NationStates Jolt Archive

Paper tigers
7/11/07

I'm struck by the Democratic Party's resemblance to Lucy in the late Charles Schulz's "Peanuts" comic. And it's not just Nancy Pelosi's inexplicable attraction to pianists, which culminated in last year's unfortunate Chopin-gate scandal.

No, it's more the fact that the Democrats are constantly making exciting promises to actually get something done and then snatching the ball away at the last second. Being more than a little sick of the status quo in D.C., I'm getting almost as sick of flailing wildly through the air as I attempt to kick a football that is suddenly no longer there. (Yes, the ball is good government. I have officially pushed this metaphor too far.)

But the fact remains that the Democratic Party has done precious little to justify its sweeping gains in last year's elections. Democrats have fiddled while the immigration bill burns, they've shrugged as the president vetoed - on the most blatantly religious of grounds - life-saving stem-cell research legislation, and on and on. Most critically, they folded like cheap lawn chairs when Bush vetoed a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. What a bunch of pusillanimous weenies.

http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/07/11/Opinions/Paper.Tigers-2922645.shtml

I am already on anti Pelosi/Reid campaign mode :D

Pelosi Re-election bid? Bring it on..

I never liked any of them, if it makes a difference. :p

## Nancy Pelosi and this Democratic Leadership: just a bunch of pusillanimous weenies

In other news, water is wet.

Politician's are failing to follow through on their campaign promises.

All of them.

Not all their promises, all the politicians.

So they folded like the lawn chairs they are. Why should it be a surprise that politicians fail to keep promises?

So they folded like the lawn chairs they are. Why should it be a surprise that politicians fail to keep promises?

Why should politicians be forced to make promises they know they can't keep because otherwise they won't be elected, because unless they say what the media and public want to hear rather than what they need to know, the politician stands no chance.

Apologies for quoting you though, you were simply the last to post, not implying that you're not aware of this angle.

Why should politicians be forced to make promises they know they can't keep because otherwise they won't be elected...I guess Its the fault of the Voters too.
They keep re-electing the incumbents.. no matter how many lies they told.

So they folded like the lawn chairs they are. Why should it be a surprise that politicians fail to keep promises?

I don't think anyone is surprised. Some people just like to point out that one side are a bunch of lawn chairs in the hopes that people will vote for the other bunch of lawn chairs.

I guess Its the fault of the Voters too.
They keep re-electing the incumbents.. no matter how many lies they told.

I don't really think it's anyone's fault so much - I think that we're bombarded with so many demands on our attention that we simply don't care to completely work out the issues anymore, hence we're susceptible to sound bite news.

We don't have the time to sit down and fully digest a newspaper these days, nor sit and talk through the issues with people.

I'm not sure if this was the case back in the day, since I wasn't there but I'm quite sure politics held a far more central place in the mind of the average citizen than it does today - because all we're interested in these days is headline news, whether that's sex, tax, war or whatever as opposed to thinking about what's possible, not what's ideal.

To use a cliche,

this thread is made of fail.

Aaaaand... if she gets elected, and defeats Pelosi (when pigs fly), how does she propose to get the votes necessary to impeach?

Eh? It's not as simple as she thinks.

Aaaaand... if she gets elected, and defeats Pelosi (when pigs fly), how does she propose to get the votes necessary to impeach?

Eh? It's not as simple as she thinks.

Who is 'she'?

Democrats disappoint me. Not that I'm surprised, just disappointed.

Who is 'she'?

Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy Sheehan.

Um, why are you talking about her. This thread has nothing to do with her, as far as I can tell.

Um, why are you talking about her. This thread has nothing to do with her, as far as I can tell.

I'm not talking about her. Ocean is.

And the thread is about "her".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900221.html

Um, why are you talking about her. This thread has nothing to do with her, as far as I can tell.

She said she would run against Pelosi in the next election, unless Pelosi started impeachment proceedings against Bush.

I'm not talking about her. Ocean is.

And the thread is about "her".

I don't know what to say. Read the thread. You will notice that you are the only person mentioning Sheehan. I am not going to debate this with you.

I don't know what to say. Read the thread. You will notice that you are the only person mentioning Sheehan. I am not going to debate this with you.

Why would he start reading threads now?

Why would he start reading threads now?

The funny part is that he's constantly telling others to work on their reading comprehension. He's more bizarre today than usual.

The senate and house are not run by one person called "Mr.Democrat" or "Mr.Republican" they are bodies made of of many members. When Bush vetoes legislation how is it the fault of Democrats who voted for it? How is it the fault of Democrats who vote to end the war when there are more votes against withdrawal?

A one vote majority is not going to create a flood of new legislation on the most divisive issues facing the nation, especially with a President in the opposing party. Anybody who says otherwise is either a liar or an idiot.

The funny part is that he's constantly telling others to work on their reading comprehension. He's more bizarre today than usual.

If I recall correctly he posts via committee, supposedly. Some five of them running that name, so which one he is today I dunno.

How about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/10/Dobbs.July11/index.html

President Bush's approval rating has reached a new low for his presidency.
The poll shows only 29 percent of Americans approve of the president's job performance,

But again, President Bush isn't alone. The American public has the lowest confidence in Congress since Gallup began asking this question in 1973. A recent USA Today Gallup poll shows just 14 percent of Americans have confidence in the job Congress is doing.

It's beginning to look like the American people may finally have had a bellyful of elected officials who do little more than shill for lobbyists, ignore the interests of America's citizens and perpetuate rather than solve the problems facing this nation.


I keep saying its time for another american revolution

How about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/10/Dobbs.July11/index.html


I keep saying its time for another american revolution

Well Bush is glaringly incompetent and borderline criminal. Congress is a bunch of lying hypocritical bastards. Hard to approve of either.

It would almost be better if they did have a liberal agenda that they executed swiftly. Instead, that's only for Pelosi and a few others on the far-left. Most of the Democrats agree on little more than to end the Iraq war, a formula I knew would cause division and deadlock from day one. It's almost better for the Democrats that Bush is as stubborn about the war as he is.

It would almost be better if they did have a liberal agenda that they executed swiftly. Instead, that's only for Pelosi and a few others on the far-left. Most of the Democrats agree on little more than to end the Iraq war, a formula I knew would cause division and deadlock from day one. It's almost better for the Democrats that Bush is as stubborn about the war as he is.

The main reason that Pelosi can't get the troops out is that she doesn't have substantial majorities in both houses of Congress.

If she's not veto-proof, she can't fulfill any promise she's made if Bush vetoes or any of her support defects.

She said she would run against Pelosi in the next election, unless Pelosi started impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Which will not happen.

Indeed, some have touched on this, but I shall say it nonetheless.


The Democrats in Congress do not hold a large enough majority at this point to actually over-ride a presidential veto, or "go-it-alone" on any proposed legislation. They NEED republican votes to get legislation passed.

It is unfortunate, you see. If the Democrats had whats called a "controlling majority" of congress, we would see a much more efficient, and assertive democratic congress.

But one also must remember, the failed immigration bill was a result of CONSERVATIVE resistance. Not democratic.

And the democrats DID stand up to Bush concerning the troop withdrawals, but in all reality, once Bush vetoed the bill, there was NOTHING the democrats could have done. They don't have enough votes to override the president. So in order to get much needed funds to an already underfunded (by republicans) military, the democrats WORKED with republicans to get legislation that requires Iraqis to meet certain pre-designated benchmarks before more funding is sent their way.


But again, the failure of this congress does not lay with the democrats, it lies with the republicans who are still holding onto the bush doctrine of narrowminded, unpopular, FAILED policies of the traditional conservative party in the United States.

I'm not sure if this was the case back in the day, since I wasn't there but I'm quite sure politics held a far more central place in the mind of the average citizen than it does today...Not really.

We used to think, for instance, that colonial New England was hyper-political with all of its town meetings. Turns out, on more careful historical analysis, that while they held them frequently... no one showed up except for a handful of people who were, for practical purposes, career politicians.

What about the Athenian assemblies, you say? Perhaps. Then again, the amphitheater could only hold a small, small percentage of the population eligible to participate (which was itself a minority)... and we have precious few accounts indicating that attendance ever got close to maximum capacity.

The fact of the matter is that people have always had better things to do than participate in politics.

Well when your approval rating is lower than the 2nd worst President in modern history then you know you have problems.

For reference the worst remains Carter.

Indeed, some have touched on this, but I shall say it nonetheless.


The Democrats in Congress do not hold a large enough majority at this point to actually over-ride a presidential veto, or "go-it-alone" on any proposed legislation. They NEED republican votes to get legislation passed.

It is unfortunate, you see. If the Democrats had whats called a "controlling majority" of congress, we would see a much more efficient, and assertive democratic congress.

But one also must remember, the failed immigration bill was a result of CONSERVATIVE resistance. Not democratic.

And the democrats DID stand up to Bush concerning the troop withdrawals, but in all reality, once Bush vetoed the bill, there was NOTHING the democrats could have done. They don't have enough votes to override the president. So in order to get much needed funds to an already underfunded (by republicans) military, the democrats WORKED with republicans to get legislation that requires Iraqis to meet certain pre-designated benchmarks before more funding is sent their way.


But again, the failure of this congress does not lay with the democrats, it lies with the republicans who are still holding onto the bush doctrine of narrowminded, unpopular, FAILED policies of the traditional conservative party in the United States.

That's a cop out, if the democrats had been serious about ending the Iraq debacle they could of just kept passing spending bills they knew Shrubya would veto. Sooner or later they run out of funding and have to either come home or re-allocate huge sections of their military budget.

They caved.

That's a cop out, if the democrats had been serious about ending the Iraq debacle they could of just kept passing spending bills they knew Shrubya would veto. Sooner or later they run out of funding and have to either come home or re-allocate huge sections of their military budget.

They caved.


Perhaps you're right. The dems could have held out longer, and possibly achieved SOME sort of victory for their party.

But the fact remains that the inability of Congress to tackle the real issues that America cares about does not rest on the democrats, but the Republicans.

Me, personally, I would LOVE to see more passionate, more liberal democrats in congress.

But alas, we must work with what we have for the time being.

Not really.

The fact of the matter is that people have always had better things to do than participate in politics.

Its the reason we have representative democracies, because people dont want the bother of running the country.

However , as in that article I posted, the job of the representatives is to represent their voters, and their voters are not the lobbyists, or the fat corperations, or the union activists, or the 101 other people with campaign funds and an agenda.

The people have seen through this, which is why the % of people taking part in elections is dropping., because they know it makes no difference to their lives if they elect a republickon, a demoprat, or a donkey with 3 legs.