Astonishing Cynicism Shown By The Democrats
By Rick Moran Posted in Anti-war liberals | Congress | Democrats | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've been following politics for going on 40 years and during that time, I have witnessed the high, the low, the principled and unprincipled, the sheer human drama of democracy's workings on display in all of its glory and shame.
But what has made politics a lifelong fascination for me have been the men and women who perform its rituals, parading across the great national stage in Washington - some making their mark, others going through the motions hoping not to get anyone angry at them lest the voters toss them into the street come election time. There have been smooth operators like Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell - gentlemen of the Senate whose courtliness and sense of fairness reflected a simpler, less partisan culture on Capitol Hill.
Read on . . .
There have been entertainers, clowns, statesmen, stirring orators and mumbling hacks. There have been brilliant legislators and sickening poseurs. Their have been true patriots and those who would use patriotism for political gain.
And then there are today's Democrats.
I don't quite know how to classify this gaggle of cynical, posturing, cowardly bunch of partisan witch hunters, devious machinators, vengeful charlatans, and craven caterers to their unhinged, out of control base. A biologist would probably settle on a taxonomy relating them to the Hydra - the nine headed poisonous serpent of Greek mythology whose very breath could kill a man at twenty paces.
Today's Democrats are not a political party. They are an amalgam of grasping, conniving, pusillanimous misanthropes, kept together by threats and outright bribery using taxpayer monies. That and their unreasoning, viral hatred of the President of the United States seems to be what animates the overwhelming majority of their members. And they are being alternately cheered on and menaced by their rabid dog base of netnuts, socialists, greens, one worlders, and anti-military kooks who see political advantage in siding with our enemies in Iraq.
That last may be a little strong but it is hard to define their opposition to the war as anything else. They can't claim to be standing on principle - not after those votes yesterday in the Senate and two days ago in the House where members were literally bribed with pork to support the leadership's position on withdrawal from Iraq. They can't claim to be supporting the troops - not after being told in no uncertain terms that their bill was subject to a veto by the President while the Secretary of Defense informed them that without the emergency appropriation, our boys will be left high and dry in Iraq and Afghanistan by April 15.
And the certainly can't claim to be promoting peace in Iraq - not when anyone with half a brain knows the consequences of our withdrawal before the Iraqi government and security forces are prepared to defend the streets against the brutal thugs and terrorists who bedevil the country today. The only "peace" achieved at that point will be the peace of the grave - both for Iraq and the small chance that democracy can still be achieved in that bloody, tragic country.
So if not for principle, or the troops, or for whatever "peace" means, we are left with the only rational reason for passing these bills - a desire to have the United States of America defeated on the field of battle.
We "need to be taught a lesson in humility" or we have to lose in order to show the American people what an incompetent boob is the President of the United States. Or, we must fail because success will only embolden the "neocons" in their mad desire to take over the world by military force.
And to those who say we are already "defeated" or that victory and defeat have no meaning in our present circumstances, you might want to answer the question of why the Democrats are so desperate to avoid the stigma of an Iraqi defeat that they openly talk of wishing to place the blame for our failure on the shoulders of George Bush? They have no illusions whatsoever about the blame game. They are playing it to the hilt. And they wish to cement that defeat by pulling out, guaranteeing that they will have a ready made issue to run on in 2008.
This from the left wing MyDD:
[Hillary] Clinton's desire to remain in Iraq will continue the war in Iraq - the Iraqi people want the US out, and if it does not leave, many of them will keep fighting (wouldn't you, if the situation was reversed?) She is for the war in Iraq - she voted for it, she has always refused to say she was wrong for doing so, and she would keep US troops in Iraq if elected. Her use of al-Qa'eda to justify keeping troops in Iraq is nothing more than a cynical play on the American public's paranoia about al-Qa'eda, not a sincere strategy to defeat al-Qa'eda (or if it is, she's beyond stupid, something I don't believe.)
Hillary's a pro-war candidate. And if Democrats nominate her, they will be nominating a pro-war candidate. And then the war will be a fully American war, not just a Republican one.
What can you say about such jaw dropping cynicism? Thomas Sowell tries gamely to define it:
If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?
But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences -- and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.
The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.
There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy.
These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.
Indeed, that is the nub of the matter. They wish defeat in Iraq without making it appear that their actions in Congress had anything to do with it. This political sleight of hand would be entertaining if not for the stakes involved.
If the Democrats were to stand on principle, they would embrace measures to defund the troops, to "stop the slaughter" as they are so fond of opining everywhere someone sticks a microphone in their face. But then their strategy for losing would be too transparent and the American people would rightly punish them in 2008. Better to use stealth and sneak around in dark corners offering goodies to wavering members than stand up and be counted when destiny and history tap you on the shoulder.
The Republicans are in disarray. The White House has mounting problems defending itself against ravenous Congressional Committees who will investigate not only what needs to be investigated but also conduct detours into partisan witch hunts that serve no purpose except to skewer their political opponents. And the American people, fed a daily diet of incomplete, non-contextualized news from Iraq from a biased media are sick to death of it all and wish there was some way to gain a victory while bringing our troops home as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and the money is running out. Perhaps the Democrats can drop their posing and posturing long enough to pass a bill the President can sign.
There's some wishful thinking for you.
is one of their most irritating tools.
They voted for this war.
Before they betrayed it.
The record and the video is there.
They are bad for America.
which can only be matched by the populations of our prisons and asylums. Defeat is for them political opportunity and I think the time is past where normal people need whisper the word. It's beyond cynicism and trips over into the worst kind of criminal mind, except these rodent like creatures had the instinct to get into leftist politics, where kleptomanic, injurious, hate driven primal urges are rewarded.
So much the reverse of healthy minds and lives that unconscious of a minimal human decency they regard themselves as possessing a superior morality. Otherwise how could they live with themselves.
I do disagree with the description of George Mitchell, smooth he was but that's as far as it went.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
is a classic. I will be knocking it off in the near future. The rest is good too.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The only reason I oppose the war is so I can use it for political hackery.
I oppose the war because of the enormous harm it has caused for my country. I'm too young to really remember any political goings-on before the Bush administration, so the Iraq War is what is influencing my political beliefs in my youth. I'm envious of the America so many of you have known: times of peace and prosperity, national unity, a positive American reputation.
I oppose the war because it is an ever-growing obstacle to the country becoming what my father's generation knew it to be. Maybe I'm selfish, but the future of my country is being jeopardized by men who began their political careers in the 1970s.
"I oppose the war because of the enormous harm it has caused for my country"
What enormous harm are you referring to ? And by Time of unity do you mean the Vietnam Era ? Reagan the man the dems tried to lynch with Iran Contra ? The man Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy tried to collude with the soviets against ?
The war isn't the obstacle. Losing it will be.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
when Jimmah was President and hezbollah terrorists were capturing American and holding them as hostages, and the Iranians captured all of the Americans in the US Embassy and held them hostage for 444 days. Ah yes, those days when ABC began their new late program 'America Held Hostage' when Jimmah and all of the Democrats were wringing their hands and whining about how there is nothing we can do. We are in a malaise. That is the unity time the Democrats are working 24/7 to see us return to.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Especially since Ford could have won if he were a little more diplomatic in dealing with NYC's fiscal crisis.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Trillions of dollars, 3000 Americans dead, the division it has caused at home, drastic decrease in international standing and influence, a greater risk of terrorist attacks at home, extreme anti-American sentiment around the world, especially in the Middle East.
We had the world behind us after 9/11 and a stunning chance to lead the world into the new century. We squandered that by invading Iraq.
1. What is the cost of the Iraq war to date.
2. How many people died in 9/11. How many Americans died in Pearl Harbor. What was the response to Pearl Harbor and how many Americans died in that ?
3. If you aren't ticking someone off you probably aren't doing anything worthwhile. Sure people liked us under Clinton, he didn't do anything to defend the nation and let the mice play. So for this question name 3 times Clinton could have taken out Osama Bin Laden or stopped AL Quaeda cold but didn't.
4. We had the world behind us ? Show evidence. Pledging support for the adventure in Afghanistan doesn't count. Bonus credit explain why Afghanistan doesn't count.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
1.) http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
2.)I am fully aware of the casualties. You miss a key point: Pearl Harbor was a strike by one nation on another, and on a strategic base of the enemy. The number of troops dead in Iraq is nearly equal to those who died on 9/11. 34,000 Iraqis died last year alone because of this war. On 9/11 we lost 3000 citizens. Does this seem like a proportional response? (not to mention the lack of concrete connection between the two)
3.) You're missing the point. Killing one man is not going to cripple the Islamist movement, as George Bush can tell you. When the U.S. is respected around the world and has strong diplomatic leverage, the "hearts and minds" follow. It's a war of ideas, not a military conflict, as you seem to wish it was. What better way to validate our principles than to show they work?
4.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11#International_reaction
Check out the next section as well.
"International reaction, Newspapers of the world.
International reaction, Newspapers of the world.
A solitary firefighter stands amid the rubble and smoke in New York City. Days after the Sept. 11 attack, fires still burned at the site of the World Trade Center.
A solitary firefighter stands amid the rubble and smoke in New York City. Days after the Sept. 11 attack, fires still burned at the site of the World Trade Center.
Front Page of The New York Times on September 12, 2001, the first issue of that paper to be released following the attacks
Front Page of The New York Times on September 12, 2001, the first issue of that paper to be released following the attacks
The attacks had major global political ramifications. They were denounced by mainstream media and governments worldwide, with the headline of France's Le Monde newspaper summing up the international mood of sympathy: "We Are All Americans" (Nous sommes tous Américains).[88] The German reaction was profound and remains so, five years later, in 2006.[89] The most publicized exception was that some Palestinians celebrated jubilantly upon hearing about 9/11.[90] Less publicized are the public demonstrations of enthusiasm for the attacks conducted by Chinese students in mainland China during the night after the attacks.[91] Leaders in most Middle Eastern countries, including Afghanistan, condemned the attacks. Iraq was a notable exception, with an immediate official statement that "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity." [92]"
And of course Afghanistan "counts."
if you use wikipedia as a source, well thats pretty stupid. anyone can write in and have something submitted. you might as well have cited yourself. i love this comment you just made "34,000 Iraqis died last year alone because of this war. " Uh so i guess these iraqi's would have been doing the foxtrot down the middle of the street if we hadnt invaded huh? probably playing xbox against you online if only george w bush wasnt president? Well no saddam hussien and his murderous sons probably would have killed several thousand of them. they were managing a couple thousand a year, if you count the people dying in jail probably more. And the assumption is that the american military is killing those iraqi's. no terrorist groups and insurgents are blowing up bombs outside of mosques, foreign fighters like Zarquaiw (however thats spelled)were beheading people for the last 4 years. whatever have fun with your world view that the world is a beautiful place, and would remain so if only america wasnt stupid enough to elect george bush twice. maybe you should go ask john kerry what his secret plan is on iraq so we could get this all solved quickly.
1. 400 billion <> Trillions. Were you lying or just not aware of what you were talking about when you said "Trillions of dollars"
2. I miss very little. AQ considers itself a nation. It is backed by nations. It hardly would have made sense to make the objective of WWII taking out Yamamoto's carrier now would it ?
You feel that our nations financial infrastructure isn't a strategic asset ? Well then I guess you were lying with response 1.
3. Ahh the Chuck Schumer school of reply. Don't answer the question asked. Answer a different question that you happen to like. The question was Kill Osama or stop AQ cold. Of course if you want your position to be that killing Osama in the 90's wouldn't have done anything to prevent 9/11 I am more than willing to let you own that ground.
4. Words are cheap actions are dear. Nobody cared about Afghanistan because there was nothing there but blasted desert. Thus those that were so concerned could be concerned. They could even send men to participate in what they thought would be a live fire exercise.
Iraq is the proof of their lack of support. Chirac and Schoreder advising Saddam on how to hide weapons and play the press is the stake through the heart of your argument. How can we forget Chirac telling eastern european nations to shut up when they voiced support for us ?
So no. Afghanistan counts as little as your answers
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...(your own link says 'billions'), people become less and less inclined to check your work for you.
But tell you what: just give us a link to whoever's really doing your thinking and we'll consider engaging him or her in conversation.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The long term costs are far greater.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html
"A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far."
And Google found CSMonitor, not me.
Or not. But lets go through this. Why don't you dig out the cost of military healthcare that was expected without the war and then compare it to what is expected with.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Nobody is this obtuse without knowing exactly what they are doing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Stiglitz has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. He was an adviser to President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank. Bilmes was a former assistant secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration."
Gee someone who has been outspoken against the war finds its going to be more expensive than thought.
But here you go. The Average U.S. death rate is 8.26/1000 so we have an average of 150,000 troops in iraq for 5 years what is the expected death rate ? How many have died ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Stiglitz has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq."
"He was an adviser to President Bill Clinton"
"a champion to the lefties"
and last but surely not least... Columbia University.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Don't talk about the facts of the study, just the one conducting it.
"He likes Clinton! Don't listen to him!"
Not everything is a huge conspiracy against Bush.
I asked you to consider the source, does that make me "wrong"? I will tell you what it does make me; it makes me very skeptical that you have the capacity to form your own opinion.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
...is to refuse to address a legitimate question. Such as Joliphant's about estimated costs w/the war and estimate costs w/out it. Answer it in your next post: because, frankly, you're starting to bore me.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
"I'm envious of the America so many of you have known: times of peace and prosperity, national unity, a positive American reputation."
Peace- Prior to the current war, we were at war with USSR for 50 years, with thousands of nukes aimed at us by a government who had threatened to "bury" us and was as fundamentally opposed to our way of life as Al Qaeda is today.
National Unity- You pretty much have to go back pre-1860 to find any semblance of national unity. Even in the supposed glory years of the 1950's Ike had to send the 82nd Airborn into Little Rock,AR, McCarthy and HUAC were battling the Left and Operation Wetback was expelling all the "undocumented workers" at the time.
A positive American reputation- we have been the global bad guy since the Marshall plan ended. If you think Kofi Annan, Amnesty International, the EU, the Non-aligned movement, etc. were all our best buddies until we opened Guantanamo Bay, you are deluded. America has been the target of the global elite's loathing far more than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, or for that matter Saddam Hussien, with the millions they killed and tortured, ever were. The reason, primarily is that we have become wealthy and powerful by having a successful capitalist system and the global elite hate that.
As far as prosperity, we are collectively- not just at the top- better off then we ever have been in our history.
So I think you are misguided with your view that if we weren't at war in Iraq we would have some sort of wonderful existence consistent with a mythical interpretation of our past.
The Iraq war was the correct and necessary thing to do. Whether it is managed and executed successfully will be the ultimate judgement on Bush, but it doesn't change the fact that it was correct and necessary in the first place.
But you would surely agree that the Cold War was a peaceful time. In the sense that Russia did not attack us and we did not attack them.
I guess this segues into my other point. Perhaps I should have said national identity rather than unity. The political divides at home could be overcome (relatively) because America had a viable enemy who posed a serious threat. Today, a Republican sees a Democrat as somehow less American, and often vice versa. We tend to forget that we are all of the same homeland and the debate about how to proceed forward is a natural part of our experiment in democracy.
I feel that today al-Qaeda is being forced into that role of a national enemy that the Russians previously held, when the movement is largely misunderstood and not a sovereign entity. Rather than being able to face the threat head on, as Americans have been used to for 50 years, we must adapt to the new threat facing us. Yes, the desire to destroy us is relatively the same, but the capability to entirely destroy our nation is lacking. I just wish our foreign policy would adapt to the new threat, rather than using the same principles used against the USSR.
Again very funny I love this quote from what you just posted "because America had a viable enemy who posed a serious threat. Today, a Republican sees a Democrat as somehow less American, and often vice versa." often vice versa thats what got me laughing. I guess calling the president a murderer, torturer, equating US troops to Nazi's or soviet goulag workers, saying the president would engage in a war just to enrich unnamed oil companies, well all that pales in comparison to some republican questioning a democrats patriotism. Democrats for the last 4 years, some of them they same day they casts votes to give the president the authority to go to war, have been activly drumming up and courting the anti war vote. That is unpatriotic in a time of war. To deny that the democrats have been doing that would be like a republican saying they dont court christian conservatives.
Misconstruing differing points of view as a deficiency in patriotism is wrong, regardless of what side of the aisle it comes from.
that the Cold War was a peaceful time.
There was the Korean War, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Grenada, to name the more notable ones, where the US and USSR fought via proxies, but Americans still died none the less. Also, the USSR used terrorists such as Red Army Brigade, Bader-Mienhoff and even to some degree the PLO as puppets to attack Americans and our interests.
I didn't totally follow the rest of what you said, but you seem to wish we would use a new approach, rather than "the same principles used against the USSR." Actually, pre-emptive action is about as 180 degrees different from the containment approach we used against the USSR as you can get, but I'm guessing you must mean something else.
I still don't see what realistic course we had other than to go into Iraq. Saddam declared himself to be our enemy, supported terrorism, played footsie with Al Qaeda, and kept his WMD capabilities dormant but alive. After 9-11, Saudi Arabia wanted us out, so containing him wasn't even going to be an option any more, and we couldn't just leave him there and hope for the best- that's what we did with Afghanistan and it blew up in our faces.
It's easy to believe that things would be better in every way if there was no Iraq war, I also wish that there was peace, everybody liked us and none of our soldiers died. But the reality is that even if we just stayed with the war in Afghanistan, we would be in basically the same situation, thousands of our military killed by Al Qaeda and their IEDs, stuck in an "unwinnable quagmire" with the scorn of the world for the "attrocities" that we would be accused of there. The Iraq War simply sucked up the oxygen from what otherwise would have been a larger scale conflict in Afghanistan if we did what Al Qaeda wanted and just tried to have it out with them there.
Going into Iraq was the rational and necessary thing to do, although with real risks, many of which have become problematic. But again that is because of they way it was managed, not because we would have been better off just leaving Saddam alone.
...you'll be responding here.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Just the high points because I don't have a lot of time right now...
One James Carter, reportedly a President of the US and a Democrat, did not consider the USSR an "enemy" and pursued policies to that end. Namely gutting the US military with the help of Congressional Democrats.
US Senator Frank Church, also a Democrat, led the successful charge to gut the CIA. After all, we had no enemies.
US Senator Teddy Kennedy, ummm a Democrat, contacted the leadership of the USSR in 1983 - just in advance of the 1984 Presidential elections - and offered to coordinate with the major US TV networks and media outlets to present a coordinated public relations strategy to counteract Reagan's "saber rattling". US Senator John Tunney, D-CA, actually went to the USSR and discussed the possibilities with Soviet officials. The plan fell apart because Yuri Andropov got tossed as leader of the USSR.
US Senator John Kerry, surprise - a Democrat, and a group of Democratic Senators and Representatives wrote their "Dear Commendente" letter in support of Daniel Ortega and his Communist insurgency in Nicaragua.
The incensed noise from the left during the '80's at Reagan's correct statements about the USSR - "Evil Empire" and "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall...". The left spent 20+ years attempting to promote the idea that Communism is the moral equivalent of the US republic.
In fact, the same principles apply today as during the Cold War with the USSR. The Right is standing for democratic principles and liberty, the Left is doing everything they can to undermine the US and paint the enemy as "simply misunderstood".
The Democratic Party (with the loss of Scoop Jackson) was the enemy of the nation in the '60's, '70's and '80's during the Cold War. Nothing has changed in the 21st Century.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The Greek Civil war, the Philippine Huks, the Malaya Insurgency, all with communist involvement. Then on to the Indo-China War, Korea, stop overs and side shows in East Germany and Hungary. with lots of dead bodies, the multi million death purges of Mao Zedong, Viet Nam [ no need to discuss that] the Cambodian killing fields, Castro's takeover in Cuba with subsequent campaigns in Africa, at the request of the Soviet Union, near nuclear war over Cuba, the Berlin Wall, my fingers are getting tired, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan I can't go on much longer, an assassination attempt by the Bulgarian Secret Service on the Pope, Granada, Nicaragua,{ Danny "the Red" Ortega}, El salvador, the Rosebergs, Alger Hiss, the Blockade of Berlin in 1948, how could I almost forget, the Iron Curtain.
I would say that if you can't get that right, the peace thing, then at the least your other judgments are suspect, which they are.
Bowing out.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Orwell would appreciate the doublethink. The other side might have enjoyed some fruits of their labors if the ruling class weren't wasting so much human capital to keep themselves in power. I'd like to believe the Democrats of our time are not that hardened but I haven't felt any such reassurance.
I don't mean to equivocate anything here, myself, but we know there are Soviet veterans close to many of us in age who still have fresh memories of how their own withdrawal timetable played out.
I think that you're missing the point though I can't blame you for reacting when your party is being attacked. No one is saying that the "true" Americans are all hawks who agree with us, or that those people who agree with pulling out or ending the war are conniving, pulissaminous, cowardly, or any of the other adjectives that us Republicans are so fond of using, but that the Democratic politicians are all of that and more, because despite all of their posturing and their "end war now" rhetoric, they refuse to make a concerted effort to pull out of Iraq, or in leiu of that, to give up the ghost and just support the troops, despite their aversion to all things military. They don't provide reasonable ideas to get us out, and don't particularly care if we get out, they just want the votes of a populace with an ever-declining support for the war, and voted for the war to hedge their bets-- after all, if the war is a success, they voted for it, right? Those politicians are who Republicans are angry with, not people who genuinely believe the war was a mistake (even if we think those people are wrong). I don't recall Republican politician ever actively pursuing the demise of the Democratic party as fervantly as the Democrats are now. Not even the "do-nothing" Congress was this bad!
P.S: I do agree with the war, just not the way it's being fought right now.
Mitchell was a brass knuckles partisan who taught Dachle who taught Reid. He did everything he could to prevent any cooperation with Bush 41, and therefore any legislative accomplishments on which Bush could run. He led the Senate during the Clarence Thomas inquisition. The Dems legislative strategy in 2007 owes much to Senator Mitchell.
something few on our side of the aisle have figured out; if you're going to be supremely nasty, you need to be supremely nice about it. 'Fraid I had to learn that one the hard way too.
In Vino Veritas
Are you saying the entire party needs to take Dale Carnegie ?
The point being that you have mastered the course when you can tell someone to go get stuffed and they say thank you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm saying your public persona is always "nice." As bad a movie as it was, the Patrick Swayze character, a barroom bouncer for hire, had it down in the movie "Roadhouse;" "Be nice" when you're going to kick H**l out of somebody. Your public statements are always about how "pleased and proud you are to have the opportunity to work with the "other side" to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution..." or whatever. And privately you are God's Own SOB. If you're going to be nasty to the adversary, be so nasty that they won't even dare tell anyone what you said or did because they won't want to admit that someone would treat them like that.
Remember what I used to do for a living; those unions have a license to be SOBs, and I worked for politicians and eventually became, at least sort of, a politician when I became an appointee. Politicians are not noted for their stomach for controversy. You just work out the technique and wear the face you keep in the jar by the door.
In Vino Veritas
but if this were not outrageous enough, these same Democrats are doing their best to push the price of gasoline to $5 a gallon and redistribute misery by numerous other ways, presumably to create a situation that more people will ask government to see them through.
If there's anything good about the news this week, it may be that the Iranians didn't "wait for the signal," but rather drove ahead with their blatant violation of Iraqi waters to abduct British personnel. Now more people are seeing exactly what a post-occupation Iraq can expect more of. Hopefully there are enough thinking voters with their eyes open to offset the millions of stupid voters who keep the Democrats in business, but that may be wishful thinking as well.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I fell for the "New Democrat" nonsense in 1992, thinking that our wannabe Rep actually meant it when he said he was pro-2A. I've been disappointed with that party ever since, and for a number of reasons. The entire Clinton era merely solidified my belief that the Dems are nuts (notable exceptions, Leiberman and Zell Miller).
excellent and clear analysis of today's Democrat party Rick. I am so sick of this garbage. to the [redacted] left: WAR IS NOT A POLITICAL GAME. grow up, give up your crippling hatred, and join the real world in which there are real threats to all of us besides George W. Bush.