Democrats - Time to Put up or Shut Up

It may come to pass that the Democrats will regain control of Congress in a few hours. The Dems had to field candidates that could convincingly portray themselves as conservatives or moderates in order to have any chance of winning. Once elected, will they vote as conservatives? Or are they posing as conservatives just long enough to get elected?

It will be interesting to see how the media will react to a Congress under Democrat control. Will the coverage of the War on Terror suddenly become more positive in tone? Will CNN air another propoganda video for Al Quaeda while the Dems control the House?

But I am especially eager to see where this "new direction" takes us . What will the Dems do differently? We haven't surrendered yet. Maybe they'll give that a try. How long before the Dems impose a timetable for troop withdrawl? Which Democrat will be the first to call for "peace talks" with Bin Ladin?

Time to stop whining and actually DO something, Democrats. We're waiting. And boy, are we watching.

Posted by Chris Rowan at November 7, 2006 6:31 PM
Comments
Comment #193873

seeing how miserably this past congress failed, i’d have to say what the hell - this congress couldn’t possibly do any worse. not even possible.

in addition, if this blue dog trend continues in the democratic party, perhaps the conservatives (whom have been left by the wayside by this neocon administration) may in fact have found a new home.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 7, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #193878

What interests me is how the internet-based activist left is going to react.

1). Go nuts if Democratic gains aren’t as high as they expected, or

2). Go nuts because Democrats do make big gains, but don’t govern in the way in the far left wants.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 7, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #193882

Pilsner,

This rather reminds me of how Republicans pretend to be about small government but in practice are not. I suppose if that is any example, more devout Democrats will ignore that (if it happens) and centrists with intellectual capacities will again find themselves disillusioned.

Posted by: Zeek at November 7, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #193883

Neo-Con Pilsner:

Do you think there is a place at the Democrat table for a conservative? I don’t.

The Liberals are in positions of leadership within the Democrat party. In other words, the Libs control the purse strings. If these new Democrats want access to that money, they’re going to have to tow the party line at least some of the time. The net result will be to pull this nation further to the left. The American people won’t like that. Not one bit. Most Americans identify themselves as conservative on social issues like abortion and gay rights. If the liberal Dems push their agenda too far too fast, they will be setting themselves up for another massive defeat in 2008.

Ultimately, this may be the beginning of the end of the Democrat party as a viable political force in this country. The Dems may go the way of the Whigs and the Bull Moose Party.

Posted by: Chris at November 7, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #193886

Yes. 2 words.

state’s rights. a true conservative would support the right of a people in their own state to define what marriage is in that state (only). they would not push for federal intervention, particularly by constitutional amendment. we don’t need to standardize marriage. what works for your state may very well not work for mine.

same applies to abortion and a myriad of other social (*not* political) issues.

conservatives understand that good fences make good neighbors.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 7, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #193887

What will Dems do if they have to take responsibility? The hate Bush will not go as far when what happens is their fault.

Posted by: Jack at November 7, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #193888

following that logic, i think that there will be plenty of room under the democratic tent for conservatives, especially considering that we have been shunned by the republicans.

perhaps now the democrats will learn to appreciate the beauty of federalism, as the republicans once did.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 7, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #193890

Zeek
define a centrist. I thought the dims didn’t allow a centrist. Does that mean centrist in reference to extreme left and left?

Posted by: tomh at November 7, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #193892

“Ultimately, this may be the beginning of the end of the Democrat party as a viable political force in this country. The Dems may go the way of the Whigs and the Bull Moose Party.”

Man, have we heard this one before! We’ve heard that the Dems are “irrelevant” for the last 6 years. Apparently not so.

I think what we are seeing is the inclusionary aspect of the democratic party. The Democrats have room for everyone, and all are to be heard. Let’s hope that the lessons from the republican control will be learned, and that the democrats will be stronger for it.

As far as a “Plan” for Iraq; it’s pretty hard to have a carved-in-stone plan for this mucked-up mess. What I hope to see is the prodding by the Democrats to get the White House to establish a viable exit strategy which will attain some realistic goals. After all, Bush is still the Commander-in-Chief. This election has not changed that. All we can hope for is some accountability which will be accomplished by setting realistic, specific, objectives. It doesn’t have to be a timetable. Just an action plan with some concrete procedures as to how they are going to reach the goals that are set. Of course, most of this will be dealt with in closed session, since we can’t leak our plans to the other side. But we can hope that the dems will push for, and get, the results that we need to leave Iraq in a reasonable amount of time while still accomplishing some practical goals.

The question that has been raised by so many republicans and right-wing pundits in the recent past of, “Do you want to win in Iraq?”, has to be accompanied by the definition of “winning”. Since there are no specific goals (except that we will stand up as they stand down; whatever that means), defining the term may finally give us something to aim for.

Posted by: Cole at November 7, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #193896

tom, “define a centrist. I thought the dims didn’t allow a centrist. Does that mean centrist in reference to extreme left and left?”

It does not really matter how I define a centrist. I gave an example and that communicated what I meant. Unless you do not agree or understand the example there is no need for me to explain my meaning.

Posted by: Zeek at November 7, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #193897

The Dems aren’t going to win the Senate.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #193901

Well no matter how you slice it, spin it or deny it the American people want significent change politically speaking. I think we can all agree “borrow and spend” is not better than “tax and spend”. I think we can all agree we need to come clean on Iraq and our reasons for still being there and that we dont think our kids and grandkids should foot the bill for it. I think we can agree that the election process and influence peddling need to be corrected. Hopefully the repubs can find it in themselves to work the will of the American people, not the multi national corporations, for a change and move forward on these and many other issues. We may need to have a talking to with those southerners that dont seem to get it yet, but with the help of the repubs Im sure that can happen.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 7, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #193902

j2t2,

what erroneously led you to believe that southerners “dont seem to get it yet”?

i “get it.” i think most of my kith and kin “get it.”

i think if you’re watching, you’re seeing that a large number of us backwards southerners are “getting it”.

but thanks for your two cents.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 7, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #193903

Diogenes, Hey Im not calling anyone backwards my friend, Im rather light heartily commenting on a CNN comment that says the trend towards change is not as prevelent in the south. So no offence intended.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 7, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #193905

“Do you think there is a place at the Democrat table for a conservative?”

Of course Democrats are able make room for a few conservatives, it’s the Neocons who aren’t welcome. Not only have those nitwits given us all a terrible headache and indigestion, but have left us with a hefty check — and don’t care whether or not we’ll be able to pay for it.
If you’re talking about this blog, intelligent, rational and reasonable conservatives (like Kevin23, for example) would personally always be welcome at my own table. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #193906

j2t2,

that is why i’m not a fan of cnn. just wanted you to know, for the record, the south is watching… and wondering if secession was such a bad idea, after all… ;)

Posted by: Diogenes at November 7, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #193908

Diogenes, CNN has the facts to back themselves up so in this case its just the news not the spin.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 7, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #193911

Watching the Senate if so interesting. So if I read it right, Dems need three of four remaining to win. That would leave 49 Rep 49 dems with two independents. So that would mean Lieberman’s “loyalty” is what would give the dems the majority. Wow would that be ironic.

Craig

P.S. Looks like I was way premature up above. Call me Dan Rather!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #193914

As a democrat seeing his party come out of the wilderness I am very happy just to have some opposition to this administration.

That said, Democrats now have SOME power and need to show the country how to govern. They probably won’t gain the Senate but who knows what the dynamic there will be. The Republican machine is so well-funded and incumbency is so well entrenched it took a near perfect storm to pull off a Democratic victory in the House. I’m eager to see some skill and leadership too. God knows the party in power hasn’t shown any.

If the House victory and democractic gains in statewide offices such as governor show just a little leadership out of the mess Republicans have made then the 2008 election could be very interesting.

Posted by: chris2x at November 8, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #193916

It is indeed time to put up or shut up.

Not necessarily, though, on the matters of conservatism. What people want is improvement. What people want is the transcendence of partisan issues towards the care of national ones. This is a mandate against push-button politics as much as anything else, where failure is covered for by ideological attacks on the other side.

Success succeeds. If the Democrats want to remain the dominant political movement in this country, it’s the needs of the country, not the needs of any one constituency that will make things work for them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #193917

Chris Rowan, With the bar set so low by the repubs the last 6 years, what would you consider to be a “well done, you’ve put up” level with the dems now in control of just the congress and not the senate (assuming 1 more goes repub) or the presidency?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 8, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #193923

I think we listen to the voters.

I am one of few americans who thought Clinton’s impeachment ended correctly. He was guilty, (and was impeached) but the voters wanted him to stay in office, and so the Senate voted that he could remain.

In Bush’s case, he led us into Iraq and was wrong on WMD. (I’m not with the ‘he lied’ crowd). I can’t think of a more serious mistake you can make as president than to start a war and be wrong about it’s causes. Loosing Congress is a fair consequence. I’m not sure if impeachment is neccesary or best for the country.

What I hope I heard from the voters is we want a “new direction”. Less corruption, and more options in Iraq. What I hope Democrats will do is instead of “have the answer”, they will open up the process, with hearings etc, and lay out for the country where we are and what is at stake.

Many on the far left, sound like “two wrongs make a right”. By that I mean “just get our troops out.” I fear millions of deaths if we were to do that.

Usually after a mess like we are in, the real answer is complicated and takes time and humility to solve.

I will be listening carefully to Nancy Pelosi tomorrow.

I hope she doesn’t “have the answer”. Isn’t that the big gripe with Bush? There are many newly elected congressman who are coming to washington with new ideas. I hope she outlines a process of openness.

This is a year that I could have voted Democrat. I didn’t because I didn’t see a plan, just anger and hatred. Now it is time ready or not for the Democrats to lead. You have my support for the time being. You deserve that.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2006 2:25 AM
Comment #193928

Craig, Senators Clinton and McCain heard the voters correctly. Clinton in anticipation, and McCain after the elections last night, both said very accurately, the voters want results and solutions to American problems.

They are both right. They are both likely to run for president. This election was not about change for change sake. It was a rebuke of the corruption, the squeezing of the middle class economically, the war on terrorism and our vulnerability to attack still, the lack of progress in Iraq and the illegal immigration issue. That is what the exit polls said were voters main concerns.

And on each of those issues, Congress has failed miserably to address voters concerns. That is what these election returns were all about. A vote against those in power who didn’t act as expected on these issues. It was an anti-incumbent election. And there will be more ahead for a grid locked government and the parties involved in maintaining it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2006 5:52 AM
Comment #193929

David Remer:

This election was not about change for change sake.

Of course it was.

It was a rebuke of the corruption …

… which was mostly a media invention hammered home every single day by your willing accomplices at CNN, ABC, NBC, The NY Times, the LA Times, etc. When a Democrat hides thousands of undeclared dollars in a freezer, there’s nary a peep from the media. It would have been a whole different story if the guy had had a big “R” next to his name.

Media reaction to Democrat malfeasance:

Scandal. (page 15)

Media reaction to Republican malfeasance:

SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!

(deep breath)

SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!


the squeezing of the middle class economically …

Wow. I remember being told “It’s the economy, stupid” back during the scandalous Clinton years. Unemployment wasn’t as low then as it is now. Low unemployment is a good thing, isn’t it? Or are we to believe otherwise now?

the war on terrorism and our vulnerability to attack still …

And the Democrat solution to the War on Terror will be … what, exactly? Repeal the Patriot Act? Bestow citizen’s rights to captured terrorists? Stop listening in on conversations involving terrorists and their supporters here and overseas? And how will Democrats make the U.S. invulnerable to attack? We will always be vulnerable to attack. That’s why we have to take the fight to the terrorists.

the lack of progress in Iraq …

… you mean the lack of reporting of progress in Iraq. How many schools have been rebuilt? How many hospitals? Electrical power plants? Water treatment facilities? How many refrigerators have been purchased by Iraqis in the past fiscal year compared to years previous? I haven’t seen any reports along these lines. If such reports exist, they’re certainly not trumpeted as major news items.

and the illegal immigration issue.

Michael Savage (radio talk show host) has been talking about illegal immigration for years, and no one at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc., paid any attention. Democrats don’t give a hoot about illegal immigration, and neither did many Republicans. It is the conservative base that really wanted something done about illegal immigration, and Democrats will use soothing rhetoric to appease conservatives, but in the end all we’re going to get is another amnesty program.

Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #193934

Chris,

Calm down….take another deep breath.

I agree there have been many improvements in Iraq. However, you should know that what makes news is not quietly building infrastructure. That said, a lot is different in Iraq now as opposed to before we entered. Sadaam is gone and there is no longer an oppresive dictator running the country. Now the country is in civil war (or nearing it). WE are considered by most Iraqi’s as occupiers. The average household in most major cities has electrical power 4 to 5 hours per day (less than before). Sure, there’s capaicity to produce more electricity but the stability isn’t there in the government or the municipalities. There have been a number of schools constructed, which is great. But when you may get killed walking or riding to and from school it kind of off-sets.

My point is there has been a lot of good. There has been an awful lot of bad too. Most of us aren’t stupid…even if we do watch news media outlets other than FOX. We know there have been accomplishments. However, we refuse to put on blinders and only see the good. A lot of good American soldiers have been killed or wounded and many, many more inocent women, children, and elderly Iraqi’s have been killed.

I suppose Tom Jones said it best….”WAR..What’s it good for?”

We need to plan to stabilize Iraq and exit. More troops? Maybe… More pressure on Iraqi government? Possibly. The Commander in Chief still makes thos calls. Changing congress will not change that. However, it will make him accountable and instill checks and balances.

Somebody tell George recess is over and it’s time to get back to class.

Posted by: Tom l at November 8, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #193935

Chris-
Your attitude is part of what lost so many seats for the Republicans: the insistence that it’s all just bad media coverage. Look, you have members of Congress convicted of wrongdoing. Could the media do that?

And Iraq. Could the media create the failure of security and reconstruction in Iraq? No, it couldn’t. There were real failures in that, many of which sprung from real flaws in the administration and their approach to the war. Their partisan jealousy about keeping the policy of the war all theirs has only exacerbated the situation, forcing a rigid posture on the war that became increasingly unpopular.

Finally, the economy. People do not need the news to tell them about the economic problems in this country. They live them, and for the most part, the economy broke for us, not for you. You can accuse the media of having a liberal bias and pretend that it means nothing, but what about America’s liberal bias on these issues?

The truth is the Republican party lost touch with reality. A focus on abstract Push-Button issues and partisan demagoguery has distracted them from having a firm grasp of the issues, and a close relationship with the voters and their wishes. By thinking that they could simply raise the spectre of bumper sticker threats like gay marriage, tax hikes and other scary things, that they could go to the well on certain demographics, forsaking all the others, the Republicans undercut and weakened their political support.

Meanwhile, the Democrats took a more practical approach, a more humble approach. They were willing to enlarge the ideological tent, willing to soften certain stands, and spread the demographic definition of Democrat. They also took a view of the issues that match American’s more closely.

The gains of the Democrats are very real gains, and while there are legitimate questions as to whethere we hold on to these seats or expand our territory, we have managed, even in the face of great amounts of gerrymandering to essentially reverse the Republican majority to it negative. Without that gerrymandering, we can imagine the gains would have been even more drastic.

This is what happens when any party loses touch with both reality and the voter’s sense of what the right direction of the country is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #193936

BTW, the DEMS will take the Senate too.

Posted by: Tom l at November 8, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #193938

Another thing: The shift wasn’t mostly conservative, but moderate/independent. As Kevin Drum said:

Somebody really needs to put a lid on the almost scarily synchronized spin that Democrats won only by running a bunch of conservative candidates. The numbers just don’t bear this out. Most of the Dem pickups were in moderate-to-liberal areas with moderate-to-liberal candidates.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #193941

Chris,
1. Your denial of corruption does not make the corruption go away.
2.Real jobs not walmart jobs.
3. Oversight Oversight Oversight. FISA FISA FISA.
4.We are still in Iraq after all these years.Progress- who is still footing the bill certainly not the Iraq oil reserves. Oh you mean Haliburton progress, oh boy still only a few hours of electricity but nice new school .
5. If you would watch CNN’s Lou Dobbs you would find that illegal immigration is an issue. I do agree with you that with the dems we will probably lose the battle, just like we did with the corporate repubs for then last 6 years.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 8, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #193947

Chris Rowan -
“Or are they posing as conservatives just long enough to get elected?”

Of course not, Nancy Polosi just “promised” to have the most honest House ever. That means that the Dems will be as conservative as they promised they would be (cough, cough).

Posted by: Don at November 8, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #193956

It’s interesting because you guys got into power claiming you were moderates, but never voted that way. And you never shut up either.

Posted by: Max at November 8, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #193958
Most Americans identify themselves as conservative on social issues like abortion and gay rights.

Chris, nice job pulling out a poll that is over 6 years old to back up your point. Well done.

Ultimately, this may be the beginning of the end of the Democrat party as a viable political force in this country. The Dems may go the way of the Whigs and the Bull Moose Party.

Yes. One of the most overwhelming shifts in power in American history shows how the Dems are not a viable political force. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Sore losers make the victory so much sweeter.

Posted by: Burt at November 8, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #193961

Hmmmm, “Put up or shut up”?

I agree. Since the failure to “put up” is exactly what threw the neopubs out of office yesterday. Although I am sorry to see Chafee and a few others go this was a necessary kick in the pants. Now, the Democrats need to show that they will live up to Pelosis’ promises or else it might very well be Romney in ‘08. Of course, it will be hard to be as vile and corrupt as the neopubs were…

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 8, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #193984

Chris,

Pombo (attacking the Endangered Species Act)in California lost to McNearney, a wind energy consultant. Santorum went down hard. Republican moderates like Chafee were unable to hold on to their seat because of the extremism of their party and its leaders. It was the Republicans who abandonded moderation and they paid for it.

Posted by: chris2x at November 8, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #193993

I think John McCain stated it best..

“We came to change government but government changed us.”

Posted by: Tom L at November 8, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #194008

Tom,

He might be correct in the individual sense, but not in the group sense. They went to change Washington as individuals but ended up changing Washington into the actual GOPs image.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 8, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #194009

“What I hope to see is the prodding by the Democrats to get the White House to establish a viable exit strategy which will attain some realistic goals.”

There is no exit strategy, there is no exit strategy for Bosnia, South Korea, Japan, or Germany. We are in, and have to be in, the mid-east for the next several decades until the brand of Islam that is killing people and threatening to convert others at the point of a sword, (or suicide bomber, are gone. After that our military will still be there as a deterent to others with such anti-life ideologies. “Exit strategy” is just a way of avoiding the words “we give up”. We exit Iraq and any nation that is threatened by the spectre of chaos brought about by Islamic fanatism will give in to that rather than take a chance on the USA. The USA that exited Iraq.

Posted by: Glenn at November 8, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #194029

Chris,

“you mean the lack of reporting of progress in Iraq. How many schools have been rebuilt? How many hospitals? Electrical power plants? Water treatment facilities? How many refrigerators have been purchased by Iraqis in the past fiscal year compared to years previous? I haven’t seen any reports along these lines. If such reports exist, they’re certainly not trumpeted as major news items.”

If there was a point there I seem to have missed it.
Who gives a rat’s ass how many refrigerators have been bought when people are continuing to die needlessly, every day?
We have not established even a scintilla of security in Iraq.

Yesterday, in an interview on NPR, Cliff Mumm, the project manager for Bechtel in Iraq, talked about what it was like to work there.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6449811

He spoke of how security has gone to shit. How Bechtel had completed all of the work they were contracted for, except two projects, one of which is a children’s hospital in Basra, that can’t be completed because of a lack of security.

Yes, America has done some good in Iraq, but unless our intrepid leaders get their collective heads out their butts, it will all be for naught.

The Republicans have done exactly squat in the last 5 years to make America more secure, and the security measures they have enacted is merely lipstick on a pig.
That’s why they were defeated yesterday, and the Democrats couldn’t possibly do much worse.

Tom l,

The song was first sung, and made famous by Edwin Starr.

Posted by: Rocky at November 8, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #194035

BTW, Rumsfeld just resigned, MSNBC reported Mr. Bush is said to be nominating Robert Gates to take his place.

This begs the question;

Why not Powell, or Swartzkoff?
Who better?

At least it would send a message that we’re done screwing around, and we might just get serious, for once, in Iraq.

Posted by: Rocky at November 8, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #194046

You mean this Gates?Former DCI and Iran Contra player gates? The Bush family friend Gates? Un-f’in believable! Just clicking my heels together — only two more years — only two more years —….

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 8, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #194049

Dave,

Yep, that would be him all right.

I would seem that Mr. Bush will never learn.

Posted by: Rocky at November 8, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #194058

Thanks for the correction, Rocky! I didn’t know that Edwin Starr was the first to sing the song…learn something new every day…unless you are GWB

Posted by: Tom L at November 8, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #194063

Checked out this blog to see how the “other side” was taking the news on both the election and the Rummy announcement. Pretty interesting commentary and more thoughtful than I had anticipated. The only comment I can contribute is the American people seem to have finally figured out they have been fleeced by this administration for 6 long years. The lack of a clear path to victory in Iraq, other than “stay the course”, what course???? Full speed ahead into the morass. Insanity. How about our respose to the needs of the victims of Katrina. It is a national disgrace. One can only hope for better things to come and a coherent plan for our nations future.

Posted by: Mike E at November 8, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #194065

Gates?!
Like Dave said: Un-f’in believable!
Heckuva job Bushie strikes again.
Wasn’t it floated that Lieberman might to fill Rummy’s shoes? Should we assume he lost out because he won this election thanks to the GOP?

Posted by: Adrienne at November 8, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #194080

The Democratic message throughout the election was:
1. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld lied!
2. Our kids are dying for nothing!
3. Our soldiers are rapists and murderors, and those they don’t rape or murder, they torture!

Exit polls showed the War in Iraq was the most significant concern to voters.
Today the international press is joyous, leaders from around the World are stating that Democrats will lead the United States into a more conciliatory direction.

Pardon me, but is conciliatory necessary after 9/11!!!!!
The terrorists won- not the Democrats. Democrats simply adopted the terrorist and Internationalist message, and the citizens of the United States bought it. We don’t have a chance in Hades when it comes to Iraq now, because the American people do not have the intestinal fortitude to win. Prepare for a total pull-out and absolute terror and destruction like you have never seen before!! Sorry boys overseas, we tried our best! God Bless you, for all your sacrifice and hard work!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 8, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #194083

JD-

Thanks for the refresher on the democratic platform and for the doom and gloom predictions.

With such insight, one might even be able just make out the end of their nose through all the partisan fog.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 8, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #194085

“because the American people do not have the intestinal fortitude to win”

o ye of little faith… that’s hardly what i’d call patriotic. are you actually so pissed that you lost that you just took a shot at all americans everywhere? or do you actually believe that hogwash?

Posted by: Diogenes at November 8, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #194107

Kevin23

Here’s a bipartisan more Democratic conciliatory tone which might play better with you.

I’m so sorry you mistakenly interpreted the political truth for partisanship! I’ll try to be more careful not to offend you next time.

JD

Posted by: JD at November 8, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #194109

Diogenes

Not a shot at all Americans, just an incredibly slim majority, mainly located in the Democratic hand-out infested large cities of America. God Bless the rural folks who refuse to succumb to the Democratic hog trough!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 8, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #194113

JD,

If your guys hadn’t screwed the pooch, they’d still be in office.

The Democrats won, get over it.

Posted by: Rocky at November 8, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #194119

Rocky,

Are you one of those Clinton Democrats?

If so, let’s not talk about screwing the pooch, please!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 8, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #194122

JD,

Are you just here to troll, or do you have something positive to add?

Somehow I don’t think you can blame the Republican losses on Clinton.

Posted by: Rocky at November 8, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #194125

Rocky,

I already gave my opinion on who and what won the election. Why is it that you did not find the humor in my last remark instead of getting offended? You have to admnit you walked into that one!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 8, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #194128

JD,

Apparently, you don’t understand the meaning of “screw the pooch”.

And while I didn’t vote for Clinton (I actually admired Bob Dole), the Clinton jokes are getting way tired.

The attitude you show here is what cost the Republicans the election.

Posted by: Rocky at November 8, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #194131

JD-
You know, rhetoric like yours seems such a liability to the party that there are some on the Red Column who speculate that folks post things like what you write because they are Democrats trying to make the Republicans look unreasonable.

On your points: 1)True. They did lie. They told Americans things were turning around when stuff they were receiving told them that things were getting worse. They didn’t tell Americans the full truth about the case for war, or what lead them into it.

2)Bush said they were dying to protect us against terrorists and WMDs. We now know it was impossible to do the first, and that the war is counterproductive to the second (just on shear numbers: more attacks, more terrorists, more instability in Iraq and the region.) Now many of us understand that they are dying for each other, for their country, for the Iraqis who’ve they’ve come to love and befriend, but in terms of the mission, at this point, they’re dying for nothing but a president’s pride. It’s not a knock against them. They didn’t waste their lives. Their Commander in Chief did.

3)In general, no. In specific cases, yes. But our soldiers are men and women, not angels. It’s not a knock against them all if a small minority fail so spectacularly as moral indidividuals. The real concern is the stress our strategy is putting our soldiers under, and how that might turn more of them to the darker acts of war. The real concern is leadership.

As for concilatory directions, we need allies. America needs people willing to cooperate, because not all of this war will be fought in places we have control of. If we want to be able to fight in somebody else’s backyard, it pays to be on good terms with the neighbors.

As for who won? The Democrats did. They didn’t adopt the terrorist message. We’ve adopted that of the very people who have had the most authority to speak on the matter of what happened on 9/11. Their recommendations constitute our agenda on Homeland security. Got any better ideas?

As for Americans? I believe Americans have plenty of guts. If I were you, I would not want to join the long list of folks who have underestimated the resolve of Americans. I would not want the company of al-Qaeda, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #194136

JD-

“The terrorists won- not the Democrats”?

You call that “political truth”? I call it blowing hot air out of a particular oriface. Luckily the majority of Americans voted with me and against the party that promotes the kind of baseless fearmongering that you exemplify so well for us.

People like me will soon take back the republican party and make it revolve around TRUE conservative principles again. The first step was to throw out the big spending and morally misguided neocon hijackers. That message has been made loud and clear by voters from both parties. The clear winners here are democrats in the short term, and the truly conservative republicans in the long run.

The clear losers? Republicans who like to solve issues by borrowing more money to finance more incompetent government involvement. Good riddance.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 8, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #194196

Stephen Daugherty,

You say that you would not want the company of al-quaeda, and Saddam Hussein, however, in your previous paragraphs you prove my points.

1. You state Bush and Co. were liars. Didn’t Saddam and Bin Laden make the same claim?

2. You say that our soldiers are fighting for our leader’s ego. Gee, I thought that is what al-quaeda is doing for Osama Bin Laden! Thanks for letting our soldiers know they are simply misguided pawns of an egotistical tyrant. They’ll appreciate that.

3. Thanks for also letting our guys know that they do not have the moral high ground, but it can be overlooked, because it is only due to their mental and emotional state.

You know, being conciliatory and admitting that America is the bad guy ought to win over plenty of allies. But, are they the allies that we want? I think not!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 9, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #194232

1)Does it matter whether they made the same claim? If Bush hasn’t been straight with us, the fact remains true regardless of who references it. Bush doesn’t suddenly become honest when the enemy tries to exploit his mendacity. You shouldn’t blame me for point out a fact because our enemies point it out, too. You should blame Bush for giving our enemies and your political rivals the opening.

2)Recall what I said:

Now many of us understand that they are dying for each other, for their country, for the Iraqis who’ve they’ve come to love and befriend, but in terms of the mission, at this point, they’re dying for nothing but a president’s pride.

In terms of the mission. Meaning, that while the moral reasons why a soldier would choose to put their life on the line remain valid, their deaths are not furthering any good strategic aim. The strategy is not having the effect desired, and the only reason Bush is keeping things the way he is to avoid bruising his ego by having doubts about his own strategy.

3)Your comment falls far short of the mark on this count. I was saying that the morality of our soldiers in general should not be judged by the disreputable actions of a few.

I was also saying, though, that people have their limits. War is stressful, it is dangerous, and it is full of awful choices. Not everybody who signs up is a moral paragon before they enter into the Armed forces.

Does saying this belittle our soldiers? No. It’s real life. That many soldiers do not snap and kill innocent people is a testament to their training in a war like this.

As for admitting that we’re the bad guys, I think you understand my point poorly. A hero can admit he’s wrong. It’s part of what makes him the hero and not the villain.

As for allies, we take what we can get. There’s not much use in waiting for people to align with our interests perfectly. We take our opportunities where we can. We deal with foreign policy issues in the real world, not in some fantasy of power politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #194253

Stephen Dougherty,

1. Yes, it matters a great deal that you, and the Dems, repeat what the enemy says over and over again while we are at war. It was a part of their (the enemies’ and the Dems’) strategical propaganda, and the press, Dems, and some liberal Republicans were more than happy to spread it as far as it could go in America! Though you speak eloquently, there was never any evidence that Bush manipulated the reports or coerced our intelligence agencies to give him justification for the War in Iraq. Clinton mentioned the need for Saddam’s removal and the danger of his WMD’s falling into the hands of terrorists in nearly every State of the Union speech he gave. I suggest you go back and read them. Was Clinton manipulating his intelligence? But, now that Dems are in power, you can bet we’re going to have hearing after hearing after hearing to try to find some secret E-mail that proves Bush did!

2. Democracy in Iraq is no good stategy or purpose? The problem with Dems and liberal Republicans is that they can’t see farther than yesterday. Name one idea the Democrats have proposed for obtaining that objective, and don’t say “a different direction”! That means nothing. You say the troops are fighting for nothing- I say that is what you voted for!

3. If the morality of the soldiers should not be judged by the disreputable actions of the few, why did Democrats and the Press show pictures of Abu Ghraib for months and months and months, (break) and more pictures coming out for another month, etc.? I’m glad you are now starting to get the point. I just wish you could have figured it out before the election. Why did the Democrats demand the burning at the stake for every supervisory officer clear up to the Commander-in-Chief? Come on, man, think about what you are saying, and then think about what the Democrats and the American / International Press did to our troops! I guess that was all Bush’s fault, too.

JD

Posted by: JD at November 9, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #194261

World reaction to the Democrat takeover of the House and Senate is more important that what anyone here thinks it means.

Below are excerpts from an article entitled “World both gloats, fears Bush humiliation” at YNetNews.com, an Israeli news site. I know, I know. It’s just one article on one news site. But I bet this is how much of the world views the Democrat victory:

Iranian newspapers took particular joy in Bush’s loss

Bush’s loss. The Iranians perceive this as a no-confidence vote for Bush. Translation: Our enemies consider a Democrat win to be a major tactical victory against us.

Many in the world hope that the humiliation he suffered will force Bush to adopt a more moderate, appeasing attitude towards international issues, as apposed to the gun slinging cowboy image he’s developed over the years of his presidency.

Right out of the Democrat playbook. Yeah, let’s give appeasement a try.

Much more blatant in their glee were more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament …”

Our European friends. With friends like these…

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez…called the election “a reprisal vote.”

Isn’t it great to know that Chavez and Democrats are in complete agreement over Bush? Doesn’t it just make you tingle all over?

In Nicaragua, president-elect Daniel Ortega [said] that the GOP lost because “Republicans always want to be at war, and that has been rejected.”

That’s ironic. A militant communist Sandinista like Ortega accusing Republicans of warmongering.

And here are a couple of comments from people who posted on YNetNews (contributor’s names omitted):

Israel is Screwed

You can take it to the bank. The present day democratic leadership are Chomsky and Zinn followers. They see Israel as a problem and will do nothing to defend her.

Democrats Priority Action List

1. Impeachement for Bush and his neo cons for steal and fraud of US elections in 2000

2. Setup committee to investigate the 9/11 attacks and the extent of Bush and Cheney in participating or facilitating the attacks and their pre awareness of the attacks without taking any action to prevent them.

3. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney/ Rice for the fraud and deceiving the american public about WMD information about iraq war.

4. Impeachement for Bush/Cheney/ neo cons for the catastrophic economic policies that has brought the american economy to brink of collapse.

5. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney/ Rice for the oil policies that has brought oil prices to record highs that helped this gang with their oil companies amass huge amount of money while the regular americans and the rest of the world suffer

6. Pull out strategy from iraq immediately

7. Stopping Bush/ Cheney from starting a nuclear attack and war on iran that will bring death to millions of people (not only in iran

Watch your step, Democrats. Vast minefield ahead.

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #194263

Chris,

You forgot one!

Reuters - American Vote an Embarrassment to Allies

JD

Posted by: JD at November 9, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #194267

I have figured out the imbalance that swings control of congress back and forth. Republicans create a bunch of jobs. The lower class works….but they are lazy so they look for an excuse to get out of work…VOTING!! because they are uneducated they go and vote for the wrong person…(i.e. a liberal who wants to raise their taxes)….dems take back over…they blow it…the cycle starts over again :)
p.s. Pelosi has no soul….look at her eyes in a picture

Posted by: Kevin at November 9, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #194272

More world reaction, this time from ABCNews.com

“The calculus of foreign leaders everywhere will be to see weakness if the Democrats prevail and they’ll act accordingly,” said CBS News State Department reporter Charles Wolfson.

Democrat victory = weakness

“The Republicans lost in the election because the American voters are now fed up and bored with the war,” said Vitaya Wisetrat, a prominent, anti-American Muslim cleric in Thailand. “The American people now realize that Bush is the big liar.

Bush lied, people died. Sound familiar? Our enemies can read, too. Wisetrat sounds a lot like a typical Democrat blogger to me. I wonder if he’s a regular contributor to The Daily KOS or MoveOn.org?

This piece from WSTM.com is really interesting:

China has different concerns. The resurgence of the Democrats is seen as renewing attention on human rights and trade issues. China’s surging economy has a massive trade surplus with the United States.

Democrats care more about human rights and lopsided trade surpluses than Republicans? When did that happen? Let’s see … Who was president during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994?

This is from The Financial Times, World reaction: Bush’s authority weakened:

Laurent Fabius, former French prime minister, said: “Many Americans are realising that Mr. Bush lied to them over Iraq.” Segolene Royal, the Socialists’ presidential frontrunner, said: “America is not just about George Bush”.

Bush lied, people died. Right out of the DNC playbook.

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #194274

Wow, the body’s not even cold yet.

The only thing the Democrats have done is win the election and you guys are already whining.

Talk about sore losers and sour grapes.

Posted by: Rocky at November 9, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #194275

Rocky:

Democrats won, and that makes our enemies happy. Or do we not have enemies anymore?

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #194279

Chris,

“Democrats won, and that makes our enemies happy. Or do we not have enemies anymore?”

Last I checked, our enemies didn’t get to vote in our elections. Whether it makes them happy or not is meaningless.
Pelosi gives the appearance of wanting to work with the Republicans.

I’ve read your posts, and the American people seem to disagree with you.
You could at least wait until the new congress convenes before you begin to spew your venom.

Posted by: Rocky at November 9, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #194291

JD-
1)This is the deal: early in all this, Bin Laden was lying and saying that we had all the Muslim lands under occupation. Most reasonable Muslims could ignore that and say “he’s full of shit”.

What about now? America is an occupier. If Bin Laden says we’re occupying, he’s not having to lie, and reasonable folks can’t discount what he’s saying. Truth is truth.

Bin Laden says Bush is a liar. Bin Laden can back that point up with fact. Bin Laden could quote from well-documented book with unimpeachable credentials that Bush has been keeping the truth of how violent this war has become from people. He can point to Bush’s treatment of the NIE, where the declassified version was a vision of certainty, and the classified version full of dissents, disputes, and qualifications.

John Dean, former White House Counsel to Nixon, can point out the places where Bush’s report to congress, as required by the war power act for the authorization of force, has been plagiarized from the introduction of the bill itself, and called a congressional finding.

Bob Woodward can point to a number of places where Bush publically said things about our military situation that privately he knew to be false.

Ron Suskind can show us Bush administration officials trying to bully people into signing off on conclusions they knew to be false, even to the point where they had one analyst in tears.

The Downing Street Memos show the president’s appeal to the UN was bad faith, despite the fact that the AUMF itself required Bush to work with the UN.

It goes on and on. It’s not enemy propaganda at heart. It’s just convenient for their use, since its true. We get nowhere by denying such things; that only makes their lies even more effective, since we won’t face or tell the truth.

As for the truth, Saddam may have been the subject of some of Clinton’s SOTU speeches, but I can’t recall him ever talking about Saddam’s WMD falling into terrorist hands. Russia’s, perhaps.

We may have investigations, but what turns up will depend on the truth. If it is the truth, the only good way to deal with it is to face it with integrity, not cower beneath rationalizations. We learn from our mistakes, or we give our enemy more ammunition.

2)Timetables and graduated withdrawals with troop presence over the horizon. As I said, the troops are not fighting for nothing, they’re fighting for their country and for the Iraqis’. However, their committment can be wasted by those who use improper strategy. We’re voting to get a better strategy.

3)It’s called responsiblity. It’s called we don’t bury our problems and make them worse by covering them up. It’s called not being so damn unclear or so damn intent on bending and breaking the law for your purposes, that you end up creating the environment that creates this. A lack of discipline is not merely the problem of the soldiers themselves, but that of every person who is aware of the problem, but doesn’t do what it takes to take care of it.


The trouble here is that you’ve based your notion of what is in the country’s best interest on a deep insecurity regarding the American character. Always with you guys, it’s America on the verge of collapse, America about to slide on the slippery slope. According to the Republicans, America is weak and vulnerable to subversion.

Well, sorry if I don’t agree with all this. America not only can deal with negative truths, it wants to deal with it, before they become worse. America is strong and good enough not to have to insist on being above the law.

America does not have to bluff and bluster to maintain its image. It can do it with hard work and humility.

America can admit its gone wrong. That’s our advantage over the bastards we deal with. They have to save face. They have to project an image of everlasting perfection, because one slip and their enemies tear them apart.

America is stronger than that. I believe that. It’s a pity so many conservatives like yourself don’t.

Bush rarely takes responsibility for things because he suffers from the same fear, the same paralyzing inability to project power with humility, restraint, and true confidence. Bush could admit more mistakes if he wasn’t so intent on saving face all the time.

Chris-
You tremble with rage or fear at what all these people are saying. I say let them talk. If they think America’s weak, they forget how much strength it takes to change direction. Americans committed to something on election day: a change of foreign and domestic policy for the better. They felt your policies had weakened us. So they’ve gone to us.

We have no intention of weakening America. We never did. That was your mistake: you failed to trust us. You failed to believe that a policy shared between our different perspectives could defend America. Because of that, you weakened America yourselves by trying to cut us out. One of the first batches of legislation that we have on the agenda are those based on the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. We will not allow Bin Laden and his people to exploit the same mistakes twice; we will not allow ineffective bureaucracy and security measures to put America at risk again.

Anybody who attacks America this time will once more face the America that we saw after 9/11. America is good at forgetting its differences when somebody attacks it. For America’s enemies, this is not a reprieve. It’s the calm before the storm for them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #194297

Rocky:

So I’m “spewing venom” by reporting how the world views a Democrat victory?

You seem to think that the American people voted for the Democrat agenda.

What agenda?? Meaningless blatherings like “We can do better” and “The American people demand change” do not constitute an agenda.

If you want an accurate read on the American people’s political leanings, take a close look at the results of the ballot initiatives:

Arizona Prop 103 “English as Official Language” - 74% voted YES

Arizone Prop 200 “$1 Million Voter Reward” (Loopy idea that would establish a “voter reward” random drawing every two years with a first prize of $1 million or more) - 66% voted NO

California Prop 87 “Funds for Alternative Energy” (aka “Big Oil tax”) - 55% voted NO

California Referendum “Domestic Partnership” - 53% voted NO

Colorado Amendment 43 “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” - 56% voted YES

Colorado Amendment 44 “Legalize Marijuana” - 60% voted NO

Idaho Amendment 2 “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” - 63% voted YES

Michigan Prop 2 “Restrict Affirmative Action” - 58% voted YES

Nevada Question 7 “Legalize Marijuana” - 56% voted NO

Ohio Issue 3 “Allow Slot Machines” - 57% voted NO

South Carolina Amendment 1 “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” - 78% voted YES

South Dakota Amendment C “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” 52% voted YES

South Dakota Initiative 4 “Allow Medical Marijuana” - 52% voted NO

Tennessee Amendment 1 “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” - 81% voted YES

Virginia Ballot Question 1 “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” - 57% voted YES

Wisconsin Referendum 1 “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” - 59% voted YES

Source - CNN

The vast majority of Americans are socially and fiscally conservative. I have more in common with the majority of Americans that you do, Rocky.

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #194304

No Chris, just because more closet queen republicans live in SC and TN than other states doesn’t mean people are like you. Also, if I remember correctly, in 2004 the gay hater ammendments passed with much greater margins. People will forget the hate Bushie taught his followers, it will just take some time.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 9, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #194313

Stephen:

You tremble with rage or fear at what all these people are saying. I say let them talk.

Wait a minute. All I did was point out world reaction to the Democrat victory, and I’m trembling with rage or fear? I thought Democrats were extremely concerned about world opinion. Your dismissal of world opinion with regard to the election just doesn’t jibe with what I’ve read and heard about Democrats.

If they think America’s weak, they forget how much strength it takes to change direction.

It’s not the strength involved that worries me; it’s the degree of change. Will it be a full 180? Not likely (I hope), but very possible. It’s happened before. And I believe this is to be a legitimate concern when one considers the rhetoric of the Democratic leadership (e.g., Pelosi, Murtha, Dean, etc).

Americans committed to something on election day: a change of foreign and domestic policy for the better. They felt your policies had weakened us. So they’ve gone to us.

You’re absolutely correct. Americans voted for change. Time will tell if the change is an improvement. And the clock, she’s a-ticking.

We have no intention of weakening America. We never did. That was your mistake: you failed to trust us.

I don’t think most people associate Democrats with a strong and vibrant military. I know I don’t. Believe me, I will be watching how the military is treated by the new Congress. Democrats have a lot to prove.

Look - I don’t believe that Democrats are going to throw in the towel and initiate a massive mosque-building campaign in an effort to appease Muslims. I have an honest difference of opinion with Democrats in general and liberals in particular with regard to our respective political ideologies. I really don’t think Congressional Democrats have a better plan for achieving victory in Iraq now, nor will they ever. That’s the opinion of a self-described conservative on a conservative blog. I can still express my opinion, right?

This is not a popularity contest. If I wanted to curry favor with Democrats, that would be easy enough to do. All I’d have to do is renounce conservatism and call Bush a liar, and then I’d be in like Flynn.

But that’s not why I do this. I believe that because of the manner in which Democrats positioned themselves politically with regard to the War on Terror in the months leading up to the election, our enemies here and abroad were rooting for a Democrat victory. Now that a Democrat victory is a reality and is currently being perceived as a weakness, there is a danger that our enemies will be emboldened to attack us. That is at least a possibility wouldn’t you agree?

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #194331

Chris,

“So I’m “spewing venom” by reporting how the world views a Democrat victory?

You seem to think that the American people voted for the Democrat agenda.”

No, I think that the American people voted for anything that didn’t smack of Republican.

You guys didn’t give a rat’s ass about what the rest of the world thought, until the Democrats won the election.
Now, it’s the Democrats must be in league with the terrorists?
You can’t have it both ways.

On the English as the official language;
What a load of crap.
Are we so insecure in ourselves that we need an “official” language?
Doesn’t that make English like an official song or the official bird, or tree?
If you want to pass laws making it unnecessary to print official documents in 50 different languages, fine, I’m ok with that, but remember E Pluribus Unum.

On gay marriage;
You want to save the institution of marriage?
Ban divorce.

On my political leanings;
On some things I am conservative, on others I lean liberal.
I am an Independent, I vote my conscience, be it for Republican, or for Democrat, or Independent, and I don’t adhere to any parties dogma.

And, BTW, this isn’t a Conservative blog. It’s a pan-political discussion group with separate columns to post articles.

Posted by: Rocky at November 9, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #194334

Dave1-20-09

Where in any single one of the marriage preservation amendments does hate enter in as you claim?

It appears that the hate is coming from other sources, not from the majority of those in this country that want to preserve centuries old foundations of society called marriage by one man and one woman.

Posted by: tomh at November 9, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #194373

tomh

If you preclude an individual from marrying the person they love based on gender, and the politics behind the movement is one of demonization, then that decision and that legislation is based on “hate”. You are preventing two people from forming a legal commitment and attaining equal protection under the law based on prejudice. That is “hate”.

Sorry, but to me that “foundations” argument is complete bullshit. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a legal contract. You don’t need a church, or a minister, or a preacher to get married. Just a JP.

If marriage is so sacred then why do you permit divorce? Or do you want to ban that too and go back to the days of matricide, where men killed their wives with impunity if they got tired of them?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 9, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #194383

Stephen Daugherty,

You have to be kidding if you think the Republicans view is that America is on the verge of collapse! Your entire message is that America must be apologetic, humble, contrite, conciliatory. Where is your vision of American greatness; in the ability to apologize! Give me a break! America is the greatest nation on Earth. It is the most generous to every other nation on Earth. We know the majority of the rest of the world hates us, regardless of what we do, and your answer is that we should simply apologize and they will all love us! Wake up and smell the coffee Stephen.

You also have to be kidding when you mention that Bush never takes responsibility for anything. He has taken responsibility for everything that has happened in Iraq, and in every other case where he has been unjustly attacked on every side. We Republicans were wondering when Bush would actually come out swinging! President Bush is probably the most humble man on the face of God’s Earth for taking all the liberal Democratic B.S. that has been tossed at him, and taking it with a Reaganesque smile.

Oh, and I suggest you read Clinton’s State of the Union speeches. Your memory is lacking, though you were probably so awe-struck in watching you weren’t paying attention to what he was saying. Again, he mentioned Saddam and his WMD’s falling into tne hands of terrorists in nearly every speech. The one name that was conveniently missing however in all except his last speech, was Osama bin Laden’s. If you want to talk about someone who can’t except blame for anything, I suggest you watch Bill Clinton’s interview with Mike Wallace when he asks him why he did’nt go after Osama. He said that he did go after him, and then he went ballistic on Mr. Wallace. So much for Democratic conciliatory humility! Don’t you find it odd that Clinton mentioned Saddam and WMD’s in every State of the Union, but never mentioned Osama until the very last one, (only one or two sentences). Maybe Clinton was so preoccupied with Iraq’s Saddam and WMD’s that he let Osama slip right under the radar, hmm?

Posted by: JD at November 10, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #194402

concerning gay marriage - for the true conservatives, whom have been misled by this administration…

there has been a backlash against this protection of the institution of marriage issue. there are organizations currently working to unite gay men and gay women, legally mind you, in matrimony - in order that they be allowed to raise children. these are people who do not love eachother - indeed, have no concern for eachother - an abomination so far as the institution of marriage is concerned by any definition.

if this is not a defamation of the institution, i don’t know what is. two people who do not love each other, being lawfully wedded in order to have and raise children. bad for the people, bad for the children. again, the catch is that it is entirely legal.

there is nothing that we can do about this trend, as it is entirely lawful…except to legalize gay marriage? or better yet, to allow those states which actually wish to, to do so - without fear of federal intercession.

federalism. it’s not a cure-all, but it’s close.

those who wish to marry within their gender will move to those states which legally allow them to do so.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 10, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #194412

Dave1-20-09
You are out of the ball park on this issue. You are the one who has a hate issue. I don’t and people I know who support marriage as an institution of one man and one woman do not hate people who oppose them. Do we make it illegal to have sex because there are rapists and pedophiles out and about? Of course not. Divorce occurs because man is not perfect. You have accused me of supporting matricide. False!! You are in the minority on this issue. States that have passed the marriage amentment have, for the most part, passed it overwhelmingly. Arizona has to count several hunderd thousand mail-in and absentee ballots yet, so it may pass there also.

Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2006 7:00 AM
Comment #194418

tomh,

you clearly misconstrued hyperbole with accusation. In the 1950’s 80% of America felt that miscregenation laws were needed. In the 2000’s about 60% of people feel that gay marriage should be prohibited. 20 years from now the religiously fanned antigay movement will hopefully have met a similar demise.

Meanwhile, polling results vary by more than 5% depending if you ask should gay partners be allowed at least civil rights. As for referendum passing rates, they have gone way done since the ‘04 cycle. That tells me the states who are antigay have already voted and the rest are more pro-choice. Here in MA, for example, the legislature recessed rather that cow before a referendum to rewrite the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Even those against gay marriage don’t want to enshrine prejudice in our constitution.

To further clarify. my accusations to you are that the reason you are against gay marriage is that you are prejudiced against gay people. As I stated in my post I view that as “hate”. To want to hurt people requires a degree of ‘hate’, no matter denial is expressed.

Finally, you never answered if you thought divorce should be banned. If you don’t, then please justify against your ‘sanctity of marriage’ claims.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 10, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #194445

Dave1-20-09
I have a number of people that I am on good terms with that are of the homosexual bent, both male and female. They know my stand. I know their stand. They don’t hate me and I don’t hate them. Now your presumption that I hate because I am supporting marriage as one man and one woman as the definition of marriage is out of step and out of tune. I do not support divorce as just a whim or fancy because two people do not get along. I support other ways of solving their problems. There are grounds for divorce that I support. When one mate is not fulfilling the vows they took when they got married, such as committing adultry, then divorce is supported, not advocated, just supported. You can twist that the way you want, but what I have stated is straight forward.

Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #194446

Chris,

Thank you for enlightening us on how the rest of the world now veiws our President and our cause in Iraq after the election. You are right on!!!

But, the real story is how Americans have changed their views on war in general. Our cause is to spread, and then maintain Democracy across the world, especially in the Middle East. We did the first step of that in fairly peaceful fashion with the Iraqi vote last year. Now, we must maintain it.

I believe Rumsfeld did the absolute right thing in stepping down, though I am sorry, (conciliatory and apologetic), to see him go. We have been in Iraq four years and have lost approximately 3,000 soldiers. Democrats want to include the number of civilians killed there too, to justify their opposition to the war, though surprisingly, few reports have surfaced accusing Americans of doing the civilian slaughter. But, of course, the civilian killing is also Bush’s fault. My point is, that 3,000 troops in four years amounts to the deaths of approximately two soldiers per day. Now, if I was Don Rumsfeld fighting a war for democracy, and the so-called Congressional oversightists were limiting me to losses of less than two soldiers per day, threatening pull outs if the situation does not turn around, I would resign, too! In fact, if I was any commanding officer in the United States Armed Forces, I would not re-enlist under such unreasonable expectations in war. What Commanding Officer would order his soldiers to take that hill, or capture that mosque, or sweep that city of insurgents, when he knows his job is in jeopardy if he loses more than two soldiers today?

Posted by: JD at November 10, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #194452

JD,
“Thank you for enlightening us on how the rest of the world now veiws our President and our cause in Iraq after the election.”

Have you been living in a cave?
Nothing has changed.
Apparently you missed all of the demonstrations against our going into Iraq in the first place.

“Our cause is to spread, and then maintain Democracy across the world, especially in the Middle East. We did the first step of that in fairly peaceful fashion with the Iraqi vote last year. Now, we must maintain it.”

So what you’re saying is that our cause is to spread Democracy, by force if necessary?

Sorry, our cause is to “help” the spread of Democracy.
First of all, you have to want it, and then you have to want it bad enough to fight for it.

Purple thumbs do not a Democracy make.

I’m all for helping those oppressed people of the world that want Democracy bad enough to fight for it themselves.

Posted by: Rocky at November 10, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #194457
people that I am on good terms with that are of the homosexual bent…
So you tolerate them. Nice.
then divorce is supported, not advocated… Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2006 12:06 PM
So why no “exception” for gay couples who want to get married? Isn’t marriage a “family value”? Finally, why do YOU get to decide? You wouldn’t like being told you can’t marry your (other race) wife, would you?

JD said “We did the first step of that in fairly peaceful fashion with the Iraqi vote last year.”
Ummm, wasn’t our invasion the first step? I wouldn’t exactly call that “peaceful”. Also, you do know the number of insurgent and their attacks are increasing, “peacefully”?
from: http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14
Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Oct 2006 - 105
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Sept 2006 - 20,000+

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 10, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #194515

Rocky:

No, I think that the American people voted for anything that didn’t smack of Republican.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. That’s why I’m a conservative first and a Republican second. Or maybe third. This administration was a lot less conservative than I’d have liked. The prescription drug entitlement progam really came out of left field (pun intended). The creation of the Department of Homeland Security seemed unnecessary to me. But I think the American people have thrown out the baby with the washwater. They have no idea what’s in store for them now that liberal Democrats are in charge of the legislature, governorships, and most of the state houses of government. I do know what’s coming, and am dreading it.

But there is a bright side. Now that the Democrats control Congress, the press coverage will be a lot more positive.

You guys didn’t give a rat’s ass about what the rest of the world thought, until the Democrats won the election.

Whoa, tiger. You are completely wrong on this one. I, for one, was deeply concerned about how all the relentless Bush-bashing was affecting world opinion, not to mention the endless negative press about everything related to the Iraq War. Our enemies can read, too, and are encouraged when they read the horrible things Democrats have said about their President. I know we’re divided on the war and many other issues, Rocky. But we don’t have to let them (our enemies) know that.

My enemies are your enemies, right? I hope so.

On the English as the official language; What a load of crap.

Interesting perspective. Doesn’t add much to the discussion, though.

Are we so insecure in ourselves that we need an “official” language?

No, it just means that we desire unity. The best way to bring people together is to speak a common language. You and I are sorta doing that right now. I doubt we’d have much to say to each other if we didn’t understand English.

Doesn’t that make English like an official song or the official bird, or tree?

Eh, No. Don’t think so.

If you want to pass laws making it unnecessary to print official documents in 50 different languages, fine, I’m ok with that, but remember E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, One. Great idea. Let’s all speak the same language, and out of many we will become One.

On homosexual marriage - I have no problem whatsoever with whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors. But isn’t it just a little arrogant to presume a “better” definition for a crosscultural institution that has withstood the test of time for 10,000 years? Society has a right and a duty to protect itself, and what is homosexual marriage if not a form of societal suicide?

And, BTW, this isn’t a Conservative blog. It’s a pan-political discussion group with separate columns to post articles.

I didn’t join a “pan-political discussion group.” I joined a Republicans and Conservatives blog and was under the impression that I could express my views freely.


Posted by: Chris at November 10, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #194521

Chris,

“I, for one, was deeply concerned about how all the relentless Bush-bashing was affecting world opinion, not to mention the endless negative press about everything related to the Iraq War.”

My point had to do with the fact that the President has been ravaged by the foreign press since our Iraqi adventure began, and that the right didn’t care about that at all.

Don’t you think the bad guys read the foreign press as well?

On English;
I think this whole thing is silly. Any one that does any business (including getting a job) in this country learns English. It’s that or starve (figuratively speaking).
Making it a resolution doesn’t change anything. It’s just a “red meat” issue that a politician can hang his/her hat on.

“Out of many, One. Great idea. Let’s all speak the same language, and out of many we will become One.”

BTW, we don’t speak English, we speak American English. There’s a huge difference.
The American language has it’s base in Italian, French, German, etc….
It is also the hardest language to learn.

Too many colloquialisms.

As far as Watchblog;

You chose to post articles on the Republican/conservative side. Anybody of any stripe can respond to any article.

I never said you weren’t entitled to your opinion, but it doesn’t make it fact, and I am entitled to disagree.
You’ll notice I never attacked you personally, but your opinion is fair game.

Posted by: Rocky at November 10, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #194523

Chris,

Marriage , as you would wish to define it, is very new institution. It is you peoples arrogance that presumes your church has the sole say of who should be be allowed to marry.

A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. The fact that marriage often has the dual nature of a binding legal contract plus a moral promise can make it difficult to characterize.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 10, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #194562

We have written, and argued at great length here regarding the so-called failure of the Bush policies. Perhaps we could change direction a bit and talk about possibilities of the Democrat’s policy changes!

However, to do that one must understand the strategy of the enemy. The terrorists will not attack our boys outright. They lose every time! They must instead hit them with a road-side bomb or car bomb at a checkpoint, killing them two to perhaps five at a time. They will not fight like conventional soldiers, or dress like them either! When we hit one of their strongholds, they retaliate by blowing up a market in some inner city of Iraq, killing thirty Iraqi civilians, or perhaps a daycare killing fifty women and children. If we capture one of their leaders and jail him for crimes, they do a drive by on a bus load of Iraqi cops or a few government workers. Though we have lost only 3,000 soldiers, the estimates for civilian losses are varied: as low as 45,000, to as high as 600,000 Iraqis, depending upon the sources used. The terrorists know that if they do not hit our soldiers, they do not die. The terrorists also know that if they hit civilians, causing enough civilian casualties, bleeding hearts will force the United States out of Iraq. It is their strategy, and a darn good one!! That is, if you are a no-rule-book terrorist. Bush tried to explain this many times, but few listened. That is why the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. They use sympathy, fear, and just plain civilian body counts to win what they want. No elected official feeling any responsibility for the civilian population can defeat a terrorist, if the people are not 100% resolved to destroy the terrorists and not the leader trying to combat them. That is the strategy and mind-set of the terrorist. Now, all you Dems, as is the message and purpose of this blog; How are you going to defeat the terrorists, and how do you define winning in Iraq? Put up, or Shut up!!!

Posted by: JD at November 11, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #194620

JD,

“No elected official feeling any responsibility for the civilian population can defeat a terrorist, if the people are not 100% resolved to destroy the terrorists and not the leader trying to combat them.”

Not being a Democrat, I won’t pretend to speak for them, however since you won’t answer my other questions, I’ll bite once more.

If the people in Iraq won’t take responsibility for themselves, and the terrorists that they are harboring, how do you propose we defeat them?
It is, after all, their country, not ours. This is part and parcel of granting Democracy to folks that are neither ready, nor willing, to fight for it on their own.
We have a strategic need to be in the Middle East only because we refuse to develop alternative fuels.
How many trillions of dollars do we need to spend defending our “strategic interests” before alternative fuels become worth it?

We are expected to rat out suspicious characters, here in this country, in the name of our security, yet we don’t seem to expect the same from the Iraqis.

Iraqis either need to fish or cut bait, and if they want to cut bait, it’s time for us to get out.

Posted by: Rocky at November 11, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #194647

Rocky,

You say the Iraqi people will not fight for Democracy themselves.

Where do you think the 45,000 to 600,000 figure comes from? Those are not just our folks dying over there! Many of those deaths are not just civilians, as in housewives or auto mechanics, but also in Iraqi police and semi-trained forces being trained to keep the peace. Al Qaida will not fight the U.S. or any other military because they are cowardice scum! How can you discredit an Iraqi people so openly willing for a Democratic society that they show up in numbers to the polls much greater than those in the United States. Your criticism of the Iraqi people is as much an insult to them as John Kerry’s insult to our troops.

Boy, the latest toll on deaths most widely accepted is 150,000 Iraqis. I think it is disgusting that 150,000 Iraqis die in the fight for Democracy and you question their committment to it. Yet, less than 3,000 of our troops die, and you are ready to vote for Democrats who want to pull out. If I were an Iraqi, I’d certainly be questioning your committment to Democracy! Those Americans like you give them a great example to follow in committing themselves to that Iraqi Democracy.

You say you would gladly help an oppressed people willing to fight for Democracy themselves.

Was that a lie that came from your lips, or George Bush’s?

JD

Posted by: JD at November 11, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #194658

JD,

Those “civilian” deaths include those killed during our initial bombing and invasion and those killed as innocent bystanders by car bombs and ieds.

Enough of the righteous indignation.
The Iraqis police and “army” haven’t borne the brunt of the insurgent’s attacks, the general population has.

And they haven’t done it fighting for their freedom.

Posted by: Rocky at November 11, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #194663

Rocky,

The Army is not trained yet, and new Iraqi police were only created about two years ago!

What is your idea of the Iraqis fighting for themselves? Perhaps, going up against the Syrian and Iranian backed insurgents with pitchforks and machetes?

Now, that’s a realistic plan for signifying their readiness for our withdrawal!!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 11, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #194676

JD,

“What is your idea of the Iraqis fighting for themselves? Perhaps, going up against the Syrian and Iranian backed insurgents with pitchforks and machetes?”

If necessary, absolutely. That is what fighting, and dying for your own Democracy is all about.
We were not welcomed into Iraq with flowers, we were welcomed with a raised eyebrow and scepticism.

The Iraqi army is new because we disbanded the old one.

Where are all the new volunteers?
Why aren’t the ranks of this “new” wizz-bang Iraqi army, and police force swelling to overflowing with more recruits than we could possibly handle?

The insurgents have to hide somewhere, why aren’t they being turned in by the thousands by all these newly patriotic, Democracy loving, Iraqis?

I said it before, a blue thumb doesn’t make Iraq a Democracy.

Posted by: Rocky at November 11, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #194723

JD, no, they can fight the Syrians and Iranians with the half million arms the U.S. has lost track of in Iraq. Arms we shipped over there, which have now disappeared, very probably into the population at large. Nice going. And we are pulling the Inspector General out of Iraq, why?

Could it be so there is no official investigation or accounting for how miserably our involvement there has been mismanaged and 10’s of billions wasted and lost. There was a time when U.S. squad and platoon leaders were handing out cash in the millions to Iraqis. How much of that cash is now funding the insurgency we are trying to put down?

Ooops! No inspector general to answer that question either.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #194761

Rocky,

So, you actually want the Iraqis to go up against Iranians and Syrians with AK-47s, 50 caliber assault machine guns, and mortar rounds with pitchforks and machetes. Is that the Democratic plan? Sounds like a blood bath to me! At least Pres. Bush is trying to protect the Iraqi people.

The Iraqis have not lined up for those jobs because they have always feared the American people would cut and run leaving them defenseless. Now, we are making their dreams come true in the worst way!! We can not win the trust of the Iraqi people because the Dems and the American Press Corps has undermined it from the beginning. Even I would not have the bravery necessary to sign up for an Army that was going to be abandoned by the end of 2007, like the Dems are proposing!!!

David,

Why are you harping on pulling the Inspector General out of Iraq? I have not seen or heard of this, but if we’re going to pull all our troops out, why not start with Federal officials like the Inspector General? It sounds like the withdrawal has begun!!

Posted by: JD at November 12, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #194778

JD,

Your post is so riddled with fallacies, I don’t know where to start.
You don’t get it, and I doubt anyone can teach you.

Repeat after me, Rocky is not a Democrat.

I don’t know what the Democrat’s plan for Iraq is, and frankly I don’t much care, because any plan has got to be better than the lack of plan that has been taking place in Iraq.

Next;
Do you understand the meaning of the word metaphor?

Did you know that there are probably more guns in the Middle East than there are here in America?
Did you know that a gun is a symbol of manliness to most males in the Middle East?

By all means let’s use guns.

But, if I want Democracy, and someone wants to take away my chance to have it, and if pitchforks and machetes is all I have to fight against those that want to take it from me, then yes, that is what I would use.

I have one last question.

Would you give up your life so that your children could live in a Democracy?
That is what this boils down to.

And if your answer is no, then I am just wasting my time.

Posted by: Rocky at November 12, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #194786

Rocky,

I understood your point perfectly, and the answer to your last question is: I would protect my families’ lives with anything, even my own bare hands!!!

But, I have grown up in a Democracy all my life. The Iraqi people have never known the sweetness of freedom, and have no forefathers of freedom as great examples.

All they have is us, like it or not! Today they are the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns, etc. of their societal history. Even after two hundred years of Democracy, we still have people in this country who believe:

1.) Conservative (primarely in Democratic government)
2.) Liberal (primarily in socialistic government)
3.) Somewhere in between (depending upon which way the wind blows)

Can you blame many Iraqis for sitting the fence and taking a wait and see attitude when so many in America still do? I can’t, especially when so many, and now, what appears to be a slim majority of Americans want to abandon Iraq to the terrorists altogether.

The War against Osama bin Laden escalated when we Americans were chosen over his elites to protect Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. He tried to keep the (infidels, that’s us) from being allowed to protect Kuwait because he thought that job should be given to the chosen of Allah. The West and allies of the West damaged his incredible ego! He is at War with us trying to prove that he is stronger than us. Stepping down before our job is finished will prove to the Middle East that bin Laden is right. If Americans can not prove that they can protect, and fight alongside their new Democratic allies in the Middle East, the cause is lost, not just for Iraq, but also for Israel. We can not give up this War!

You also state that there are probably more guns in the Middle East than there are in America. If there are not right now, there will be once MO Democrat Claire McCaskill gets to the Senate!!!!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 12, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #194795

JD,

“The Iraqi people have never known the sweetness of freedom, and have no forefathers of freedom as great examples.”

Before the Revolutionary War, we had none either.

The bigger question is about leadership.

We had a revolution to gain our freedom, they received it as a gift from us, and as a result they have had no leaders in their “revolutionary” Democratic cause.
They can’t know for sure if their leaders are puppets of the United States, or even if they truly represent what is in Iraq’s best interest, and I don’t blame them.

A civil war may ultimately be what’s best for Iraq. At least they will know what their leaders stand for.
One thing for sure, we don’t want to be involved in their civil war, and we definitely don’t want to appear to be taking sides in any event.
It’s their country, not ours.
They need their own self determination.

We need to pull back to whatever bases we have built in the region, and let them figure out what they truly want.

Once that is accomplished, they need to know we will help any way we can, but again, it is up to them to ask for that help.

Posted by: Rocky at November 12, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #194798

Rocky,

Your point is well taken, but my point goes hand in hand with it. The International Press, American Press, and the Democratic Party has systematically characterized the United States as the enemy of the Iraqi people, and all those in the Middle East. We are the enemies of those who choose to allign themselves with the terrorists. There is a difference. This is the same message that the terrorists are using. Yes, the leadership does have to prove that they are not puppets of the U.S.! The latest example was the lifting of roadblocks set up by the American forces. However, this was defined by the Press as Iraqi defiance, rather than independent leadership, as in Bush is even hated by the Iraqis, which is not true!!

As for winning the Revolutionary War:
Do you really think we could have won had the French not helped to destroy the English Navy which was the greatest force on Earth at that time? We owe a great deal to the French and other nations who helped us out, as do they toward us, for WWII. It may be hypothetical, but what would have happened if they had chosen to pull back and let us fight it out?

We also created our first form of Democracy which had very little power given to the Federal Government at all. The states ruled themselves independently. This was after we had won. We did not in two years all of a sudden get everything right. That is totally unreasonable for anyone to hope for in Iraq. It took us thirty years to come up with a system in which the State Governments and Federal Government acted in cooperation with one another, and even then they continually questioned each’s authority in court along the way, as they do today. Democracy is complicated and takes a lot of time. We have to be there to give them that time!

Posted by: JD at November 12, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #194809

JD,

“Do you really think we could have won had the French not helped to destroy the English Navy which was the greatest force on Earth at that time?”

Just to pick nits.

The French navy didn’t “destroy” the British navy. The battle of the Chesapeake was actually a draw, but because the French were able to stop the re-supply of Cornwallis, which led to his surrender at Yorktown, it was considered a victory.

The real help the French supplied was Lafayette.

That aside, We had the will to form a new Democracy where none had been before. I can’t say whether the Iraqis have that same will.

Posted by: Rocky at November 12, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #194814

Rocky,

I am taking it that you agreed with me about the French help we received which created the victory leading to our independence. I am also taking it that you agree that it probably would not have happened without them.

We can look back and say though the French may not allign with us now, at least we were blessed in the past with their allegiance.

Sadly, if we pull out of Iraq, leaving them on their own, and this thing fails, what will we be in their eyes? Does Benedict Arnold ring a bell?

You say, you can not say whether the Iraqis have the will to form a new democracy.

The positive person, like G.W. Bush gives them the benefit of the doubt. Generally, if people are given the choice, they will choose freedom. It is the Conservative way.
The negative person, like the Democrats, will expect the worst in people. It is the Liberal way!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 13, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #194820

JD said:

“Liberal ( primarily a socialist goevernment)”

What a crock. That’s nothing but polemics. I am a liberal and do not believe in socialist government. To state that must mean you are either a complete idiot or a phony polemic.

Posted by: gergle at November 13, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #194839

JD,

“I am taking it that you agreed with me about the French help we received which created the victory leading to our independence. I am also taking it that you agree that it probably would not have happened without them.”

France’s goal aligning with America weren’t entirely altruistic. France wanted England out of North America.

Unlike the Iraqis, we had already started our revolution against England before the French joined in.

This is entirely my point about wanting Democracy bad enough to fight and die for it. America was willing to go it alone, if necessary, to gain it’s independence from the British Crown, where do you see that in the Iraqis?

“The positive person, like G.W. Bush gives them the benefit of the doubt. Generally, if people are given the choice, they will choose freedom. It is the Conservative way.
The negative person, like the Democrats, will expect the worst in people. It is the Liberal way!”

That is such crap!

We wouldn’t be in Iraq if we didn’t need the oil that was there.

That, is the conservative way.

Posted by: Rocky at November 13, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #194860

JD,

To put a finer point on it.
We were given many reasons for our adventure into Iraq.
If there were 10 reasons, installing a Democracy there was #10, and it doesn’t take a Democrat to see that.

Posted by: Rocky at November 13, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #194866

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Rocky,

Not so!
We went into Iraq for regime change. I think the Democrats call this “a new direction”. We accomplished this when we ousted Saddam. He is now a convicted criminal waiting for his death. That was the #1 reason we went in! If you think Bush had in mind turning Iraq over to terrorists, you are sadly mistaken. Our objective was to create “a free Iraq”. Free is interpreted “a Democracy” in my view. That is still our #1 objective.

You are right! France did have ulterior motives for helping us with our Revolution. Nonetheless, if France had ulterior motives, particularly trade and reaping our resources, the end result is still the same; a Democracy was born! Now, if you want to believe that America has ulterior motives, go ahead! But, the end result could still be the same; qa Democracy is born! Ulterior motives, or not, can you make the argument that France was wrong in their actions?00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Posted by: JD at November 13, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #194872

JD,

France wasn’t wrong to step in because France was asked to help, and they signed a treaty to do so.
There was already a revolution happening in this country before France entered onto the fray.

In Iraq we took it upon ourselves to thrust Democracy onto the Iraqi people.
They didn’t start their own revolution, we started it, AND ended it for them, and now, thanks to America, Iraq is ground zero for every terrorist on the planet.

They must really love us for that.

As for reasons for going to Iraq.

These were as they were stated, and the reasons changed constantly as attempts to justify invading played out.

Reason #1 was WMDs,

Reason #2 was because, as we were told, Saddam had something to do with Sept, 11th.

Reason #3 Saddam supported terrorism and had ties to Al Qaeda.

Do I need to go on?

Let’s go back to something you said earlier.

“The Iraqis have not lined up for those jobs because they have always feared the American people would cut and run leaving them defenseless. Now, we are making their dreams come true in the worst way!! We can not win the trust of the Iraqi people because the Dems and the American Press Corps has undermined it from the beginning.”

Baloney!

You can’t possibly believe that.

The Iraqis are now free after decades of oppressive rule, and you would lead me to believe they are wienies, and that they are incapable of anything without George Bush and the American Military to hold their hands.

Come on.

Posted by: Rocky at November 13, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #194891

Rocky,

Come on now, we have had regime change in Iraq at the top of our list since we left Kuwait. Again, I ask you to read the transcripts of Pres. Clinton’s State of the Union Addresses. They are readily available. Of course we believed, Bush believed, Clinton believed, and the rest of the free world believed that Saddam had WMD’s in Iraq. It is also well-known that Saddam had terrorist training camps within Iraq, and said from his own mouth that he would support any suicidal terrorist with finances to their families for striking our allies. Would you really rather have Saddam back in power? Saddam was as much a terrorist as Osama bin Laden, the only difference is he had oil and Iraqi financial resources. Whether he was connected to 9/11 is not the issue. We were not fighting for revenge for 9/11! Rather, 9/11 woke (some) of us up to the need to direct our resources at those who supported terror. Saddam was already at the top of Clinton’s list when Bush came into office. Afghanistan’s Taliban was also a known supporter of terrorists. We have defeated both of those enemies, and continue the War on Terror with others now coming out of the woodwork. Let the roaches keep crawling out from their hiding places! George, get the can of RAID!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 13, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #194908

Adrienne-

“If you’re talking about this blog, intelligent, rational and reasonable conservatives (like Kevin23, for example) would personally always be welcome at my own table.”

Thank you. Ditto.

Here is what I find very strange. I have always been very socially libertarian and economically conservative. In theory, I should be completely at odds with liberals such as yourself and much more at home around traditional conservatives. However, I have found that my priorities, as far as what issues (not stances on the issues) are important to me, are very similar to those of my liberal friends and very different from those of my conservative friends.

Whereas I have found generally that “conservatives” tend to think about their own life and then relate that to the big picture (ex. every marriage must look like mine), I find that most “liberals” do the opposite, as do I. I have never felt comfortable enough in my life to actually believe that I know everything about anything. So I tend to be much more inclined to say “to each their own” and let life sort it out. Others, like possibly yourself, try very hard to provide guarantees to those who come after you. The goal is advancement, and government action can act like a foothold.

I do not often share the optimism about the role of government, but we do share the same genuine concerns. We both want the next generation to have more hope and opportunity than we had no matter what lifestyle they choose. I find that, especially when religion is heavily involved, people that identify themselves as “conservative” tend to want the next generation to be able to live the same lifestyle, even if it means government intervention (ex. to prevent the term “marriage” from evolving with the times).

Anyway, I’m glad that democrats took back congress. Maybe they can do some good by bringing up the standard of living for those who most need it and giving young people better college funding options. I just hope they don’t get carried away with the “fairness” agenda and start making serious issues like health care reform and social security even more difficult to solve by drawing unnecessary lines in the sand. But if I were you, I’d probably be most excited about issueing some subpoenas in January, right?

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 13, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #194930

JD,

“Come on now, we have had regime change in Iraq at the top of our list since we left Kuwait. Again, I ask you to read the transcripts of Pres. Clinton’s State of the Union Addresses.”

But it wasn’t the reason we were given.

Hell, everybody agreed Saddam is/was a bad man, but if humanitarian reasons were why we into Iraq, what about Darfur?

“We have defeated both of those enemies, and continue the War on Terror with others now coming out of the woodwork.”

Have you looked into what’s happening in Afghanistan lately?

You seem to have bought into Limbaugh’s baloney.

Posted by: Rocky at November 13, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #194933

Kevin 23,

Conservatives tend to think about their own life and then relate that to the big picture because this is experience, traditional values that have transcended generations. Liberals do not because they are not value oriented. They believe exactly as you stated, “to each his own”. However, on certain issues, they try to cram unacceptable lifestyles- unacceptable based upon generations of tradition and nature. You say they do not try to relate their own experience to the big picture, and yet, though certain liberal lifestyle issues are opposed by 70% - 80% of the population, when they don’t get what they want, they attempt to impose their views upon all the rest of us who want to hold to accepted tradition, primarily through the courts rather than legislatively. Your analysis does not wash!

You “imply” that because Conservatives hold to tradition they are somehow bigoted. Conservatives, at least those whom I know, also hold very dear to religious teaching, especially those of Christianity. You say that you have never felt comfortable enough with your life that you actually know everything about anything. That is true no one can know everything about anything, however, some do have experience enough and knowledge enough to know and believe that some things are right and wrong. To say you do not know enough to come to a conclusion means you have not yet decided what is right and wrong. It is a very dangerous game to play to go through life not seeking what is right and what is wrong. Because with this knowledge comes great wisdom. Also, with this knowledge comes great responsibility to share it. Others believe they know enough to make a conclusion. That does not make them a bigot.

JD

Posted by: JD at November 13, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #194949

JD-

Thanks for the sermon. You make A LOT of assumptions in that post, but the key thing is that you somehow think I don’t have a set of moral codes that is nearly identical to your own. That’s what I choose for my life. We may differ on a few things, but we’re 99% the same. That is called socialization. I care for that code just as deeply as you do yours because it is the glue that holds our world together. It is really condescending to presume to know that religion holds a monopoly over any human feeling. And any rational person (and every parent) knows that right and wrong are circumstantial.

Life is fluid, and your arrogantly static view honestly scares me because it gives you a grand excuse to get up on a high horse and look down on people who are just being honest.

And as for the rest of your post, I find it funny that you start out addressing my post, but then you say “However, …” And it goes into a blind tirade about your idea of liberalism equating to the imposing of values upon people. So I don’t see how that is for me to comment on. Honestly, its just sort of nuts.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 14, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #195116

NEW POLL OUT!!!!!

- ONLY 29% OF AMERICANS POLLED THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ANY PLAN FOR IRAQ

JD

Posted by: JD at November 15, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #195164

Thanks JD-

no plan v. wrong plan

What incredible insight. Too bad its been common knowledge for some time now. Not quite worthy of an ALL CAPS exclaimation, I’m afraid.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 15, 2006 12:55 PM
Post a comment