| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"PagCal" |
| Date: |
26 Jun 2006 04:00:02 AM |
| Object: |
Democrats are morons |
Democrats are morons.
Consider:
1. First, Republicans force a vote in the senate to support the war -
and it's 96 for, including democrats.
2. Then, they get the Democrats strategy labeled as 'cut-and-run', by
letting them bring it up for a vote and then defeat it.
Democrats, what the hell is the matter with you?
You walked right into Rove's trap.
The only reasonable conclusion any thinking person can come to, is that
you are morons.
.
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats are morons |
27 Jun 2006 02:36:10 AM |
|
|
PagCal wrote:
Democrats are morons.
Consider:
1. First, Republicans force a vote in the senate to support the war -
and it's 96 for, including democrats.
2. Then, they get the Democrats strategy labeled as 'cut-and-run', by
letting them bring it up for a vote and then defeat it.
Democrats, what the hell is the matter with you?
You walked right into Rove's trap.
The only reasonable conclusion any thinking person can come to, is that
you are morons.
In Iraq war vote, Democrats fail
The Senate voted Thursday against establishing a timetable for pulling
troops out of Iraq.
By Linda Feldmann and Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writers of The
Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Going into a Senate debate on Iraq this week, the
Republicans appeared intent on portraying the Democrats in two negative
ways - first, as divided (read: weak) on how to proceed in the war, and
second, as quitters wanting to "cut and run."
Whether the debate, and one held last week in the House, will affect
public opinion on the war remains to be seen. But as a piece of
political strategy, analysts saw Republicans taking a weak hand - a war
that has become chronically unpopular - and making the most of it.
The difficulty for the Democrats is that they "exposed their weaknesses
and showed none of their strengths," says Marshall Wittmann, a senior
fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. "They played into the hands
of [Bush adviser] Karl Rove, who is planning to run an election based on
Democrats' divisions and weaknesses."
The Senate handily defeated two Democratic resolutions on the Iraq war
Thursday. One, offered by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ
Feingold of Wisconsin, called for US withdrawal by July 2007. Another
nonbinding resolution, by Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of
Rhode Island, called for US troop redeployment to begin by the end of
this year.
Mr. Wittmann called the votes "largely meaningless" and soon to be
forgotten. "The only thing that matters is whether there is progress on
the ground in Iraq," he says.
Indeed, even as war supporters had been feeling better lately after the
assassination of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the completion of
Iraq's unity government - capped by President Bush's triumphal visit to
Iraq last week - the negative headlines have also continued apace. Four
US marines were killed in Iraq's Anbar Province on Tuesday, and seven US
marines and a Navy man have been charged in connection with the death of
an Iraqi man.
But the war for hearts and minds back in the US, heading into the
crucial fall congressional elections, remains fierce. And even as the
mood among political activists has fluctuated, depending on news events
and how each party has played the war, public opinion has remained
fairly even.
For the past couple of years, the Pew Research Center has found that
roughly half the American public thinks the US made the right decision
in using military force against Iraq. In its latest survey, taken June
14-19, that figure was 49 percent, with 44 percent calling it the wrong
decision.
On the specific issue of a timetable for withdrawal, Gallup has posed
several scenarios and found little shift in opinion between November
2005 and this month: Now, 17 percent support "withdraw immediately,"
compared with 19 percent last November. Thirty-two percent now support
"withdraw in 12 months' time" compared with 33 percent last November.
The most popular position - "withdraw, take as many years as needed" -
got 42 percent of the public now, compared with 38 percent last
November. The option "send more troops" got 6 percent Thursday, down one
point from November.
The stability in US opinion could point to difficulties for the
Republicans, if their goal is to take a strategy that worked in 2002 and
2004 - playing the patriotism and national security card - and use it
again. "Given the other hot-button issues on the table besides the Iraq
war, including immigration and gas prices, it will be difficult for the
Republicans to make as much of it as they did in '02 or '04," says
Rhodes Cook, editor of a nonpartisan political newsletter.
But if voters are concerned that the Democratic Party has been unable to
come together with a unified stance on Iraq, Thursday's Senate votes did
not help. In fact, the vote on the Kerry amendment showed Democrats more
divided than they were in 2002, when the Senate passed by a vote of 77
to 23 a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. At that
time, one Republican - Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - and 21
Democrats voted against the resolution. Thursday, the Kerry amendment
won only 12 Democratic votes and one independent, Sen. James Jeffords of
Vermont.
Senator Feingold, Kerry's cosponsor, still saw value in going ahead with
a vote that was headed for defeat. "I would prefer we be unified. The
worse case is to be silent," said Feingold on the eve of the vote.
The Levin amendment - more general than Kerry's, urging the president to
withdraw US troops but without a deadline - was defeated 39 to 60.
Senator Levin preferred to focus on the measure of unity he did achieve,
rather than on those fellow Democrats who voted "no."
"Senate Democrats coalesced strongly this morning around a policy of
changing course in a balanced, common-sense way, by ending our
open-ended commitment to keeping American forces in Iraq for an
indefinite period of time," he said after the vote.
"Eighty percent of us voted that way. On the other hand, what you got
from Republicans was a rubber-stamp approach, voting in lock step [with
the White House.] That is something the American people don't want. It's
a rubber-stamp Congress and a rubber-stamp Republican- controlled
Senate," he added.
"These amendments would call upon the United States to cut and run from
Iraq just when the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people need us the
most," said Senate majority leader Bill Frist during the Senate debate
on Wednesday. "It is important for all of us to fully understand the
dangerous implications of a premature withdrawal from Iraq."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
