dblack%2Findex%2E html). He is such an asset to our Senate.

8-)

[midwinter]

I love Joe Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efloppingaces%2Enet%2F2007% 2F01%2F31%2Fobama%2Dthe%2Dclean%2Dblack%2Findex%2E html). He is such an asset to our Senate.

8-)

Yeah, dude, I got the reference. My point was that it was horrible enough when Biden said it.

[jimmac]

Bush is not holding them back. It is entirely possible to override a veto.

Veto History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes)

Bush would be the first president since Lyndon Johnson not to have a veto overturned by Congress. You make something that happens to every president sound like an impossibility.

Nick

Uh huh.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/schneider.poll.issues/index.html

And

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/25/democrats.wardebate.ap/index.html

[SDW2001]

Indeed. See, I still hold a grudge against Clinton and Obama for voting to confirm Gonzales. They had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to lose by not voting to confirm.

I spoke with some poli sci friends today (one a presidential scholar; the other a congress guy), and they did not understand why the Dems blinked. They *suspect* that the deal is that next year, they're going to vote to cut funding in association with a timeline and use this compromise as a rationale for that.

I think that's completely, utterly, stupid. Bush stood his ground. The Dems went up against him. They blinked. So now, liberals like me are pissed at them and Bush looks strong.

Ugh.

Yeah, I agree. I think it won't be next year though...it will be fall. They'll pronounce the surge a failure whether or not it shows good results. I think it really is all about 2008. They think as long as they are seen as stopping the war before then, they'll be OK.

This strategy has a number of problems. The first is if the surge works or can be portrayed as having worked. My feeling is it will be highly subjective on both sides. We'll see both good and bad results that both sides will point to. It will come down to who makes a better case. If the admin wins, the Dems are going to look bad and may not have the political capital to vote to end the war, lest they alienate the more moderate elements of the party and moderates in general for 2008.

If the surge unquestionably fails, the Dems are still kind of in a bad spot. They may be blamed for it, and/or they'll be put in a position of hoping for failure to secure political advantage. The things is that they've bled all they can from Bush. They've pounded the shit out of him and and the GOP and their (the GOP) numbers have gone in the toilet. Bush is unpopular and everyone knows it, but he's also not running for anything. People like Romney and even McCain can support the war and distance themselves from Bush at the same time. They can say that we are there now and regardless of mistakes, we have to win. The question is whether or not the anti-war sentiment in the country is storng enough to beat the "we need to win" mentality.

Quite the interesting situation. The other elements relate to what you've been saying. The GOP totally fucked up from 2004-2006, and people saw it and voted accordingly, in conjuction with the anti-war sentiment playing major role. But the Dems may actually be fucking up worse than the GOP did. Spending surely isn't getting better, nor is ethics reform. And their centerpiece issue...ending the war...just got flushed as you basically said. But are people going to go back to the GOP in Congress? I think probably not. The GOP base is still still royally pissed off, and this immigration bill will fan the flames again. So what's left? Both parties have lost all public trust at this point. Congress' approval rating is 5 points lower than Bush's.

Maybe someone should call Ross Perot....

[trumptman]

I think it very interesting that the Democrats were supposedly elected to get us out of Iraq, but we now have more troops, more money, more of pretty much everything in Iraq.

Bush still allowed 20 billion of pork to lube the anal reaming he gave the Democrats. Twenty billion here, twenty billion there, some day these might even add up to real numbers.:grumble:

Pat Buchanan (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/why_congress_caved_to_bush.html) shares why Congress caved.

Remarkable. If the Republican rout of 2006 said anything, it was that America had lost faith in the Bush-Rumsfeld conduct of the war and wanted Democrats to lead the country out.

Yet, today, there are more U.S. troops in Iraq than when the Democrats won. More are on the way. And with the surge and retention of troops in Iraq beyond normal tours, there should be a record number of U.S. troops in country by year's end.

Why did the Democrats capitulate?

Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their antiwar beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue.

We know Pat isn't to be regarded seriously. I saw a picture of his office and he only has two 30 inch Apple displays.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.williambowles.info/gispecial/2006/0206/100206/image001.jpg

[SDW2001]

http://www.williambowles.info/gispecial/2006/0206/100206/image001.jpg


Your little images used to be funny...now they are just tiresome.

[iPoster]

SCREEECH. Win? Win what. "Hearts and Minds"? "Terrorism"? "The Mission"?

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/markpoyser/uggabugga/2003/mission-accomplished-thanksgiving.jpg

Please inform me of the definition of winning in an occupation. :???:

That sound you hear is me applauding that photochop! :D


Bush's Iraq war plan:

1) Blow stuff up! Shock and Awe!! BOOYAH!!!

2)???

3) Mission Accomplished! Now let's go ho...aw crap!

:rolleyes:

IRT Topic, I agree, the Democrats don't have a pair between them. But then, they are career politicians just like Republicans, their spines were removed long, long ago! :mad:

[midwinter]

Breaking News: Obama and Clinton grow spines (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/24/obama_hillary_both_vote_against_the_no_timelines_i raq_funding_bill).

Film at 11:00.

[Northgate]

I'm really surprised Hilary Clinton voted "no". I really am. She is, after all, a hawk and a believer that the war in Iraq is essential to our Middle East policy (which is primarily why I'm not a supporter of hers).

[BRussell]

It was a pretty easy vote for them, knowing that it would pass overwhelmingly. It just looks so political, when almost everyone not running for president voted for it.

[midwinter]

It was a pretty easy vote for them, knowing that it would pass overwhelmingly. It just looks so political, when almost everyone not running for president voted for it.

Yup. But it's the right vote.

[SDW2001]

Yup. But it's the right vote.

Uh...well, perhaps in your view, but....

Is it right when it's cast for the wrong reasons? It's transparently political. One has to wonder..if the polls were the other way around on it...would she have still voted no? How about if she weren't running?

[jimmac]

Yeah, I agree. I think it won't be next year though...it will be fall. They'll pronounce the surge a failure whether or not it shows good results. I think it really is all about 2008. They think as long as they are seen as stopping the war before then, they'll be OK.

This strategy has a number of problems. The first is if the surge works or can be portrayed as having worked. My feeling is it will be highly subjective on both sides. We'll see both good and bad results that both sides will point to. It will come down to who makes a better case. If the admin wins, the Dems are going to look bad and may not have the political capital to vote to end the war, lest they alienate the more moderate elements of the party and moderates in general for 2008.

If the surge unquestionably fails, the Dems are still kind of in a bad spot. They may be blamed for it, and/or they'll be put in a position of hoping for failure to secure political advantage. The things is that they've bled all they can from Bush. They've pounded the shit out of him and and the GOP and their (the GOP) numbers have gone in the toilet. Bush is unpopular and everyone knows it, but he's also not running for anything. People like Romney and even McCain can support the war and distance themselves from Bush at the same time. They can say that we are there now and regardless of mistakes, we have to win. The question is whether or not the anti-war sentiment in the country is storng enough to beat the "we need to win" mentality.

Quite the interesting situation. The other elements relate to what you've been saying. The GOP totally fucked up from 2004-2006, and people saw it and voted accordingly, in conjuction with the anti-war sentiment playing major role. But the Dems may actually be fucking up worse than the GOP did. Spending surely isn't getting better, nor is ethics reform. And their centerpiece issue...ending the war...just got flushed as you basically said. But are people going to go back to the GOP in Congress? I think probably not. The GOP base is still still royally pissed off, and this immigration bill will fan the flames again. So what's left? Both parties have lost all public trust at this point. Congress' approval rating is 5 points lower than Bush's.

Maybe someone should call Ross Perot....

You can't support the war and distance yourself!

I agree with the others. This was a political move to give Bush enough rope to hang himself and his party.

I think it's unfortunate that they chose this path that will allow more war and deaths in Iraq.

However in 08 it will be the final coffin nail for Bush and the republicans.

Unlike Bush time is on the side of congress to rectify this situation.

[SDW2001]

You can't support the war and distance yourself!

I agree this was a move to give Bush enough rope to hang himself and his party.

I think it's unfortunate that they chose this path that will allow more war and deaths in Iraq.

However in 08 it will be the final coffin nail for Bush and the republicans.

Unlike Bush time is on the side of congress to rectify this situation.

I think that one CAN support the war and distance himself. It's not hard. You critique the way the war has been fought. You take issue with the initial troop strength, disbanding the Iraqi Army, etc. I reject the notion that a war supporter is automatically a blind Bush supporter.

I didn't say it was a way for Bush to hang his party. You did. Personally, I think they may be hanging themselves. We'll see.

I wouldn't be so sure about 2008. It depends on who the nominees are and what the Dems do until then.

Time is NOT on the side of Congress, either. If the headlines are true about the White House wanting to halve the troop levels by next year, the Dems would have a serious problem. Bush could pronounce the troop surge a success and announce that we will begin withdrawing combat forces in 2008, leaving less than 100,000 in country by year's end. Then what do the Dems do? Cutoff funding? They'll look like total assholes. As Bush is declaring victory, they'll be declaring defeat and pandering to their base trying to "end the war"...which Bush will have already announced. What then?

[SpamSandwich]

I think that one CAN support the war and distance himself. It's not hard. You critique the way the war has been fought. You take issue with the initial troop strength, disbanding the Iraqi Army, etc. I reject the notion that a war supporter is automatically a blind Bush supporter.

I didn't say it was a way for Bush to hang his party. You did. Personally, I think they may be hanging themselves. We'll see.

I wouldn't be so sure about 2008. It depends on who the nominees are and what the Dems do until then.

Time is NOT on the side of Congress, either. If the headlines are true about the White House wanting to halve the troop levels by next year, the Dems would have a serious problem. Bush could pronounce the troop surge a success and announce that we will begin withdrawing combat forces in 2008, leaving less than 100,000 in country by year's end. Then what do the Dems do? Cutoff funding? They'll look like total assholes. As Bush is declaring victory, they'll be declaring defeat and pandering to their base trying to "end the war"...which Bush will have already announced. What then?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the problem that war was never legally declared?

[Jubelum]

However in 08 it will be the final coffin nail for Bush and the republicans.


<takes out bottle of Astroglide> Here you go...

[midwinter]

Is it right when it's cast for the wrong reasons?

Yes.


It's transparently political.

Imagine that! From politicians! FOR SHAME!

One has to wonder..if the polls were the other way around on it...would she have still voted no? How about if she weren't running?

But they are not and we cannot know the answer to any of your other questions.

[SDW2001]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the problem that war was never legally declared?

Not really sure what you mean. Why is that a problem? I mean...I think it's a problem in general--that war doesn't get declared anymore...I just don't see how you mea nit specifically with this situation.

[jimmac]

I think that one CAN support the war and distance himself. It's not hard. You critique the way the war has been fought. You take issue with the initial troop strength, disbanding the Iraqi Army, etc. I reject the notion that a war supporter is automatically a blind Bush supporter.

I didn't say it was a way for Bush to hang his party. You did. Personally, I think they may be hanging themselves. We'll see.

I wouldn't be so sure about 2008. It depends on who the nominees are and what the Dems do until then.

Time is NOT on the side of Congress, either. If the headlines are true about the White House wanting to halve the troop levels by next year, the Dems would have a serious problem. Bush could pronounce the troop surge a success and announce that we will begin withdrawing combat forces in 2008, leaving less than 100,000 in country by year's end. Then what do the Dems do? Cutoff funding? They'll look like total assholes. As Bush is declaring victory, they'll be declaring defeat and pandering to their base trying to "end the war"...which Bush will have already announced. What then?


I know you want to believe these things. You also wanted to believe alot of things before the last election.

Good luck on that.;)

[jimmac]

Besides guys what else could they have done without enough votes?

It doesn't mean they'll stop trying. By the time fall rolls around this war will look stupid, Bush and CO. will look stupid, and the " Surge " will look extra stupid.

Given that it'll look ( and work ) better then than trying to pull the plug right before memorial day I'd say it's a very stratigic move. That way the Bush can't continue with " They don't support the troops " rhetoric. This way they support the troops, give it a chance, and when it falls flat on it's face they'll have more support to pick up the peices.

[trumptman]

A little more (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/donothing_democrats_quelle_sur.html) about the Do-Nothing Democratic Congress.

After all, things looked very different last fall, when Nancy Pelosi was promising a Democratic Congress that within its first 100 hours would pass laws that would raise the minimum wage, bring the troops home from Iraq, expand health benefits, reform immigration laws, make college affordable for all, secure energy independence, and address broad taxing and spending issues. She also promised to "drain the swamp" - changing a Congress that failed to address ethical problems of individual members and that used "earmark" provisions to give pork to constituents and favors to lobbyists. Harry Reid and colleagues on the Senate side had similar, though more muted, messages.

After 140 days, however, congressional Democrats left town with no significant accomplishments, one long-delayed bill finally enacted into law, and lots to make fun of. There was no increase in morality, no magically bipartisan era, no sweeping enactment of a coherent agenda for change, akin to what Republicans promised in their Contract With America in 1994. Instead, the 110th Congress has been a combination of "now I'll get mine" and "now you'll get yours!"

No ethics, no Iraq, no everythinge else...

Just after the elections last fall, Senator Schumer warned that the Democrats' victory was less a mandate than a protest. He cautioned that if Democrats were merely obstructionist, opposing the President without actually trying to enact a positive legislative agenda, they would lose power quickly - and deservedly so.

I think some Democratic congressional members had better not get too settled in.

Nick

[jimmac]

A little more (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/donothing_democrats_quelle_sur.html) about the Do-Nothing Democratic Congress.



No ethics, no Iraq, no everythinge else...



I think some Democratic congressional members had better not get too settled in.

Nick

So which is it Trumpy?

Should they continue to concentrate on the big problem ( Iraq ) and have our monkey of a president veto it again and again? Which of course would make the democrats look like they don't support the troops and are not giving Dubbya's plan a fair chance. Or should they drop it and concentrate on other things until the fall when the failure of this " Surge " and their support of the troops will be more apparent?

If you're going to try to invent a problem you have to include all the facts.;)

[trumptman]

So which is it Trumpy?

Should they continue to concentrate on the big problem ( Iraq ) and have our monkey of a president veto it again and again? Which of course would make the democrats look like they don't support the troops and are not giving Dubbya's plan a fair chance. Or should they drop it and concentrate on other things until the fall when the failure of this " Surge " and their support of the troops will be more apparent?

If you're going to try to invent a problem you have to include all the facts.;)

Listen Jimmac, take your dismissive little smilie and stuff it. I'm not just trolling here and your replies should include some thought to my prior posts.

I clearly have noted several times the "low hanging fruit" that Democrats could easily grab and not have to deal with Iraq at all. Have they rewritten the Patriot Act? Have they give legal status to the detainees via legislation? Have they tried defunding Gitmo instead of Iraq?

There is plenty there that could be had. Instead you've got Pelosi touring the world pretending to be the president so she can grab television time instead of govern.

Also the president hasn't vetoed any ethics bills. He hasn't had to because the Democrats haven't passed any. Their too busy letting their own fingers get dirty. They were dirty to start with (Murtha, Jefferson, etc.) but now they see the river of swill, a river that I have thoroughly condemned Republicans for not stopping and lining right up to eat from, and they have to stick their faces into it and come out dirty as well.

Ethical is as ethical does, even Gump can get that. Where did the lobbying reform go? Oh they don't care about that now, that was just for the election.

Do a little thinking.

Nick