NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3223.html

To the point where they threaten the more anti-war Democrats with getting the funding for their voting district yanked.

MoveOn also doesn't seem as anti-war as they used to be.

Apparently they don't want to cut funds to the troops.

And the payoff is in pork!

Democratic leaders have also added billions in funds not related to wartime spending in a bid for more support.

That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. His spokeswoman, Danielle Langone, cited $400 million for a one-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

"That's pretty vital for our district, so we'll be voting for the bill," Langone said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3223.html

To the point where they threaten the more anti-war Democrats with getting the funding for their voting district yanked.

MoveOn also doesn't seem as anti-war as they used to be.

Apparently they don't want to cut funds to the troops.

And the payoff is in pork!
It would be nice to see one clean bill come out of the House.

I'm bored with the democrats. I think leadership should swap between the two parties every three weeks. That would hold my attention.

It would be nice to see one clean bill come out of the House.

Every election, both parties promise to stop the pork.

And neither of them can stop. It's like heroin.

What would happen if a bill went in front of the house and the Prez and the entire cycle to become legislation .... and it had no riders whatsoever?

Would 'democracy' collapse?

What would happen if a bill went in front of the house and the Prez and the entire cycle to become legislation .... and it had no riders whatsoever?

Would 'democracy' collapse?

The universe would implode - either that, or the bill would actually contain only fluff (as some recent House bills have).

What would happen if a bill went in front of the house and the Prez and the entire cycle to become legislation .... and it had no riders whatsoever?

Would 'democracy' collapse?

The universe would implode.

The universe would implode.

uh oh, it's about to implode, because you just posted the same thing I said...

Every election, both parties promise to stop the pork.

And neither of them can stop. It's like heroin.

Not exactly. Challengers promise to stop the pork. Incumbents brag about all the goodies they've brought home to the district or state.

Not exactly. Challengers promise to stop the pork. Incumbents brag about all the goodies they've brought home to the district or state.

True.

What do you think of this backtracking on the anti-war thing?

The universe would implode - either that, or the bill would actually contain only fluff (as some recent House bills have).

The universe would implode.

*passes out*

True.

What do you think of this backtracking on the anti-war thing?

The party has never been as single-minded about the war as you and others have constantly implied they are. There are disagreements about the way to end it, and there always have been. I know you'd rather portray this as some sort of catastrophic division in the party or backtracking, but it isn't. Just as there are Republicans who aren't wholly in the pocket of the loudest segment of the party--the evangelicals--there are also Democrats who aren't on the side of the (currently) loudest segment of the Democratic party.

The party has never been as single-minded about the war as you and others have constantly implied they are. There are disagreements about the way to end it, and there always have been. I know you'd rather portray this as some sort of catastrophic division in the party or backtracking, but it isn't. Just as there are Republicans who aren't wholly in the pocket of the loudest segment of the party--the evangelicals--there are also Democrats who aren't on the side of the (currently) loudest segment of the Democratic party.

Note that I'm not characterizing it in the way you say.

It's just that this doesn't match up with the election rhetoric at all.

If the polls are showing that US voters want us out, why are Democratic party leaders so loathe to push it hard?

And don't give me the "support the troops" fear - if the polls are accurate, why not go with the polls instead of the fear of what the Republicans will say?

Note that I'm not characterizing it in the way you say.

It's just that this doesn't match up with the election rhetoric at all.

If the polls are showing that US voters want us out, why are Democratic party leaders so loathe to push it hard?

And don't give me the "support the troops" fear - if the polls are accurate, why not go with the polls instead of the fear of what the Republicans will say?

The title of your thread is "Democratic Party Leaders Not Anti-War Enough," and your post history is proof that I'm accurate in my characterization of your rhetoric in the past. The other misleading point that you're making is the idea that there was one "election rhetoric." Not every Democrat ran on a "we're getting out of Iraq yesterday" platform, even though many right-wingers tried to spin it that way. The people I supported certainly did and that's a big reason why I supported them, but that wasn't an across-the-board attitude. In fact, there was a constant battle between anti-war people and stay-the-course people inside the party, with lots of stay-the-course-ers claiming the anti-war people would cost them the election. Some of those people were in the House leadership--Rahm Emanuel was certainly not a "let's get out of Iraq yesterday" guy during the election campaign.

As to why the leadership is a little hesitant, I can't really say, to latch on to the complete anti-war position, I'd imagine it comes in part from having to clean up the budget mess the Republicans left behind. They have to pass enough budget bills to keep government moving, and that means they have to pass stuff that can get through the Senate as well, where the Republicans are stronger and can stop legislation with the filibuster.

I agree with Myrm.

I hate bills with riders in them.

I agree with Myrm.

I hate bills with riders in them.

Of course you do. Hell if you had an independent idea your head would imploded....sorta like the way the universe could explode as mentioned by Eve and the pantless one. It must be some kind of survival instinct thing going on there for you.

Of course you do. Hell if you had an independent idea your head would imploded....sorta like the way the universe could explode as mentioned by Eve and the pantless one. It must be some kind of survival instinct thing going on there for you.

What's wrong with agreeing to having no riders in a Congressional Bill?

What's wrong with agreeing to having no riders in a Congressional Bill?

Wow.

It virtually takes an insult to get you to reply to my posts and even then the entire point goes over your head like Baron Munchausen over the head of the Sultan of Turkey.

Wow.

I virtually takes an insult to get you to reply to my posts and even then the entire point goes over your head like Baron Munchausen over the head of the Sultan of Turkey.

You should become a professional cricket bowler.

Wow.

It virtually takes an insult to get you to reply to my posts and even then the entire point goes over your head like Baron Munchausen over the head of the Sultan of Turkey.

What's wrong with agreeing to Myrm saying that we should have a bill without riders in it?

Wow.

It virtually takes an insult to get you to reply to my posts and even then the entire point goes over your head like Baron Munchausen over the head of the Sultan of Turkey.


LOL - Dennis Miller is that you?
:p

LOL - Dennis Miller is that you?
:p

Hang on...need to google Dennis Miller! LOL

ah....ok...nope....never heard of the guy...but no.

I am teh vonners ;)

And teh vonners is glad someone got it :)

Hang on...need to google Dennis Miller! LOL

ah....ok...nope....never heard of the guy...but no.

I am teh vonners ;)

And teh vonners is glad someone got it :)

Lmao. Yeah that was Dennis Millerish.

He speaks in a constant stream of words, using vague and obscure references with big words as often as possible. He's funny - dunno about accurate, but he's funny.

Lmao. Yeah that was Dennis Millerish.

He speaks in a constant stream of words, using vague and obscure references with big words as often as possible. He's funny - dunno about accurate, but he's funny.

I'm a fuckn riot me! I might work in IT but my speciality is the rant of ultimate consciousness.....!

I think it's pretty clear what's happened.

Nobody gets elected to a major post while being a complete idiot (well, there was Warren Harding - but I'd characterize him as more naive than stupid). Further, anybody with half a brain could see from day one of the campaign that the last Federal Election was going to have the proverbial 300 pound Gorilla dominating everything - to wit, the Iraq situation.

So, to distance themselves from the Republicans, most of the Dems came out as "Anti-War". Whether they actually were or not.

Now, they're in, and they can make decisions based on things that actually matter rather than how good they'll sound in a sound-bite. And a lot of them are realizing (or always knew) that, regardless of how we got here, a sudden pull-out from Iraq isn't in anybody's best interests. So the extemists are getting told to sit down and shut up until 2008.

I think it's pretty clear what's happened.

Nobody gets elected to a major post while being a complete idiot (well, there was Warren Harding - but I'd characterize him as more naive than stupid). Further, anybody with half a brain could see from day one of the campaign that the last Federal Election was going to have the proverbial 300 pound Gorilla dominating everything - to wit, the Iraq situation.

So, to distance themselves from the Republicans, most of the Dems came out as "Anti-War". Whether they actually were or not.

Now, they're in, and they can make decisions based on things that actually matter rather than how good they'll sound in a sound-bite. And a lot of them are realizing (or always knew) that, regardless of how we got here, a sudden pull-out from Iraq isn't in anybody's best interests. So the extemists are getting told to sit down and shut up until 2008.

Is that why they just recently devised a pull-out timeline ending in roughly 2008?

Note that I'm not characterizing it in the way you say.

It's just that this doesn't match up with the election rhetoric at all.

If the polls are showing that US voters want us out, why are Democratic party leaders so loathe to push it hard?

And don't give me the "support the troops" fear - if the polls are accurate, why not go with the polls instead of the fear of what the Republicans will say?

Stupid question and you know it. "He who controls the language controls the message." It's a trick both parties do. They sprinkle powdered sugar on dog shit and call it a donut. That's why, and you know that. Most Americans are too lazy or too stupid to get the whole story so they take soundbytes or talk radio personalities' opinions.

Stupid question and you know it. "He who controls the language controls the message." It's a trick both parties do. They sprinkle powdered sugar on dog shit and call it a donut. That's why, and you know that. Most Americans are too lazy or too stupid to get the whole story so they take soundbytes or talk radio personalities' opinions.

*dies of heartfailure because of agreement*