Saturday, April 14, 2007
I apologize for supporting the Democratic Party
Stearns, S. 2007. Bush repeats call for war funding bill without conditions. VOA News. April 14, 2007. Available online: http://voanews.com/english/2007-04-14-voa17.cfm
What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress? Republicans will waste everyone's time with crazy, useless regulations. Democrats will weaken the country.
I deeply regret my hurtful advice to vote Democrat. The Democratic Party has no business having a single seat in Congress..
The latest stunt of attaching a timetable to the war spending bill is harmful and dangerous. We should leave Iraq --- now. The only meaningful purpose of "the surge" is to intimidate Iran. There are easier and cheaper ways of doing this. The Iraqi Sunni Arabs will be slaughtered when we leave, but we already changed their history for the worse anyway, so why not speed the killing.
While Bush has incompetently fought the rebuilding of Iraq, has not looked weak. Every country in the world realizes that the United States of America is led by a dangerous bulldog who will tear down everything in pursuit of his goals. Frankly, there are worse reputations to have.
Yet Nancy Pelosi, that "mackerel-headed ho," is trying her best to screw even this up. By attempting to execute foreign policy in violation of the fact that the President is the executive, she made our country appeared divided even when it came to official channels. By playing with war funding, she raises the specter of an earlier Democratic Congress's betrayal of the Republic of Vietnam.
At this point, I do not care if decapitated boyscouts are found in the offices of the Republican Congressional Leadership. The GOP must win back the House and the Senate in '08.
This is the rare case where I couldn't disagree with you more. The prime signal that we've given is the invasion of Iraq. Then, once the Democrats took Congress we added troops! The overall picture is that we're even more dangerous when we're divided.
I think South Park put it best in their "I'm a little bit country" episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Little_Bit_Country) which contains something like
Ben Franklin: So, it is resolved, we should go to war without wanting to.
Anti-War Protester - If it weren't for you flag-wavers flexing your arms we'd get taken down in a second
Pro-War Protester - And you anti-war people make it seem like America is composed of sane, caring individuals. Without you the rest of the world would hate all of us, instead of just one of us.
Posted by: Steve French | Saturday, April 14, 2007
How do you expect a Congress to end a war without cutting off funds? Is that constitutionally possible?
Posted by: Adam | Sunday, April 15, 2007
Thanks for pointing out that stupidity is superior to self-loathing. I guess it's not self-evident to everyone, and that pains me.
Posted by: Mike | Sunday, April 15, 2007
I believe the Democrats will be finished as a major party within a generation if they continue on their current path, which is a fate they certainly deserve. It is a mark of how out of touch with reality the party's leadership is that they really think a large portion of America shares their outlook and goals. Look at who they hire for their campaigns (i.e. Edward's wacko bloggers) and who funds them (i.e. Moveon.org and Hollywood). It is always amusing to me when the Dems talk about getting their base out in a country that tilts to the conservative end. It will be quite a shock for them when they finally realize that their "base" is at most 10% of the voters (with 30% of voters registered as Dems and 30% of Dems proclaiming themselves to be liberal). To press the point, the proportion of Independents already exceeds that of the Democrats or Republicans and is increasing, which suggests to me that our party system is overdue for a major shakeup. We may have already seen a glimpse of this with Joe Lieberman's reelection in 2006. The hardcore lefties tried to punish him for "heresy" endorsing Ned Lamont running on the anti-war line, but failed. How long will this party last if in order to gain financial support you have to take positions at odds with the overwhelming majority of the country? It will be interesting to see where all of those moonbats on the left go if the Dems fall. For the short term though, they will still remain but I believe they will lose Congress and the White House in 2008. Though Republicans have major flaws even on defense, they still believe in the values of this country, while the Dems in Congress don't.
Posted by: Greg McDowall | Sunday, April 15, 2007
"To press the point, the proportion of Independents already exceeds that of the Democrats or Republicans and is increasing, which suggests to me that our party system is overdue for a major shakeup."
I have a problem. Mostly only from anecdotal evidence. But how many 'independents' really are independent? Not many. It's en vouge right now to be a political moderate and an independent. Most I know still vote straight ticket and are solid supporters of one party or another.
The last real shock we had was Nader. And before that Perot. Before that was the Bull Moose and the Dixiecrats. Issues get lone-voice-in-the-wilderness candidates some attention, but then the majors form up around it or adopt it.
Not that I wouldn't mind the dynamic a truly viable third party would throw into the mix. I just don't see it as immenent as a generation away. I don't think you can predict this. It'll just happen and we'll be blindsided, imo.
Posted by: ry | Sunday, April 15, 2007
There's a lot to be said for America's bipolar combination of Idealistic Imperialism and new world isolation. But Pelosi's actions aren't an example of this. She is playing with the legal machinery of the war.
I don't think so. The traditionally pro-Congress interpretation of the Iraq War is that it was authorized (in practice, declared) by Congress, and thus is Constitution under Article I, Section 8 ("The Congress shall have Power... To declare War"). But if we consider Iraq a "War," then it is the President who along with the Senate can end it (Article II, Section 2, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties...").
I think the White House would defend ignoring Congress, if it comes to that, different. Bush would probably use the preceding paragraph ("The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...").
But the important point is this: the Constitution gives the Congress the right to start a fight, but gives the President the ability to end it. This is not a chance. This is what Pelosi is trying to ignore.
As a first approximation, "stupidity" v. "self-loating" isn't bad. The last Republican Congress was just stupid. Nancy Pelosi's House is something worse.
That the Democrats would play this hand again, after it cost them and the country so much in the 1970s, is staggering.
Our country needs two serious parties when it comes to national defense. We have one.
I agree that most independents are that in name only. But when it comes to political orientation, the country is more conservative and liberal. Add to that the fact that politics is heritable, and that conservatives outbreed liberals, and apart from immigration the hopes of the left dwindle with every year.
Perhaps that is why they are so earnestly destructive when they have power.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, April 15, 2007
This thread is dumber than rocks.
Posted by: sonofsamphm1c | Sunday, April 15, 2007
What's your point, sonofsamphm1c ?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, April 15, 2007
I don't see many Americans changing their minds about the Iraq War in terms of the coming congressional elections, and I think the next two decades contain important issues that will be kind to Democrats and unfriendly to Republicans.
The foremost of which is climate change, which is going to capture major attention in 2008 as previews of coming scientific research is strongly bolstering the case the Republicans has spent so much time and capital on bashing and ridiculing. A price in votes will be paid.
Another is research using embryonic stem cells.
Posted by: sonofsamphm1c | Sunday, April 15, 2007
"I don't see many Americans changing their minds about the Iraq War in terms of the coming congressional elections, and I think the next two decades contain important issues that will be kind to Democrats and unfriendly to Republicans."
How does this make the words of your fellow commentators "dumber than rocks"?
"The foremost of which is climate change, which is going to capture major attention in 2008 as previews of coming scientific research is strongly bolstering the case the Republicans has spent so much time and capital on bashing and ridiculing. A price in votes will be paid."
More likely is that if the leadership flips, they'll be some intra-party friction. Witness Schwarzenegger in California, or Clintoln's welfare reform in the 1990s.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, April 16, 2007
So, in the spirit of going big, going long, and going home, are you saying that going home is that best option, but going big is a better option than planning when to go home?
“At this point, I do not care if decapitated boyscouts are found in the offices of the Republican Congressional Leadership.”
LOL! You have such a colorful imagination
Posted by: Jeffrey James | Sunday, April 22, 2007
What we see is not mere planning when to go home, but an attempt by the Democratic leadership (that is, Nancy Pelosi) to take over foreign policy from the President during a time of war. I do not agree with much of Bush's foreign policy since 2004, but he, and not Pelosi, is the President.
It's like when you're in the car with someone who is lost. Of the many things you could possibly do, attempting to seize the wheel is almost certainly the very worst.
"LOL! You have such a colorful imagination"
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, April 22, 2007