Dems Divided on Iraq, Other Things Too

When it is all said & done, much more is said than done. Dems are relearning the lesson that it is easier to criticize the plans of others than to unveil your own. Since their electoral victory in November they are in the uncomfortable position of having to put up or shut up. When you are out of power, you can just demand, “an end to the war.” When you have responsibility, you have to ask how and when. Now that we have divided government, we also have divided Democrats.

The loony left wing of that party is mightily disappointed. They really seemed to have believed some of their own rhetoric about ending the war and the more out of touch among them expected Democratic action soon after the election.

President Bush, ironically, is strengthened. Leading Democrats no longer can find refuge in the zero option. Every criticism can now be reasonably met with the question, "so what would you suggest and what will you vote for?" Dems now have responsibilty and many are taking that responsibility seriously. (Kudos to them, but be ready for incoming flack from left field.)

This demonstrates a strength of divided government. The Democrats are now partners (accomplices?) in what the president does. Their bluff has been called. Let’s see what cards they are holding and if they are willing to play them.

President Bush will address the nation about Iraq at 9:00 this evening. Dems will need to listen carefully because they will not be able the sit on the fence. Cindy Sheehan and moveon.org better get used to the chasing Democrats. That will be the wildest game in these parts.

Posted by Jack at January 10, 2007 5:49 PM
Comments
Comment #202398

Jack,

All this proves is that there is no significant difference between Repubs and Dems.

Both create more problems than they solve.

That is why our problems grow in number and severity.

Bush doesn’t know anything but “stay the course” no matter how many people have to die. The unnecessary invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake (i.e. no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)), and worsened by many subsequent blunders, a lack of understanding of the region that could have easily been obtained from the CIA World Fact Book years before the invasion, an unwillingness to listen to advice, trying to fight a war on-the-cheap, and making military decisions for political reasons, which is a misuse of the military.

Our U.S. troops deserve much better.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #202399

Jack,

I agree! It is going to be a lot harder for Dems to criticize the President after they are forced to fund his ideas, or take their chances on being blamed for the failure by cutting its funding.

Their best option is to give the President what he wants, let him oversee it, and hope it fails on its own. Not much of an option, but the best they’ve got! They can then continue to portray him as Hitler and the like, forcing them to bloody their hands in it as well.

Nonetheless, their side of the fence will be pretty darn ticked!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 10, 2007 6:18 PM
Comment #202401
This demonstrates a strength of divided government.
I think you have it right with this line, though I’m not so sure I buy in to your interpretation of what “Dems Divided” actually means. It sounds like you feel as if the Dems are getting a taste of what it means to be in power, and that somehow their division on what to do with Iraq evidences hypocrisy between what they’ve said in the past and what they’re saying now. If this is your position, I would disagree. I think your quote listed above is much more fitting…the strength of our democracy lies within its divisiveness. When I see democrats divided on the best course of action in Iraq, I see the hope of discussion, debate, and thoughtful solutions. Without division or dissent, perspectives remain narrow and restricted. That is one reason I can (usually) stomach some of the strange opinions I see posted on the boards from time to time. Even fanatical, fringe opinions serve a function of setting boundaries and expanding possibilities. So others may criticize the division of the democrats on Iraq options if they want; I see it as a refreshing opportunity to broaden our perspectives via debate and discussion. I think if we’d have had the same approach in the 109th Congress, things might look a bit different than they do right now. Posted by: Dr. D at January 10, 2007 6:25 PM
Comment #202405

Dr. D,

I think the ironic thing about Dems being divided about Iraq is that Pelosi seems to be divided with herself.

She was asked by Tim Russert over the summer what she would do to help the situation in Iraq and she answered that she would send more troops on the ground. Now, that Bush may be considering that, she is vehemently criticizing and threatening to withhold funds. Which Nancy Pelosi do you agree with?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 10, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #202410

The main thing that we should all realize from all of this is that Congress is dysfunctional, and can no longer solve problems; only create them.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #202414

Jack,
You are willfully misunderstanding the situation among Democrats. Most favor withdrawal in one form or another, just as the majority of the American people favor withdrawal in a year or less.

The division involves the question of how Congress can go about intervening and stopping a war. Some Democrats feel the Legislative Branch can stop it by cutting off funds, a precendent established in the early 70s in Vietnam. Others feel it would be either constitutionally unsound, or politically inappropriate, to trump the decisions made by a CINC.

Personally, I agree with Hoyer. A legislature cannot run a war, because decision by committee is an ineffective apex for a pyrimidal chain of command. Ultimately, it is the call of the CINC.

Others, such as Kennedy, feel the Legislative Branch has the power to overrule the Executive Branch in cases such as this.

Two other observations:
1) It will be Republican politicians who finally force Bush to withdraw from Iraq, or resign. They will not risk going into the 2008 election with Iraq hanging over their heads. It would mean a Democratic President, and a supermajority in the House and Senate for DECADES to come.

Bush knows this. My biggest concern is that he will throw the dice yet again, and start a new war with Syria and Iraq.

2) You do realize we are about to go to war with the Sadrists, right? We are fighting the nationalist Sunni insurgents and the nationalist Shia Sadrists. We are siding with the Iranian allied SCIRI & Dawa parties against them. The Sadrists would probably win elections if they were held today.

If we clear out neighborhoods of their militias, we will have to occupy every one that is cleared. If we kill the militias, and leave, other Death Squads will move into the defenseless neighborhoods.

And if anyone thinks we have enough troops to clear and hold…

So, anyway, a hell of a lot of people are about to die. Thanks, Republicans. Heckuva job.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2007 7:15 PM
Comment #202415

It’s a “wait and see” strategy for both parties at this point. Dems are looking to the upcoming hearings to fan the flames of passion one way or another, then they’ll take the least offensive position. That’s what they do. Republicans are in a bind…whether to support Bush or try to look like an independent thinker. But to critisize democrats for not having a stance before they can even use supeana power to gather information is really ambitious. Maybe, just maybe, the dems are actually sticking to their “plan” this time around…to slowly wear down and erode, through hearings and domestic policy debates, the credibility of the president’s positions. I think it smart for any far-sighted republican to start “putting up or shutting up” … otherwise we’ll be stuck with McCain as the only viable candidate in 2008. I’d like to see some republican dissention solely because, as Dr. D stated, it would mean an actual debate was going on, and possibly even some rmeaningful information gathering and brainstorming sessions.

Its sad, but I’d settle for a congress that performed its constitutional role…one way or another. This president is on an island, and the pressure is not on dems to do anything but keep disseminating the truth about the past and current blunders going on. The pressure is on the president to preserve a legacy. And based on the statements I heard today from some of the congressional leaders who met with Bush earlier, everyone is well aware of that fact.

There are many who theorize about how stong or weak democrats can be (a good one from today: http://www.slate.com/id/2157390/), but I really do believe that, in politics today, slow and steady wins the race. There is nothing conclusive so far in the actions of dems that suggests they are doing anything but what they’ve meant to do for some time. ONLY time will tell what they will do or what they will find, and how the situation will change…thus, the mellow and low key tone so far.

JD- You really do make an effort, but the motives are far too transparent.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 10, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #202420

phx8-

I agree with your observations. Don’t you find it frustrating that McCain, the supposed republican savoir in 2008 with more to lose than anyone, would risk his reputation to say that we needed more troops and more traditional “clear, hold, and build” efforts being made? I really don’t know if he believes he’s right or not, but I find it damn puzzling that someone so seemingly calculating can advocate exactly what almost every expert considers to be “too little too late”.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 10, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #202421

Kevin this is an outstanding assessment of liberal hypocrisy. I couldn’t have said it better myself.Kevin as a new blog writer,what steps are needed to take to underline your source and direct the reader to the website?

Posted by: kaida at January 10, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #202422

Kevin23,
McCain clamored for “boots on the ground” in Yugoslavia. Clinton opted for an air war, which achieved US foreign policy goals with a single US combat casualty. This is not the first time McCain has fallen back upon that belief.

And I agree with your earlier comment. Investigations and oversight will ratchet up the pressure on the Bush administration more effectively than anything else. As I said before, Republicans will be the ones who finally pull the plug, and for good reason.

By the way, it is unscientific of course, but take a look at the AOL poll linked below, rating Bush on Iraq:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/president-wants-21500-more-troops-in/20070110124909990001

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #202426


Kevin23: There is a video of McCain at TPM and at You Tube in which he is saying that the American people did not vote against the war because if they had, Liberman would not have won in Connecticut. Apparent he didn’t see any of Liberman’s adds saying vote for me because of what I have done for the people, don’t vote against me because of my position on Iraq. McCain didn’t take a look at the exit polls either.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2007 8:27 PM
Comment #202428

Kaida-

“what steps are needed to take to underline your source and direct the reader to the website?”

The only source for my opinion is me. Obviously if I had my own site, I wouldn’t need to post here. But I appreciate the support. But really, I’m not trying to point out hypocrisy…just trying to be honest without assuming too much.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 10, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #202429

If there has been one thing the republicans have been able to do consistently over the last six years, it is to speak with a single voice, guided by a single list of talking point phrases (cut and run, flip-flop, tax and spend, victory is the only option, support the troops, ad nausium )
A cohesive, unified republican party has done much for itself over this time, but how has the country benefited?

Posted by: charles ross at January 10, 2007 8:36 PM
Comment #202431

phx8
Whatever the reasons for their division, the Dems are now in the position to do something or not. Their time of blaming Republicans is finished. They may find this less pleasant to be on the inside.

Posted by: Jack at January 10, 2007 8:49 PM
Comment #202432

JD,

I think the ironic thing about Dems being divided about Iraq is that Pelosi seems to be divided with herself.

She was asked by Tim Russert over the summer what she would do to help the situation in Iraq and she answered that she would send more troops on the ground. Now, that Bush may be considering that, she is vehemently criticizing and threatening to withhold funds. Which Nancy Pelosi do you agree with?

I took the liberty of looking up her interview with Tim Russert in May. The full transcript is on MSNBC. My understanding of the interview was that Pelosi was with Murtha in calling for a phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq (read: send troops home). Mr. Russert was challenging her on the issue by pointing out she supported increasing total troops in Iraq when initially interviewed by Russert in 2004. Her argument was that the situation from 2004 to May 2006 had changed markedly, which resulted in her change in stance. Maybe I misread it, but that’s what I saw. So, your statement isn’t exactly accurate (if I’m wrong please correct me).

In the context of her “flip-flop” on Iraq from 2004 to 2006, I’m comfortable with the notion that conflict in Iraq looked much different than it does at present. After all, 2004 is well prior to the sectarian bombing of the mosque that triggered a significant upsurge in violence. I think the sectarian killings have really changed the landscape of the conflict. As such, it seems reasonable to me for a politician to incorporate information about changes in the nature of the conflict into their decision-making process and come up with a different conclusion. In fact, I find that type of “flip-flopping” to be a good thing. “Staying the course” has it’s place too, but only in the context of understanding potential changes in a fluid, dynamic event such as militay conflict.

So which Pelosi do I support? Whichever Pelosi supports my position. I try to support ideas, not people. I can’t say I supported her desire to increase troops in 2004 as I was hung up on why we went there in the first place back then. Perhaps it would have helped; I’m not sure that it would have. I’ve not read of many (any) occupying force experiencing long-term success in modern history (not that it couldn’t happen), particularly in an Islamic nation.

Having said that, if you’re wanting my personal opinion on Iraq as it stands now, I would champion a phased withdrawal from Iraq with a moderately large contingent of troops in nearby “friendly” countries as a show of force to minimize the chances of the Iraqi conflict from becoming a regional war. We could talk a lot more about why I prefer such an option, but much of my thinking is guided by what I’ve read of Muslim culture and it’s precarious relationship with Western culture. That’s a whole different discussion though. Hope that clarifies my position for you.

Posted by: Dr D at January 10, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #202438

King George spoke this evening (1/10/2007:08PM CST).
As expected, he only knows “stay the course” no matter how many people have to die to prove him right.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #202442

I want to keep my word like the dims. It isn’t lying if you said it with good intentions. Rosie O’Donnell is promoting social ills being a Ronald McDonnell poster child.

I also want a five day work week just like Nancy Pelosi and the dims.

One thing you can count on is a dim keeping their word.

NOT

Posted by: im at January 10, 2007 10:43 PM
Comment #202443

d.a.n -
“King George spoke this evening…”

You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

From your posts in the last 6 months I can only conclude that you want all elected officials in Washington replaced, but only with non-Republicans. That is just being anti-Republican in the end. If you really want to replace all these people, it shouldn’t matter to you which party’s members do the replacing. You should be honest about your real agenda OR be more careful about personal opinions which conflict with your stated goal.

Maybe your goal should be to target the longest-running ones first. Yet I don’t see you attempting that. That is a much more achievable goal than the one you are promoting. Set an achievable goal and maybe more people will jump on your bandwagon.

Posted by: Don at January 10, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #202447


Bush probably would have done alright as president in the 1880’s. He is out of his league in the days of WMD’s.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #202451

Jack,

Bush spoke tonight. I heard nothing new or creative. Stay the course with an additional twenty one thousand troops. Nothing about diplomacy, unilateralism, or new stategies. Just more of the same only on a larger scale. It seems he is hoping for a miracle.

Sorry to burst your bubble Jack. This one lies with George and the last legislature plain and simple. All the dems have to do is propose alternative measures to Bush’s foolish ways. If he listens, great.(I am not holding my breath on the latter) If he doesn’t he only hurts himself and his party. And it appears his party is rapidly abandoning him. In the end Bush has the final say and will get all the blame.

The american people are not as naive as you seem to think Jack. They will not easily forget who took us there. Or the rather shady circumstances which precipitated our entrance into this conflict.

My guess is that the dems will propose strategic timetables for redeployment. Bush will pay them no mind until it is obvious to the republican party that an exit may be their only saving grace in lieu of the 09 elections. Bush will have a failed legacy and the republican party will pay dearly for a long time. It looks to me like the dems may be sitting pretty for the time being.

Posted by: ILdem at January 10, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #202453

A couple of… weird… things about the Bush speech tonight.

1) Why is Bush concerned about Syria and Iran? Neither supports Al Qaida. Neither supports Wahabbi fundamentalist jihadists. Syria supports the secular Baathist insurgents. But for anyone with a memory, Saddam Hussein delegated control of a paramilitary group, the Fedayeen, to one of his sons, and placed the Fedayeen in every town, with large amounts of ammo. The idea was to fight town by town, while simultaneously keeping the Shias under control. No one knew it at the time, but this provided the perfect seed for insurgency. The insurgents are the least of our problems. They have plenty of firepower, with or without Syrian support.

Our problem is with the “foreign jihadists,” the suicide bombers, the true terrorists. The last time any statistics appeared, the majority of these people came from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the Iranians back SCIRI & Dawa, the parties currently in control of the Iraqi government. The Iranians certainly do not support Al Qaida or terrorist attacks targeting Shias.

So why does Bush pretend Al Qaida in Iraq is the same as Al Qaida? Or that either group would ever be able to gain control of Iraq and its oil revenues, or turn Iraq into some sort of terrorist haven?

Syria and Iran are potential allies in quelling the violence. Both stand to gain from a pacified Iraq. Instead, Bush continues throwing out provacative, belligerent language, and intentionally confusing the American people about the nature of this conflict.

2) Why on earth does Bush want to deploy Patriot batteries to the Middle East?

The implications are very disturbing.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2007 11:40 PM
Comment #202454

Jack,

It is the Republicans who are divided, not the Democrats.

The Democrats, with a few exceptions, want a fairly speedy withdrawal. They will do everything within their constitutional power to bring this about. Democrats, in brief, have a plan. The plan is to leave. Buh-bye.

It is the Republicans who are really divided. Bush wants to not only stay in Iraq but escalate the current troop levels. Many Republicans in Congress are already on record against him.

Whatever the reasons for their division, the Dems are now in the position to do something or not. Their time of blaming Republicans is finished. They may find this less pleasant to be on the inside.

When it comes to Iraq, sure they can keep blaming Bush. History will remember it is a disasterous war started by Bush and the Republicans. Enjoy that legacy, guys.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 10, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #202457

Jack,

The NYT article you cite does indeed say that Democrats are “divided”, but only about political and legal tactics for opposing Bush. The Democrats are actually united in substance about the war itself.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 10, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #202458

ILdem,
Agree 100%. I think Jack is grasping at straws here because everybody (except a small percentage) is “mightily disappointed” by the way the loony rightwingers Bush/Cheney and the Neocons have been purposely trying to run this country straight over the cliff.

Thank goodness House Speaker Pelosi’s response to Bush’s address shows she’s not only digging in her heels, but is reaching for the grapling hook:
Escalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 12:04 AM
Comment #202461

Jack,

Are you freakin’ kidding me? You and the NYT have decided all this by the 10th day of January? Wow! You can’t change the world in 10 days, Jack. Especially, the world the Dems inherited from the Cons.

The loony left wing of that party is mightily disappointed. They really seemed to have believed some of their own rhetoric about ending the war and the more out of touch among them expected Democratic action soon after the election.

Ok, if they really expected this war to be over by the 10th day of January, then you’re right, they are loony.

Posted by: JayJay at January 11, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #202465

phx8,
I read an article yesterday on the libertarian website Anti-War.com that I think you may be very interested in reading. (I also posted it another thread in the blue column, and I think I may post it there again so that everybody has the chance to read it.) It was written by Paul Craig Roberts, staunch Republican and former aide to Reagan: The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?

You wrote:
“The implications are very disturbing.”

Indeed. And towards the end of that article, Roberts tells us what he believes the Neocons are planning to do in the Middle East. Not just very disturbing, but harrowing.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 12:39 AM
Comment #202471
A couple of… weird… things about the Bush speech tonight.

One more thing, did anyone else notice that his fake Texas accent was completely gone? Is he going back to his North East silver spoon roots? Does stress bring his Connecticut heritage and Ivy League sensibilities to the forefront?

Jack, the Republicans are just as divided as the Democrats, from Congressman “Freedom Fries” Jones who believes we should pull out immediately to Senator Smith who doesn’t want to send any more troops to Bush who wants 21,000 troops to McCain who wants 50,000+.

The Democratic consensus is that the cons of staying in Iraq outweigh the pros. Iraq is as good as it’s going to get until Iraqis make things better, there’s no need for more US troops to babysit a civil war and ethnic cleansing. The only question is the exit strategy.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 11, 2007 1:14 AM
Comment #202475

Ooops. Sorry phx8, the link to that article didn’t work. Here it is again:
The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?

AP:
“One more thing, did anyone else notice that his fake Texas accent was completely gone? Is he going back to his North East silver spoon roots? Does stress bring his Connecticut heritage and Ivy League sensibilities to the forefront?”

I noticed this also. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he was ensconced within The Library? Perhaps it brought out that Ivy League je nais se quoi, despite the fact that he probably doesn’t remember much from his college years (too much drinky-drinky), and he’s never done much reading.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 1:36 AM
Comment #202476


I have been reading interviews of people who watched Bush’s speech. Those who oppose the plan are saying no way. Those who are for the plan are praying that it works this time.

Posted by: jlw at January 11, 2007 1:37 AM
Comment #202481

Adrienne,
Good link. The escalation has no practical chance of succeeding. What concerns me is that Bush will escalate in a way no one imagines. Threatened by congressional oversight & investigation, threatened by the impending revolt of Republicans and even the military, he might gamble it all on the chance of generating a “rally round the flag” moment, an insane, compulsive throw of the dice; bomb Iran, bomb North Korea, anything to change the dynamic working against him, and justify his horrendous strategic mistakes by thrusting his miscalcuations into a larger context that makes them seem reasonable, namely World War III.

Posted by: phx8 at January 11, 2007 2:19 AM
Comment #202484

Jack,

This cuts both ways. Many Republicans don’t want to stay in Iraq either. No, it is not easy to exit a debacle, but we’re trying, believe it or not, together. Anyone who’s still thinking of this war in partisan political terms is not with the majority of either party.

Posted by: Max at January 11, 2007 2:58 AM
Comment #202493
Why on earth does Bush want to deploy Patriot batteries to the Middle East?

Maybe Frank Luntz told him he had to use the word “patriot” sometime in his speech…

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 8:19 AM
Comment #202495

«AP:
“One more thing, did anyone else notice that his fake Texas accent was completely gone? Is he going back to his North East silver spoon roots? Does stress bring his Connecticut heritage and Ivy League sensibilities to the forefront?”»

Bush looked like death warmed over…must’ve been tough being off the sauce and that white powder in preparation for his “speech”.

During military games in 1999, it was determined that a US troop level of 400,000 in Iraq wouldn’t prevent major civil war or insurgency…yet Bush wants to send 20,000 more of our kids over there to die to prove his incompetency. Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: Lynne at January 11, 2007 8:50 AM
Comment #202496
Don wrote: d.a.n, You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Pure nonsense.
Laughable in fact, since I have always consistently asserted that MOST (if not all) politicians in BOTH parties of our dysfunctional, Do-Nothing CONGRESS are irresponsible and corrupt.

In fact, if you just read the vast similarities above, you’d know that I favor neither party, and realize the fact that both are about equally irresponsible and corrupt.

Don wrote: d.a.n … From your posts in the last 6 months I can only conclude that you want all elected officials in Washington replaced, but only with non-Republicans. That is just being anti-Republican in the end.

More total nonsense. If you had been paying closer attention or visited my web-site, you’d realize the fact is that I am for replacing ALL irresponsible incumbent politicians of BOTH parties. What’s wrong with that? When I criticize Repubs, I get responses like yours that say I am “anti-Republican”. When I criticize Democrats, I get similar responses that I am “anti-Democrat” or “really pro-Republican”.

What is funny (or sad, actually) is that those claims of favoritism reveal a blinding partisan loyalty and inability to see things the way they really are.

So, Don, your statement is a complete 100% nonsensical non-sequitur and reveals your own blinding partisan loyalty, and dislike of anyone who criticizes your beloved Republican King George (despite the growing justifiable reasons), who is determined to “stay the course” no matter how many people have to die to prove him right. George Bush is incapable of admitting defeat or mistakes, and abandoning his “stay the course” would mean admitting a mistake and that he is the root cause of so much death and destruction … something he stubbornly can never accept … essentially making him dangerous.

Well, sending more troops is too little too late, will only lead to more death and destruction, is a misuse of the military, and George Bush will go down as the worst president in American history for pre-emptively starting an unnecessary war based on false (or trumped-up) intelligence and these other 99 blunders. Our troops deserve better.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #202497

A couple of observations on reactions to the speech:

1) It seems that no one actually believes that the “surge” will work. Even Bush supporters are arguing that we have a moral obligation to try something that is almost doomed to fail, just so we can say we tried. Anyone ready to be the last man to die in Iraq?

2) Bush and other conservatives are now making the argument that threatening withdrawal will force Iraqis to take more responsibility. In other words, they have joined the ranks of the weak, unpatriotic “surrender monkeys”. Are they going to apologize for trashing liberals and Democrats who have made the same argument for years? That was a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 9:03 AM
Comment #202510

phx8,
As I just wrote in David’s ‘Constitutional Crisis’ thread, there is one thing that could happen before it comes to that. Congress, in a bi-partisan fashion could bring articles of impeachment against the president and vice president. This would actually have the power to rehabilitate the GOP in the eyes of the public, since it is obvious that Bush no longer cares for anything but trying to save his own reputation, and do the bidding of a slim segment of Neocons.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 10:32 AM
Comment #202512

Adrienne

Yes. Bring that on too. If Dems believe what they say, they have a duty to do that. It is time to put up of shut up. It is time to show the cards. The time for sniping and back biting is over for the Dems. It is up to them.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 10:44 AM
Comment #202513

January 10, 2007. The Moron-in-Chief skipped the lame duck phase of Dick Cheney’s presidency, and went directly to the dead duck phase.

Here’s a koan for ya’ll—what’s the sound of a dead duck quacking?

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 11, 2007 10:44 AM
Comment #202520

Jack-

“It is time to show the cards. The time for sniping and back biting is over for the Dems. It is up to them.”

Really? Because I thought you’ve been arguing for years that Bush was decider in chief. Suddenly because dems take the house the role and responsibility of the executive are completely alleviated? I think the democrat approach of digging up info and eroding away Bush’s credibility is a far superior plan than jumping to the most extreme conclusion possible on day 2.

It just goes to show everyone in here just how much thought goes into your comments that aren’t motivated solely by partisanship. It doesn’t make you a non-republican to admit that dems are making republicans, namely the president, look bad. Republicans have a much bigger problem than do democrats in the next few years. Most notably when they send Bush a spending package with limits built in, and he is faced with the decision to veto it or not…the tables have indeed turned.

Yet somehow, Jack, you manage to miss all this? Gee, what a surprise. Par for the course.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #202536

Tim Crow,

“What’s the sound of a dead duck quacking?”

About the same sound of a crow cawing!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 11, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #202538

Regarding things that just make you shake your head in disbelief.

I can’t help but shake my head incredulously when Bush (and other politicians) say: “I am responsible.”

What a big [explicative] joke !

So, what does that mean ?

A cut in salary ?

Perhaps he should be impeached.

But, there’s also a lot of other worthless, irresponsible, dead-weight in the Do-Nothing Congress that also should to be ousted (in BOTH parties).

While both parties go at each other, and lure voters into the circular, divisive, distracting partisan warfare, the nation continues its steady decline.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 11:52 AM
Comment #202542
Jack wrote: Now that we have divided government, we also have divided Democrats.

Divided Democrats?

Boy, is that like the pot calling the kettle black ?

What we have is not only divided Dems, or Repubs, or government, but divided voters too.

Why? Because voters have been lured into the powerfully distracting, circular, divisive, destructive, and time-wasting partisan warfare that most politicians love to fuel, and too many voters love to wallow in.

But don’t worry … it will diminish eventually … when it becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 11:59 AM
Comment #202545

Dr. D,

My point was that it didn’t matter what the President chose to do , Pelosi and the Dems would be against it! The Democratic Party has become nothing more than political hacks. They have done this with every issue related to the War on Terror, including the issues which degraded our troops and made it more difficult for them to do their jobs. Even if the Presidents plan succeeds, they will not give him credit, but rather Pelosi will say, “See, I told you back in 2004 - 2006, that we needed more troops in Iraq to stop the violence”. That’s just the way the Democratic Party works these days. Most of the posts here from the left say that the Democratic Party is not divided; that they all agree to a pull out in Iraq. Well, if that’s the case why were they so fervently offended when Republicans started interpreting their message as “cut and run”? Why did they change their tune to redeployment during the election just as your post mentions redeployment to a friendlier country close by. Are you talking about Israel? The problem I have always had with the left is that they need to learn to say what they mean and mean what they say. This wishy washy play as you go gives them the appearance of being the Party of “shift and deceive”. I believe that is how the majority of people view the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton, and more recently, John Kerry were the masters of this and when Republicans pointed it out, the Dems seemed to get wedgies in their britches about it.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 11, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #202552

JD-

You really seem to care about hypocracy of democratic politicians. “Spot the hypocrite” an EXTREMELY easy game to play for BOTH sides. Ask D.A.N. if you need elaboration. The only problem is that these are real debates about real policies that have real effects on you and I. We should always strive for more from both sides, and stop engaging in worthless debates that produce nothing of value even in the best instances (like who is the biggest liar).

Life is not static. It constantly changes. Thus, it is absolutely necessary for responsible people to change as well. Call it “finger to the wind” politics if you like, but BOTH parties are guilty as hell, and BOTH parties will continue to do this because in the end, we live in a democracy where popularity is more important than even being correct.

Do you really advocate consistency checks at every turn? Or would you rather keep your eyes on the ball and do what’s best based upon the totality of the ever-evolving circumstances? One is prudent and involves realism, and the other is short-sighted and relates only to an ideological belief.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #202557

“But don’t worry …”

I’m not.

“it will diminish eventually …”

The sooner, the better.

“when it becomes too painful.”

I’m ready.

Good post there D.A.N

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #202559

Kevin23,

I don’t care much for hypocrisy except when the hypocrisy of one political party hurts our folks trying to win a war overseas.

What I am saying is let the Democratic Party give even one idea resembling a solution to this problem we are in. As Jack states it is easy to criticize when you have no ideas of your own; just go against anything the other Party is for. This exemplifies the Democrats. Why are they so against the President on trying to win this war? By standing up against the President fighting to win this war, they are standing up for the terrorists trying to win this war. Why is that so difficult for you guys to see? Then you get offended when we happen to believe that you are unpatriotic; some would even say traitorous. This typical response of being against everything Bush does to try to win this war is getting pretty old. Your side claims that 70% of Americans are with you on this, but if that is the case, why do you not have a much bigger majority in the House and Senate? Most of the seats you guys took were decided upon by single digit thousands of votes. That is chicken feed in a national election. You guys have no mandate. The voters did not overwhelmingly vote the Democratic Party in to stop an egotistical tyrant as you guys suggest. Your side gives no ideas whatsoever, then pats itself on the backs for stopping the President’s ideas. What leadership!!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 11, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #202561

d.a.n -

1) Sadly you did not answer the real issues of my post, as usual. I was not dealing with whom should be ousted, but with who should replace those who are ousted. Your response only dealt with whom you felt should be ousted. Please respond to the issue I raised, namely, WHO should replace them? (Does this include Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, ????)

2) You also didn’t deal with the second issue having to do with a more limited approach. You have an un-obtainable agenda presently. Why are you not defining it more tightly and working toward eliminating the longest-running legislators?

3) You are wrong: “So, Don, your statement is a complete 100% nonsensical non-sequitur and reveals your own blinding partisan loyalty, and dislike of anyone who criticizes your beloved Republican King George….” Your personal attack on me is totally unwarranted. I was merely stating how YOUR POSTED OPINIONS may actually be hurting your own STATED PURPOSE. If you cannot see that you are incredibly blind.

Posted by: Don at January 11, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #202572

JD-

How about letting them investigate and gather information that has been hidden from them for 6 years now before they create a policy with such sweeping implications? Is that not supposed to be a legitimate, if not the primary role of congress…to get to the bottom of things before committing resources to it?

And your BS arguments about defeatism are really irresponsible. In fact, it borderlines willful stupidity. Lets go over this for the 100th time. The following is NOT valid logic in ANY circumstance, no matter how much you’d like it to be:

If A, then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B

You may love the thought of democrats being even more incompetent than republicans have been, but absent meaningful proof of this, you’re howling at the moon.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #202582

JD-

Who is “you guys”? If you are trying to turn me into a democrat simply to look better in an argument, I’m afraid you are barking up the wrong tree. An argument is better off when it is supported by knowledge and fact. This is where responsible people do a bit of research before they go sticking their nose out. You obviously care more about making SOME point than you do for making a valid point.

To each their own.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #202584

Kevin23,

The Democratic Party has not been silenced at any time in the last six years of total Republican power. Lest we forget, they did just narrowly win the election. But, they won it as whiners; simply opposing everything that the President tried to do while depending on their liberal buddies in the MSM to only show the bad news coming out of Iraq. They never once gave a solid idea regarding Iraq that they did not back away from within a week or a month when Republicans began to question their ideas. Now, it is just more of the same. Only they are in power in both Halls of Congress. Where is Pelosi and Reid coming up with their own, lets say, ten-step plan for victory?
You say the Democrats know nothing about what is going on in Iraq, therefore, they need investigations. No, the Democrats know just as much as Republicans in the House and Senate know, yet their only purpose for investigations is to try to prove Bush lied before going into Iraq. What will that accomplish? Their plans for impeachment? Their investigations will not even delve into the actual war process, or try to conclude with some idea for successful completion. By the time the endless investigations are completed it will be 2008, just before the elections. Oh, now I see their plans!
Again, where is the Democratic Plan other than to smear the President in time of war and Presidential election?
You won’t see one because victory is not their objective. It is abominable in my opinion that the present leaders in the House and Senate wish for the United States to go down in defeat for their own political benefit. By the way that they talk, you can draw no other conclusion. That is my opinion!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 11, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #202609

JD-

OK…that’s your opinion. My opinion is that everything you just wrote, and all the underlying assumptions, are so wrong its scary. When I read your posts, all I can see is vaguely disguised fear-mongering and unjustified hatred. I think a heavy diet of D.A.N.’s posts would do you some good.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #202615
Don wrote: d.a.n 1) Sadly you did not answer the real issues of my post, as usual.
More nonsense. I’ve covered this many times. But, for you, here it is again. All that is required is to NOT keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them. Vote for challengers, rather than empower incumbents to grow increasingly corrupt and powerful. It’s that simple. Keep voting out irresponsible, corrupt incumbent politicians. What’s wrong with that? That’s what we were supposed to be doing all along.
Don wrote: I was not dealing with whom should be ousted, but with who should replace those who are ousted. Your response only dealt with whom you felt should be ousted. Please respond to the issue I raised, namely, WHO should replace them? (Does this include Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, ????)
Don, Had you been paying closer attention or even visited my web-site, you’d know the answer to that question. Who you vote for is not as important as it is that who is elected knows their career will be short if they are irresponsible too. Again, it’s just that simple. Stop repeat offenders; don’t re-elect them. It’s that simple. Unfortunately, it falls on deaf ears because irresponsible incumbent politicians love to fuel the powerfully distracting, circular, divisive, destructive, and time-wasting partisan warfare, and too many voters love to wallow in it.
Don wrote: 2) You also didn’t deal with the second issue having to do with a more limited approach. You have an un-obtainable agenda presently. Why are you not defining it more tightly and working toward eliminating the longest-running legislators?
Don, I’m working toward ousting ALL irresponsible incumbent politicians. There’s no need to cherry pick. Most (if not all) are irresponsible, as evidenced by their dysfunction and inability to adequately address any of the nation’s most pressing problems.
Don wrote: 3) Your personal attack on me is totally unwarranted. I was merely stating how YOUR POSTED OPINIONS may actually be hurting your own STATED PURPOSE. If you cannot see that you are incredibly blind.
Ha! Struck a nerve, eh ? How ironic you should perceive my refutal to your personal attacks as personal attacks upon you? ! ?

Don, it was you that first addressed me first (above), and I merely refuted and critiqued your “statement”.
As for personal attacks, Don, perhaps you should heed your own advice, since it was you, Don, who wrote above:

    d.a.n, You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

    d.a.n, … That is just being anti-Republican in the end.

    d.a.n, … You should be honest about your real agenda OR be more careful about personal opinions which conflict with your stated goal.

So, if you don’t mind me saying so, you are blatantly guilty of what you accuse me of.
If you’d like to know more, visit my site or VOIDnow.org for more information.

Kevin,
Thanks !

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #202650

d.a.n -

“So, if you don’t mind me saying so, you are blatantly guilty of what you accuse me of.”

1) I do mind because it isn’t true. Re-read my statements and you will see that they are observations and questions, not attacks. If I had wanted to attack you personally I would have and you and everyone else would know it.

2) I have no interest in going to your website. I kinda doubt that you’ve left anything out of your postings and I doubt that I’d learn anything more by going there. You constantly bring the issues here, here is where I will respond.

3) And you didn’t respond to my third
statement that your posting of your personal political opinions is damaging to your STATED AGENDA. For example, when you use slurs to refer to the president you aren’t garnering my support for your AGENDA (and by the way, I’m not Republican, but I am an American). So, make up your mind. If you are serious about changing the face of all politics then you shouldn’t take cheap shots. Like: “But then, I’ve never known you to back down from utter stupidity before.”

Posted by: Don at January 11, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #202672
    Don wrote: d.a.n, You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … That is just being anti-Republican in the end.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … You should be honest about your real agenda OR be more careful about personal opinions which conflict with your stated goal.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … If you cannot see that you are incredibly blind.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … If you are serious about changing the face of all politics then you shouldn’t take cheap shots. Like: “But then, I’ve never known you to back down from utter stupidity before.”

Don,
You obviously don’t understand the meaning of “personal attack”.
Here’s a clue.
Anytime the word “you” is used, it’s probably a personal attack.
Despite that, you then have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of attacking you personally?
What a laugh!
Especially, since you, Don, are doing the very thing you accuse others of.

Don wrote: If I had wanted to attack you personally I would have and you and everyone else would know it.
Yes, and they do.
Don wrote: d.a.n, … If you are serious about changing the face of all politics then you shouldn’t take cheap shots. Like: “But then, I’ve never known you to back down from utter stupidity before.”
I have no idea what you are talking about there, since I never said that (i.e. “But then, I’ve never known you to back down from utter stupidity before.”), and don’t know where you got that sentence.

As for your third point, it has no merit (re: not garnering support by calling Bush “King George”).

Garnering any support from blind, brainwashed, main party loyalists is futile. If someone is offended by my referral to George Bush as “King George”, then that’s tough.

Don wrote: I have no interest in going to your website. I kinda doubt that you’ve left anything out of your postings and I doubt that I’d learn anything more by going there.
By all means. Keep those blinders on … otherwise, you might learn something new, eh ?
Don wrote: For example, when you use slurs to refer to the president you aren’t garnering my support for your AGENDA (and by the way, I’m not Republican, but I am an American). So, make up your mind.
Then why get so upset at a reference to George Bush as “King George”, if you really aren’t a Republican. Besides, the nickname “King George” is well deserved, based on his disregard for the Constitution (e.g. spying on Americans, torture (just ask Spc. Sean Baker), Habeas Corpus, secret prisons, starting unnecessary wars based on false/trumped-up intelligence, and these other 99 blunders, etc.). At this very moment, despite the majority of Americans that don’t want an escalation of the war in Iraq, “King George” is determined to do as he wants, no matter how many people have to die to salvage his failed legacy. Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 7:22 PM
Comment #202801

d.a.n.

I thought you were against all incumbents, not just Republicans.

Posted by: Jack at January 12, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #202850
d.a.n. I thought you were against all incumbents, not just Republicans.

No Jack.

Now there ya go again.

I am only against ALL irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Keep the good ones (if there are any).

What’s wrong with that ?

The key word is: irresponsible

For over a year now, no one has yet been able to name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable.

Still, too many party-loyalist voters think they have to pull the party-lever, which is how the two main-party duopoly maintains a 90% re-election rate. Why should they be responsible when they are rewarded for being irresponsible?

But, don’t worry … the voters will figure it out some day. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount, and the voters’ will get their education one way or another.

Now, you know as well as I do that we’ve been over this several times. ; )

What of anything I wrote above indicates any favoritism for any party?

Again, for the record, I belong to NO party.
I used to be Republican up until a few years ago, but the last 6 years were eye-opening to say the least and largely responsible for beginning to look at things a lot differently.

One thing that is abundantly clear is that most in congress (in both parties) are irresponsible, and voters keep rewarding them for it. Neither party is really all that different. They’re both irresponsible. But, so are the voters. That can’t last forever. Eventually, there will be consequences of so much fiscal and moral bankruptcy. We are already starting to see some of the consequences. Some are already unavoidable. Somre of our painful lessons are already on the way.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #202877

D.A.N.-

You obviously gave Jack’s smart-ass comment much more thought and attention than he gave yours. I relate to your experiences and thoughts over these last 6 years. It’s a very tough position to be in when your own party abandons everything they once held dear. The difference between you and I is that you seem to have found a way to proactively respond to those concerns. I agree with most of what you write and it seems to always be coming from an honest and unselfish place. More than I can say for the most vocal members of my current and your former party.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #202892

Kevin23,

Thank you for those very thoughtful and encouraging comments.

Yes, the last six years have been eye-opening.

Regarding parties … it often appears that I’m singling out one party or the other, but it’s really not about parties, as much as trying to shed light on the powerfully, seductive, destructive, divisive, and circular partisan warfare that keeps us from solving any of our most pressing problems.

Partisan warfare is now like gender, race, and color used to be. But now, using gender, race, and color are unacceptable to most. Someday, hopefully, voters will learn to recognize how how partisan warfare is yet another clever mechanism used to control, use, and abuse others.

While there are some philosophical differences between what each party says, there are few real differences between what they actually do.

Hence, party isn’t very important anymore, when there is so much corruption and irresponsibility in both. If one closely observes voting records and actions, they will see that the “IN PARTY” and the “OUT PARTY” simply take turns at being irresponsible. The “IN PARTY” tries to get things done, but is faced with the obstructionism of the “OUT PARTY”. Eventually, the “IN PARTY” abuses its power. The “OUT PARTY” is often content to give ‘em some rope to hang themselves with, and then point fingers when it fails, despite their own helping it along.

So, in this era, almost everything takes a back-seat to corruption, pandering, and government is FOR-SALE. Bought-and-paid-for politicians do as they please, ignore campaign promises, disgrace their office and themselves, and voters reward them for it by repeatedly re-electing them.

Party is not really that relevant.
But, a by-product of those parties (partisan warfare) is destructive.

On the bright side, it won’t last forever.
Some day (maybe not in our lifetimes), the voters will get their fill. They always do. It’s a cycle.

We, unfortunately (depending on your age), did not time it very well. The current younger generations are going to get used and abused, but too many younger voters refuse to vote, so they too only have themselves to thank for it.

So, we are all culpable.
All parties.
All politicians.
All voters.

We’ve all been crappin’ on our own nest for a long time.
It’s only a matter of time before the consequences of so much debt, borrowing, war, money-printing, constitutional violations, oppression, dysfunction, greed, and corruption finally snaps the bough upon which it all rests.

So, you may be asking, if it is so futile, why try at all, eh?
Well, it’s not all futile.
It’s 2.000 steps forward, and 1.999 steps backward.
We’ve been going backward (in many ways) since about 1980 (perhaps sooner).
And the future is not set in stone.
And voters will eventually figure it out.
The only logical thing to do is help make it happen faster, rather than later, because the longer it takes, the more painful and long-lasting the consequences will be.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #202907

D.A.N.-

Agreed. The reality is that while each person is capable of brilliant and insightful discussion on the inherent nature of people, and what sorts of governments and policies best nurture it, as voters we constantly fall back only on what our politicians have given us. When was the last time the people demanded an amendment to the constitution? The defeat of the ERA was a great example of how timid the people have become about upsetting the status quo. Sure the rhetoric is great every few elections or so, and the people are appeased with empty promises or distraction issues.

We really do have a lot of power to hold these guys out and make them work for us, but we got lazy. It seems so simple to vote out incumbents every time you hate the direction the nation is going. But we fall for the same campaign tactics of bright lights and shiny objects every time.

Then again, the more distracted we get, the better our economy gets. Miss Spears may be the epitome of what is right AND wrong with America.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #202920
Kevin23 wrote: We really do have a lot of power to hold these guys out and make them work for us, but we got lazy.

You are astute to recognize that.

Too many voters fail to recognize that, and prefer to wallow in the circular partisan warfare.

Regarding the economy … remember the sound-bite: “it’s the economy stupid” ?

That is what will get voters’ attention.

In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount, and the voters’ education is in the pipeline. Despite the sign posts we’ve already passed, the economy will be the first thing that voters notice. They will get their education the smart way, or the hard and painful way … but they will get their education one way or another. Even though it is painfully slow and inefficient, there is that built in mechanism. The only variable is how long will it take and how painful will it be ?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 7:19 PM
Comment #202922

d.a.n -

You cannot take a constructive critique, apparently. Sad for you and your stated position. You are ignorant and that’s that. So there’s no helping you. Enjoy.

Posted by: Don at January 12, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #202926
Don wrote: d.a.n, You cannot take a constructive critique, apparently.

Since when did personal attacks equate to constructive critiques ?

Don wrote: Sad for you and your stated position.
Oh yes … so sad. What a crock. My position is solid, which is why you choose to abandon the debate. How typical. Losing a debate … resort to name calling and personal attacks, and disappear, eh ?
Don wrote: You are ignorant and that’s that.
More personal attacks ?

I’m not sure why the Watchblog Editors don’t run to my defense against such blatant personal attack, except that they figure I can take care of myself.

Actually, I’m glad they don’t intervene.
Your own statements are more revealing than you know.

How typical and predictable of someone whose argument is so utterly weak. Can’t win a debate based on facts, then conveniently resort to name-calling and personal attacks. How lame is that?

Don wrote: So there’s no helping you. Enjoy.

Hmmmmm … is that your best shot?
How lame is that?
So, you’re giving up?

That figures.
I’m not at all surprised.
It’s rare when someone acknowledges an error, and comes clean.

Guess that’s not in the cards here.

Guess you have no stomach for real-debate.

After all, it requires research, logic, and reasoning powers … perhaps you are out of your league ?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #202928

d.a.n -

Do I have to spell this out for you?

1) My original and second posts were NOT attacks, no matter how you chose to take them. They were meant as questions and as critique. That you have chosen not to take them as such is your own problem.

2) There is no debate, because you have not been debating. Nor have I been debating.

3) Obviously you have a problem because you cannot see when someone is actually trying to help you get your message out more clearly.

4) My last response is one of utter frustration in dealing with someone so unable to get past himself and his ego.

Peace.

Posted by: Don at January 12, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #202951

Don wrote the following and (incredulously) wonders why anyone would find his comments questionable … .

    Don wrote: d.a.n, You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … That is just being anti-Republican in the end.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … You should be honest about your real agenda OR be more careful about personal opinions which conflict with your stated goal.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … Your personal attack on me is totally unwarranted… . If you cannot see that you are incredibly blind.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … If you cannot see that you are incredibly blind.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … If you are serious about changing the face of all politics then you shouldn’t take cheap shots. Like: “But then, I’ve never known you to back down from utter stupidity before.” [NOTE: I did not say that and don’t know where that come from]
    Don wrote: d.a.n … My last response is one of utter frustration in dealing with someone so unable to get past himself and his ego.
    Don wrote: d.a.n, … You cannot take a constructive critique, apparently.
    Don wrote: d.a.n … Sad for you and your stated position.

Don, perhaps the root of your (in your very own words) “utter frustration” is the weakness of your arguments?
Such frustration is typical of someone whose own argument can’t stand the light of day.
And in your frustration, you resort to personal attacks upon me (as exemplified by your numerous personal attacks above).
Again, that is extremely typical of someone who is frustrated with the weakness of their own argument, and utlimately resorts to personal attacks. It speaks volumes. In your frustration, as a last resort, you (ironically) accuse others of personal attacks (as shown above) when it is you that are actually most guilty of it.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 12, 2007 9:57 PM
Comment #203026

d.a.n -

You have set the rules for this non-debate, I can cut-and-paste, too…

d.a.n wrote: “…those claims of favoritism reveal a blinding partisan loyalty and inability to see things the way they really are.”

d.a.n wrote: “So, Don, your statement is a complete 100% nonsensical non-sequitur and reveals your own blinding partisan loyalty, and dislike of anyone who criticizes your beloved Republican King George…”

d.a.n wrote: “Don, Had you been paying closer attention…”

d.a.n wrote: “So, if you don’t mind me saying so, you are blatantly guilty of what you accuse me of.”

d.a.n wrote: “By all means. Keep those blinders on … otherwise, you might learn something new, eh ?”

d.a.n wrote: “How lame is that? So, you’re giving up? That figures. I’m not at all surprised. It’s rare when someone acknowledges an error, and comes clean. Guess that’s not in the cards here. Guess you have no stomach for real-debate. After all, it requires research, logic, and reasoning powers … perhaps you are out of your league ?”

d.a.n wrote: “Don, perhaps the root of your (in your very own words) “utter frustration” is the weakness of your arguments?”

—-

d.a.n wrote: “Anytime the word ‘you’ is used, it’s probably a personal attack.”

BUT NOTICE HOW MANY TIME d.a.n USES “YOU”…

d.a.n wrote: “Despite that, you then have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of attacking you personally? What a laugh! Especially, since you, Don, are doing the very thing you accuse others of.”

—-
NOW FOR MY ONLY POINT IN THIS LONG AND ALMOST WORTHLESS DISCUSSION…
REGARDING d.a.n’s stated agenda… he’s not very serious about getting rid of incumbents because…

d.a.n wrote: “Garnering any support from blind, brainwashed, main party loyalists is futile.”

I wonder why you even bother to post here? If you really want your stated agenda to happen you would not waste your time on the Republican or Democrat blogs. Yet you do, so who’s lame?

Posted by: Don at January 13, 2007 12:06 PM
Comment #203056

Don,
There’s a vast difference between my comments and yours.

  • (1) You addressed me first (above) by writing:
    Don wrote: d.a.n, You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

  • (2) Don, I stand behind all my statements. Thank you for reposting them. Especially the part about “garnering support from blind, brainwashed, main party loyalists is futile”. Again, there’s a vast difference between my comments and yours. But, of course, it’s highly unlikely that you can see that, which is why you are most guilty of the very things you accuse others of (i.e. name-calling and personal attacks; remember, you started it in comment # 202443 above).

  • (3) Again, the reason for your (in your own words) “utter frustration” is very typical of someone whose arguments are weak, completely meritless, or nonsensical.

  • (4) If the debate is (as you say) “WORTHLESS”, why do you persist? I don’t think it is worthless. What you have to say is quite entertaining and revealing. Please show us more.

  • (5)
    Don wrote:
    I wonder why you even bother to post here? If you really want your stated agenda to happen you would not waste your time on the Republican or Democrat blogs. Yet you do, so who’s lame?
    Don, The fallacy in the logic of your statement is that not all Repubs and Dems are blind, brainwashed main party loyalists. Some can think for themselves, regardless of party leanings. The blind main party loyalists only refers to some people, such as those that childishly get so extremely upset when someone calls George Bush “King George”.

  • (6) Don, if you are so upset by my posts, and so “utterly frustrated”, and find them so “WORTHLESS”, why read and/or comment on them. Why not scroll right past them? It’s easy … why not give it a try? If you got a wheel-mouse, it’s even easier to scroll right past those unpleasantries that you find so “utterly frustrating”.


Perhaps you should read some of Kevin23’s comments above. He’s a Republican (as I once was too), but he didn’t get upset by my reference to George Bush as “King George”. No one else got upset about it.

Besides, “King George” is a well deserved title, based on his disregard for the Constitution (e.g. spying on Americans, torture (just ask Spc. Sean Baker who was at Gitmo), Habeas Corpus, secret prisons, starting unnecessary wars based on false/trumped-up intelligence, and these other 99 blunders, etc.).

And, at this very moment, despite the majority of Americans that don’t want an escalation of the war in Iraq, “King George” is determined to do as he wants, no matter how many people have to die to salvage his failed legacy.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 13, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #203074

d.a.n -

Thank you!

Here are my points (succinctly put):

If you want to attract positive attention to your stated agenda of eliminating incumbants:

1) You may wish to walk the middle ground more in dealing with Democrats and Republicans rather than attacking either. This will allow you to attract more mainline party-ists.

2) You may wish to target a particular group of incumbants (such as those who have been there longest) to gather more support for your agenda.

3) You may wish to spend more of your time and attention on those people who are more likely to join your cause.

4) You may want to be a little less assinine in your responses and have a little less ego.

5) You may wish to actually post your opinions rather than cut-and-paste so much.

I hope you find some of this helpful to your agenda in the future. If you find any of this helpful, then you are welcome.

If not, and I doubt that you will, then have a nice day. Some people will not take any suggestions because they are full of themselves.

This is my final post on this subject.

Posted by: Don at January 13, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #203088
Don wrote: d.a.n … (1) You may wish to walk the middle ground more in dealing with Democrats and Republicans rather than attacking either. This will allow you to attract more mainline party-ists.
That’s a good point. However, the blind loyalists and their hacks (of all parties) need criticism. The voters can’t be coddled any longer. They must understand that they have bad government because they keep re-electing it. There’s really not much point in sugar coating the truth. The best policy is straight-forward honesty. No schemes or contrived strategies. Just the plain truth. If the truth upsets people, then it’s a good thing, and something valuable has been accomplished. Making friends is not the objective. Education is the objective. Some people are hopelessly blinded. Some are on the fence. Some don’t care. Whatever the case, honesty is always the best policy; even if some don’t want to hear it.
Don wrote: (2) You may wish to target a particular group of incumbants (such as those who have been there longest) to gather more support for your agenda.
Thanks for that suggestion. However, most (if not all) incumbent politicians are irresponsible, as evidenced by the nation’s problems growing in number and severity. There’s no need to cherry pick. What difference does it make if MOST in congress are irresponsible, and consist almost equally of both Dems and Repubs ?
Don wrote: (3) You may wish to spend more of your time and attention on those people who are more likely to join your cause.
We do. We have many members and supporters, and the voters are getting educated … it’s inevitable. Pain and misery is a good teacher, but sooner would be better (and less painful) than later. That requires education. Not circular schemes or clever strategies. Again, the truth is the best approach. Partisan warfare is a detractor used to distract voters and pit them against each other. The sooner voters realize it, the better off we will all be.
Don wrote: (4) You may want to be a little less assinine in your responses and have a little less ego.
Don, You were doing pretty good for a moment, but you just can’t help yourself from resorting to more name-calling and personal attacks.

Ego is a defense mechanism.
So is resorting to name-calling and personal attacks when one’s arguments are weak, wrong, or nonsensical.

We all have some ego, but the bigger and more easily bruised ego here is yours, as exemplified by the resorting to personal attacks, which reveals that you cannot win the debate on merit, and in your “utter frustration” (in your very own words), choose to cloud the issues and obscure the facts by attacking the messenger instead; as if that would actually fool anyone.

Don wrote: (5) You may wish to actually post your opinions rather than cut-and-paste so much.
Good point. And it’s wise to always strive to say as much as possible in the least number of words. However, the fallacy of that conclusion is that it fails to recognize that thousands of people read the WatchBlog daily. Not just you or other regulars. Besides, readers always have the simple choice to scroll past what they don’t want to read. By the way, almost all of my posts are different. Some are similar, but not 100% cut-and-paste.
Don wrote: I hope you find some of this helpful to your agenda in the future. If you find any of this helpful, then you are welcome.
Well, some of it is useful. Feedback is always important.
Don wrote: If not, and I doubt that you will, then have a nice day.
Well, I guess you were wrong, eh?
Don wrote: Some people will not take any suggestions because they are full of themselves.
Yes, they are.
Don wrote: This is my final post on this subject.
OK. As you wish. Just don’t go away mad or “utterly frustrated”.

Again, you started this little exchange when you attacked me first (above) in Comment # 202443 in which you wrote:

Don wrote: d.a.n, You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

First of all, that indicates contradictory statements, but you never explained what statements are contradictory.

At any rate, your first complaint was the reference to George Bush as “King George”.

Again, it is a well deserved title, based on his disregard for the Constitution (e.g. spying on Americans, torture (just ask Spc. Sean Baker who was at Gitmo), Habeas Corpus, secret prisons, starting unnecessary wars based on false/trumped-up intelligence, and these other 99 blunders, etc.), and at this very moment, despite the majority of Americans that are opposed to an escalation of the war in Iraq (very reminescent of Vietnam), “King George” is determined to do as he wants, no matter how many people have to die to salvage his failed legacy.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 13, 2007 6:31 PM
Post a comment