Ending The Iraq Debacle Represents The Will of The American People

Harry Reid is speaking for the American People:

See also C&L.

The evidence:

Q: If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?
Fund the war without conditions: 43%
Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%
Don't know: 12%

I am more moderate than the American People - I support the Reid-Feingold bill, which calls for funding to a date certain, March 31, 2008.

< Hiatt on Imus: One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others | Rudy Out of Touch With Basics of Daily Life >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You're the Moderate? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by TexDem on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Who'd a thunk it.

    Told you I was a (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:15:07 PM EST

    Just goes to show that Churchill was right (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TexDem on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    "the American people will always do the right thing -- after they have tried everything else." ...

    Murtha Plan # 2 (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by magster on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    Meteor Blades has a post on the front page of Kos about resurrecting the Murtha plan, rather than Reid-Feingold.

    The Murtha plan could be seen as a "concession" to Bush that may spin well, while having more practical effect at bringing troops out of Iraq.  The news of extended tours and mobilizing more unequipped national guard really should put Bush on defensive, and plays well into the Murtha plan.  I think it has more of a chance of passing than Reid-Feingold.  

    Maybe the House could take up Murtha while the Senate takes up Reid-Feingold, and see which one gains momentum.

    Whatever works (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    I want to know (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    what happened to the Taft wing of the Republican party. You know, the guys who kept us out of the League of Nations.

    jarober should be along soon (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 01:15:47 PM EST

    followed by Jimakappj (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 01:25:43 PM EST
    who proceed to state that 45% of the people surveyed aren't adults


    Is he doing those online surveys again? ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    Doesn't he have a script to clear his cache (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:07:13 PM EST
    and vote repeatedly?


    It is a happy day (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by mmeo on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:59:20 PM EST
    when the Majority Leader of the House of Prepresentatives repeats a half-dozen times in public that the President has been lying in this affair, just as the President lied in order to get the country into this war in the first place.

    It is a happy day when the leader of the delegation controlling the tax-imposing power of the federal government repeats even more than half-a-dozen times, before the mainstream mass media, that he is a member of a branch of government equal in power to that of the President.

    Well then (none / 0) (#10)
    by jarober on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    The Will of the American people - based on numerous polls - is that something like a full stop of illegal immigration should take place.  Maybe the Congress should deal with that?  Or maybe pork?  That was an aspect of the last election as well.

    You might want to ponder the fact that we do not live in a Democracy - we live in a Republic.  There's a big difference.

    Complete and utter nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    We live in a Representative Democracy. Go back to civics class


    You want to make illegal immigration (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:15:28 PM EST

    Um, Ok. Isn't already, illegal?


    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:45:55 PM EST
    The adults were talking about iraq, why would you try to change the subject to illegal aliens? [BTW, that was rhetorical, we all know why rethugs change the subject.]

    Sigh (none / 0) (#14)
    by jarober on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    To Molly - nope.  Representative Democracy is a description of sorts, but we live in a Republic.  The over-usage of the term "Democracy" is part of the problem.  My point being, "the people" don't vote directly on issues.  We elect representatives, who then vote for us.  In a true Democracy, that middle layer is cut out.

    To Big Tent, your attempt at avoidance is humorous.  Neither you nor Jeralyn want the current laws on illegal immigration enforced - that's clear from the posts you guys make.  If we are going to have a "popular will" argument, then it seems pretty clear that the "popular will" on immigration issues differs from what Bush and the Democratic Congress will eventually come up with.

    Sigh is right (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:01:48 PM EST
    Note the key word that appears throughout:

    Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people. Representatives may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referenda. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people, to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best to do so. While considerations such as party alignment, perception of voter wishes or the public interest, re-election prospects and other factors can be of influence, there are generally few binding restrictions.


    Direct democracy is largely referred to as a political system where the citizens vote on all major policy decisions. It is called direct because, in the classical forms, there are no intermediaries or representatives. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities, usually city-states.

    If you really want to pursue this ridiculous line amend your statment to We don't live in a DIRECT Democracy. Basic civics class.