Comments on: Getting Rolled

By: durablend

durablend — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:38:29 +0000

However, while I don’t think there is much chance many people will want the alternative to even a compromised democratic party in control in 2008

Don’t kid yourself–there’s plenty of people who simply won’t vote for anyone without that (R) next to their name, no matter who it is. If there even is a Democratic victory (and that becomes even less likely daily thanks to the relentless efforts of the “Capuitulation Party”), it’s only going to be by a few points at most.

By: neil

neil — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:42:04 +0000

Harry Reid will do what he always does. Nothing.

By: bill l.

bill l. — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:29:40 +0000

The dems are playing an incalculably stupid game here. They are clearly banking on letting public dissatisfaction with the GOP carry them into the oval office in 2008. To that end, they seem to be more than willing to let Bush have his way and soak up all the corporate money they can. However, while I don’t think there is much chance many people will want the alternative to even a compromised democratic party in control in 2008, I think there is a profound chance that an significant percentage of voters will simply not vote at all thanks to the dispiriting actions of the Dems. If that happens and the radical base shows up (not to mention the usual vote tampering shenanigans), hello President Giulani.

By: Zython

Zython — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:29:50 +0000

Like a gerbil perpetually running on a wheel, President Bush continues to demand that Congress approve his funding plan for a war that was supposed to pay for itself. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, again, vows to really scrutinize the president’s request. Like a guillotine executioner, he holds over Congress’ heads troop well being.

Therein lies another problem with cutting funding. Where will Bush & Co. cut costs first? Of course, equipping the troops adequately (if you can call the current levels “adequate”). Then, they’ll blame the Democrats for it and say they hate the troops.

Not to defend Harry Reid completely, of course, he and the Dems should be pushing for a phased withdrawl. However, keep in mind that they’re up against a party that will resort to attacking widows, veterens, terminaly ill men, sick children, and people whose homes have burned down to name a few.

By: jrcjr

jrcjr — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:31:15 +0000

diamond, you’re right.

what they fail to grasp is that turnout is important. someone with a 30% approval rating can still win an election if he could get turnout high enough. bush knew that, and used it.

By: Mickeleh

Mickeleh — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:56:08 +0000

Reid’s (and Pelosi’s) pronouncements about standing up to the Bush administration have the same hollow ring as Bush’s repeated declarations of “progress” in Iraq.

By: gary sacco

gary sacco — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:21:34 +0000

Its’ time for Congress to really get tough and, never mind the funding, re examine the original resolution that lead to this Iraq mis adventure. The President of the United States promised war as a last resort after diplomatic efforts failed. That Security Council charade hardly qualifies as diplomacy. Neither does “leave Iraq in 48 hours and we won’t invade” rhetoric. The President, long ago, violated his own resolution. Congress passed the resolution to invade Iraq, they can surely revoke it.

By: Bruce Godfrey

Bruce Godfrey — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:24:21 +0000

Maybe we need to open ourselves to the possibility that Bush is smarter than we thought and Reid is stupider. When I see him, I see Fredo. Bush is at least a Sonny, if not a Tom Hagen, of late at least politically. We cannot keep calling Bush stupid if stupid is as Harry does.

By: PoliShifter

PoliShifter — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:37:09 +0000

Reid’s tough talk is supposed to distract us from his caving in and not letting Dodd’s hold stand on the telecom immunity bill.

Not this time Reid. Talk’s cheap and whiskey costs money.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

By: Rounds77

Rounds77 — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:41:56 +0000

Diamond, normally I would agree with you, but let’s not make the mistake the born again’s are talking about. It would become a game of chicken if Democratic voters also threatened to take their votes elsewhere.

By: Diamond LeGrande

Diamond LeGrande — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:18:58 +0000

The Democrats have decided that anti-war types are a captive audience, and will vote for them no matter what. There really is only one other solution, and that’s to not vote for them, vote for a third-party candidate and everyone faces the consequences. There was a minor such issue with Ralph Nader in 2000, and the Democrats threw a fit. Since most of this demographic — the part the Democrats wanted, the more marginal Nader voters who leaned Democrat (about half his total) — repented in 2004, I doubt there will be a similar movement anytime soon. To affect the course of the Democrats, you’d need something bigger than Nader in 2000 was.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:16:45 +0000

Perhaps the Dems should offer an amendment to the legislation to clarify that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to provide any actual money for the war effort.”

After all, it worked for the Repubs on FISA.

Seriously, when are these people who won majority on the unpopularity of staying the course on this war going to actually do anything to change course?

GOD!