Chicken Doves

T

Timshel

New member
Good article in Rolling Stones.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves


Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

....

In reality, though, Pelosi and the Democrats were actually engaged in some serious point-shaving. Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation's leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. "Our focus is on the Republicans," one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. "How can we juice up attacks on them?"

The story of how the Democrats finally betrayed the voters who handed them both houses of Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what's to come if they win the White House. And if we don't pay attention to this sorry tale now, while there's still time to change our minds about whom to nominate, we might be stuck with this same bunch of spineless creeps for four more years. With no one but ourselves to blame.
 
RStringfield said:
Good article in Rolling Stones.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves


Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

....

In reality, though, Pelosi and the Democrats were actually engaged in some serious point-shaving. Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation's leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. "Our focus is on the Republicans," one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. "How can we juice up attacks on them?"

The story of how the Democrats finally betrayed the voters who handed them both houses of Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what's to come if they win the White House. And if we don't pay attention to this sorry tale now, while there's still time to change our minds about whom to nominate, we might be stuck with this same bunch of spineless creeps for four more years. With no one but ourselves to blame.
Click to expand...

Political parties exist to win elections and that is their focus. I would guess on most issues both parties would rather have an issue to run on or bash the other side with than actually solving the issue. The quotes above seem to be an example of that.
 
Epicurus said:
No, you could start by holding your fucking party accountable though.
Click to expand...

I don't have much control over them, and thanks to the two party plurality system I don't have anyone to vote for to show that I'm pissed at them besides the Republicans, which would be ridiculously self-defeating.
 
Basically, Taibbi is pissed that the Democrats didn't do what they didn't have the votes to do or, since they didn't have the votes to do what he wanted, didn't simply cut funding. As far as I recall, no one ran on the "I will cut all funding for the Iraq War while our troops are still there" platform and won.
 
i think that nobody will forget how in 2006 the American people basically handed congress over to the dems on the promise they would stop the war.. they did nothing but a dog and pony show to the point where they basically have no ability/right to even use the war as an issue in 08.
 
Chapdog said:
i think that nobody will forget how in 2006 the American people basically handed congress over to the dems on the promise they would stop the war.. they did nothing but a dog and pony show to the point where they basically have no ability/right to even use the war as an issue in 08.
Click to expand...


Apparently "nothing but a dog and pony show" means everything in their power except cutting off all funding.

What more did/do you want?
 
Dungheap said:
Apparently "nothing but a dog and pony show" means everything in their power except cutting off all funding.

What more did/do you want?
Click to expand...

i let it slide up till now.
Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

end of story.
 
Chapdog said:
i let it slide up till now.
Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

end of story.
Click to expand...


OK, you haven't really answered the question. Specifically, what more did/do you want?
 
vote per day
filibusters
cut funding

All of which i said fine.. they cant do it.. but now to read that they dont have time for what was there pledge in 06? disgracefully. dont expect them to get the iraq vote in 08 on the congressional level..
 
Dungheap said:
Apparently "nothing but a dog and pony show" means everything in their power except cutting off all funding.

What more did/do you want?
Click to expand...

They could have passed the funding with a timeline and forced Bush to veto it.

The Dems congressional aides say it was nothing more than politics. From the article....

Why it "just wasn't going to happen" is the controversy. In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party's lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.

"Yeah, the amount of expletives that flew in our office alone was unbelievable," says an aide to one staunchly anti-war House member. "It was all about the public show. Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough stand against Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote, it was like Swiss cheese. Full of holes."
 
RStringfield said:
They could have passed the funding with a timeline and forced Bush to veto it.

The Dems congressional aides say it was nothing more than politics. From the article....

Why it "just wasn't going to happen" is the controversy. In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party's lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.

"Yeah, the amount of expletives that flew in our office alone was unbelievable," says an aide to one staunchly anti-war House member. "It was all about the public show. Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough stand against Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote, it was like Swiss cheese. Full of holes."
Click to expand...


They did that once. Bush vetoed it. Then what?
 
Dungheap said:
They did that once. Bush vetoed it. Then what?
Click to expand...


Then rollover, of course. They could have done what they said.
....

"Now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war," Reid said.

"If the president thinks [that] by vetoing this bill he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken," Reid added.

Standing beside Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said: "The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him."
 
Ok all "stick to your guns" rhetoric aside not funding troops when they are in harms way and expecting the president to say "I guess I have to bring all the troops back right away" is insane. Bush would have left troops there with less and less equipment to do their jobs, more soldiers would have died and Bush would say "this is the all the Dems fault" and all the Iraq war Kool Aid drinkers would have done their best African Grey Parrot impression and said "this is all the dems fault" and pretty soon people would be believing it instead of saying "Bush can bring them home". It was political chicken and the Dems swerved first. Instead of the bullshit excuse Reid used they should have said "We tried to use the power of the purse to bring an end to it but the President would just leave the soldiers there under supplied and dying and we could not allow that to happen. This is why you need to vote for a democratic president so we can get this taken care of".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top