Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election

[Bozo Erectus]

Instead of letting the time run out on the Bush administration, the Democrats are determined to take responsibility for HIS war away from and turning it at the last minute into a Democratic defeat. He wanted the war, he started the war, he prosecuted the war, its his war. Let him slither out of office covered in his own abject failure. Why do they want to help him and the Republicans out by taking over responsibility for the defeat? Ending it in 08 with a Democratic President would make much more sense. Also, I dont think this business about cutting off funding for the troops is playing so well out there, even among those who voted for Democrats because theyre opposed to the war.

As if that isnt enough, to top things off, Nancy Peloser flys off to Syria doing her best Jane Fonda impression...

WTH is wrong with them??

 

[ComradeDavo]

What is wrong with them is that are all so paranoid that America is a right-wing country and being liberal puts voters off.

 

[Little Raven]

Instead of letting the time run out on the Bush administration, the Democrats are determined to take responsibility for HIS war away from and turning it at the last minute into a Democratic defeat. He wanted the war, he started the war, he prosecuted the war, its his war. Let him slither out of office covered in his own abject failure.

Oh, don't worry, they intend to.

You don't actually think they're going to do anything to stop the war, do you? I assure you, they don't care about the troops THAT much. Enjoy the dog and pony show, cause that's all you'll be getting.

 

[emzie]

Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election: Hillary is the current front runner.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What is wrong with them is that are all so paranoid that America is a right-wing country and being liberal puts voters off.

Its not paranoia, it does put them off. I think Republicans won most of their elections for like a 20 year period by simply calling Democrats liberals. Its such a loaded word here, it turned into the L-word.

Oh, don't worry, they intend to.

You don't actually think they're going to do anything to stop the war, do you? I assure you, they don't care about the troops THAT much. Enjoy the dog and pony show, cause that's all you'll be getting.

But the dog and pony show isnt playing well in Peoria, thats my sense anyway. They have a product theyre trying to sell right now, which is the funding cut off. Its a tough sell. Im sure you know how absurdly easy it is for Republicans to spin it as 'abandoning the troops' and 'leaving them in Iraq with no ammo'. Theyve already succeeded in framing the debate along those lines, instead of what a mistake the war was.

Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election: Hillary is the current front runner.

True, she doesnt have a chance in hell. Many more people hate her than love her. Putting up Hillary as the Dem candidate would energize the Republican base and really get out the vote for them.

 

[emzie]

Then again, Bozo, would you really want to run the US?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

There are two ways to become successful at life. One is to be better than everyone else. The other is to knock everyone else down to your level.

Guess which path politicians take?

 

[Little Raven]

But the dog and pony show isnt playing well in Peoria, thats my sense anyway. They have a product theyre trying to sell right now, which is the funding cut off.

They’re not trying to sell it. It’s a sword on the wall, not a dagger in the hand. It has no chance of becoming law, and everyone knows it. Even if Bush doesn’t veto it, which he has to, they’ll make sure it gets neutered in conference committee. They don’t want our hand out of the garbage disposal before ’08. They just want to make sure that when ’08 rolls around, they can point to the prop sword and say “Well, we tried. Too bad we didn’t have enough votes, eh?”

The troops will have all the ammo they need. The only thing they won’t have is an out.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

They’re not trying to sell it. It’s a sword on the wall, not a dagger in the hand. It has no chance of becoming law, and everyone knows it. Even if Bush doesn’t veto it, which he has to, they’ll make sure it gets neutered in conference committee. They don’t want our hand out of the garbage disposal before ’08. They just want to make sure that when ’08 rolls around, they can point to the prop sword and say “Well, we tried. Too bad we didn’t have enough votes, eh?”

That would make some sense, but I dont agree that theyre smart enough to stop just short of actually defunding. I hope youre right.

The troops will have all the ammo they need. The only thing they won’t have is an out.

I know that, you know that, Bush knows that, Harry Reid knows that, but do they know that out there among the voting public? I dont think they do, and the Republicans dont think they do either.

 

[Little Raven]

That would make some sense, but I dont agree that theyre smart enough to stop just short of actually defunding. I hope youre right.

The only scenario in which I see them getting that drunk that quickly is if Bush doesn't veto the bill. In which case, all bets are off, but at least his hands are as dirty as theirs.

But he will veto it. And then it will go away, until the Dems start pointing to it in about 12 months. By then, we will have forgotten all the details, and only remember that the Dems tried SOMETHING. Granted, this strategy hinges on the war becoming less popular, not more, but that seems like a pretty safe bet to me.

 

[JollyRoger]

I know that, you know that, Bush knows that, Harry Reid knows that, but do they know that out there among the voting public? I dont think they do, and the Republicans dont think they do either.

In November 2008 when the war is still going on, the public will realize it hasn't been defunded. In between now and then, there will be many votes where the Republicans and Bush shoot down exit strategies. No one will remember that Pelosi went to Syria (which is still a bad move, IMHO).

 

[EdwardTking]

Instead of letting the time run out on the Bush administration, the Democrats are determined to take responsibility for HIS war away from and turning it at the last minute into a Democratic defeat. He wanted the war, he started the war, he prosecuted the war, its his war. Let him slither out of office covered in his own abject failure. Why do they want to help him and the Republicans out by taking over responsibility for the defeat? Ending it in 08 with a Democratic President would make much more sense. Also, I dont think this business about cutting off funding for the troops is playing so well out there, even among those who voted for Democrats because theyre opposed to the war.

As if that isnt enough, to top things off, Nancy Peloser flys off to Syria doing her best Jane Fonda impression...

WTH is wrong with them??

Nothing. Fact is if they don't do something to wind down the war,
then they then become culpable for maintaining the war.

The primary role of POTUS according to your (not my) constitution is
as Commander-in Chief. Congress should give him their orders.

 

[Jawz II]

Is Monica a democrat? cause if she is, this is the second election she blows! *badum-tish*
Thank you folks, Ill be here all week. (Sorry couldnt help myself)

I think you should look at the big picture, theres no way in heck a black man or a half jewish woman is gonna be the presnit of the U.S!

The troop funding, I dont think theyre gonna stop it (or have they already?). I think that was just their way of sticking it to shrub after having taken it from him these last 7 years.

And whats wrong with Pelosi talking to the syrians? thats what every smart person/expert has been saying all along, if you want stability in Iraq you gotta get their neighbours involved.
But then again it might be political suicide in America year 2007 to do the only reasonable thing, what do I know?

 

[Irish Caesar]

I think you should look at the big picture, theres no way in heck a black man or a half jewish woman is gonna be the presnit of the U.S!

I've heard she's half-Jewish, she's an anti-Semite, what is she?

The troop funding, I dont think theyre gonna stop it (or have they already?). I think that was just their way of sticking it to shrub after having taken it from him these last 7 years.

If they wanted to actually do something, they wouldn't have passed a non-binding resolution. The fact that they had trouble getting that passed and had to put some pork on the table first shows that they have no intention of passing a binding resolution.

And whats wrong with Pelosi talking to the syrians? thats what every smart person/expert has been saying all along, if you want stability in Iraq you gotta get their neighbours involved.
But then again it might be political suicide in America year 2007 to do the only reasonable thing, what do I know?

The Speaker of the House isn't the person to be doing it; but shame on the Secretary of State for not.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The only scenario in which I see them getting that drunk that quickly is if Bush doesn't veto the bill. In which case, all bets are off, but at least his hands are as dirty as theirs.

Well, he's definitely going to veto it. However Reid has vowed to keep sending it to the Oval Office with the funding cut off date. Its just so clear to me that the way it would play out in the media is that the President is 'holding the line' against the 'cut and run' Democrats. Doing his best to stop the Democrats from ruining his great 20k+ strategy to win the war. Im not talking about realities here, just perceptions among the voters.

But he will veto it. And then it will go away, until the Dems start pointing to it in about 12 months. By then, we will have forgotten all the details, and only remember that the Dems tried SOMETHING. Granted, this strategy hinges on the war becoming less popular, not more, but that seems like a pretty safe bet to me.

Thats the best case scenario, provided that the Democratic leadership proves to be smarter than they look.

BTW LR, Im curious what you think of the Pelosi trip to Syria. A PR disaster, handing the Republicans a new 'Hanoi Jane'? Or a net plus for the Democrats?

In November 2008 when the war is still going on, the public will realize it hasn't been defunded. In between now and then, there will be many votes where the Republicans and Bush shoot down exit strategies.

I think the American people arent comfortable with the Congress dictating to the high and mighty 'Commander in chief' how to conduct a war. The American people are naturally inclined to trust individuals instead of committees.

No one will remember that Pelosi went to Syria (which is still a bad move, IMHO).

Ha! You think the Republicans will let them forget it?

Nothing. Fact is if they don't do something to wind down the war,
then they then become culpable for maintaining the war.

Theyre already culpible, most of them voted for this nonsense, because of their cowardice and lack of integrity. Hillary chief among them. Its too late for bravery now, though. Just like its too late to send 20k troops to Bagdhad.

The primary role of POTUS according to your (not my) constitution is
as Commander-in Chief. Congress should give him their orders.

'Commander in chief' taking the orders of Congress? Makes no sense.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And whats wrong with Pelosi talking to the syrians? thats what every smart person/expert has been saying all along, if you want stability in Iraq you gotta get their neighbours involved.
But then again it might be political suicide in America year 2007 to do the only reasonable thing, what do I know?

Was it wrong for Jane Fonda to go to Vietnam? Of course not, but that doesnt change the fact that out there in the 'heartland', even to this day, most people think of her as a traitor. Making Peloser out to be the new Hanoi Jane is so easy its a joke.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think the American people arent comfortable with the Congress dictating to the high and mighty 'Commander in chief' how to conduct a war. The American people are naturally inclined to trust individuals instead of committees.

That's why they ultimately won't dictate to Bush. They will keep funding the war and keep sending him bills to veto, thus keeping the ongoing war squarely on his shoulders since they kept giving him an out.

Ha! You think the Republicans will let them forget it?

Well, she's not running for President and she has no shot at losing her seat in Congress. If the "Pelosi went to Syria" card is one of the ones that the Republicans are having to play in a major way in November 2008, then they are not going to win the hand.

 

[Little Raven]

BTW LR, Im curious what you think of the Pelosi trip to Syria. A PR disaster, handing the Republicans a new 'Hanoi Jane'? Or a net plus for the Democrats?

Non-issue. As JollyRoger says, if the Republicans are having to hang their hat on Pelosi, the Democrats are on easy street. Though admittedly, it will be interesting to see what the AIPAC crowd makes of it.

 

[EdwardTking]

I think the American people arent comfortable with the Congress dictating to the high and mighty 'Commander in chief' how to conduct a war. The American people are naturally inclined to trust individuals instead of committees.

Ha! You think the Republicans will let them forget it?

Theyre already culpible, most of them voted for this nonsense, because of their cowardice and lack of integrity. Hillary chief among them. Its too late for bravery now, though. Just like its too late to send 20k troops to Bagdhad.

'Commander in chief' taking the orders of Congress? Makes no sense.

Boso, I suspect your assessment of your fellow Americans is correct. Sadly.

 

[IglooDame]

Was it wrong for Jane Fonda to go to Vietnam? Of course not, but that doesnt change the fact that out there in the 'heartland', even to this day, most people think of her as a traitor.

Including, for what it's worth, me.