Here Comes The Dem Cave-In On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:09:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Rahm Emmanuel says:

We cannot be a one-trick pony," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who helped engineer his party's takeover of Congress as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "People voted for change, but Iraq, the economy and Washington, D.C., [corruption] all tied for first place. We need to do them all."

This is Emanuel's way of saying 'look, we did our political game on Iraq, now we are going to cave in to Bush and face his intransigence on "kitchen table" issues. Oh by the way, I never cared about doing something about Iraq anyway. Look what I said in the beginning of 2006.'

They don't get it and they never really will. Paul Krugman told them:

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public.... But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions. Iraq is the most dramatic example....

They do not want to believe it. They want to listen to enablers like Leon Panetta:

The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta . . .

That's great Leon. Nice to see we can count on you for another Dems should cave-in quote. And a silly one to boot. Check out today's Newsweek poll:

19. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve 28%
Disapprove 64%

Don't Know 8

27. As of today, do you lean more toward the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
Total Rep/Lean Rep 37%

Total Dem/Lean Dem 52%

I would like to ask the Washington Post, Leon Panetta and the Beltway Dems, this question, who do they think is in better political shape today? Do they think caving in to Bush on Iraq is going to help them?

Dumber than a bag of hammers is the Beltway.

< Gitmo Detainees Rebuffing Their Own Lawyers | The D.C. Madam's Lawyer >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Here Comes The Dem Cave-In On Iraq | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's about responsibility and accountability, Leon (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by robotalk on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:19:30 AM EST

and if the democrats don't act responsibly and demand accountability, they are simply the same as the republicans.

bull (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by profmarcus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:25:52 AM EST

sorry, rahm... if getting us the hell out of iraq qualifies as a "one-trick pony," YOU, sir, can bite me... and, i don't know what YOU mean by corruption, but i suspect it isn't what i mean by corruption... i suspect you're talking about folks like delay, abramoff, renzi, and the other gaggle of crooked congressmen and lobbyists... what I'M talking about is the constitution-shredding criminals currently occupying the white house which i would place in a priority ABOVE iraq, and which you don't even bother to mention...

what i have to say to you, wapo, is stop trying to paint the democrats as a bunch of bumblers... they are dealing with the most criminal administration in the history of this country, and, in doing so, are having to face many of their own shortcomings... the good news is that they're keepin' on keepin' on...

and you, rahm, are a sorely out-of-touch, dlc big-mouth, and fall squarely into the category of one of those "shortcomings" i referred to above...

p.s. the dems momentum isn't "stalling..." it's just getting started...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

I said it last Tuesday (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:39:52 AM EST

I'll say it again:

[Does the] Democratic Congress have the desire and courage to end the Iraq Debacle? This is what we will discover.
Or will we discover that they are as delusionally self serving (and self destructive) as we already know Bush is?
If Bush does veto the bill tonight will Pelosi back Reid-Feingold or some other real method of defunding, or will she treat the public with the same insulting assumption of stupidity the republicans and Bush have for 7 years, and lie and say "we tried to end it" but Bush wouldn't play nice?
And if she does... will people believe her?
There are a few things we might discover that we'd rather not.

I hope she's smarter than Rahm Emmanuel.

: I'm new to your writing, you are polite in (none / 0) (#50)
by seabos84 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:13:27 PM EST

this case, and I don't know if it is the norm.
I've got so little faith in her or Reid.
Now, I still HOPE they'll come out swinging ... 24*7*365.
imnho 24*7*365 swinging is what they need to do against these nutjobs, and
imnho they haven't ever done it.
ugh.
rmm.

[ Parent ]

Walk and Chew Gum (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Molly Bloom on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:21:59 PM EST

"People voted for change, but Iraq, the economy and Washington, D.C., [corruption] all tied for first place. We need to do them all."

This paragraph is Admitted in part...

Yes we need to do something about them all and that includes Iraq.

If Rahm can't walk and chew gum at the same time, he needs to step aside from the leadership and be a good follower of someone who can walk and chew gum.

Wow do I hate that Wapo article (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:59:55 PM EST

It isn't that the American public notices any "stall" in the Democrats momentum and that has them discouraged about Congress, it is that the number one issue, the Iraq War, has not been tackled. Americans are demanding that the Democrats shut this thing down.......YESTERDAY! Why can't they understand that what Bush has dragged the nation into defiles everything that we as American's believe and cherish about ourselves? Why don't they understand that if Americans are just a bunch of lying cheating murderers we can't hold our heads up, our lives mean less to us because we have sunk so low? How can they continue to just not get it, that the Iraq War is many things but it is also a cancer eating at the souls of Americans on the street!

: possibly because... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by annefrank on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:51:15 PM EST

the Reupblican congresseS have repeatedly claimed that invading Iraq was patriotic and noble?

[ Parent ]

Panetta is an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by Maryb2004 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:58:15 PM EST

I can't believe he trotted out "gridlock" to use against the Democrats. For god's sake, this was a major Republican talking point in the 80's and 90's and it negatively affected the administration he worked for.

If anything the 2006 election was evidence that the public had evolved on their thinking about gridlock and after 6 years of a rubber stamp congress now thought that a little gridlock might be a good thing. A point I made right before the election.

I agree Rahm looks like's he's signaling that caving is to come. I can't believe they are going to base it on an old Republican talking point.

Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by chemoelectric on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:56:29 PM EST

So maybe it's Rahm Emanuel and Leon Panetta from whom reporters get the 'news' that the Democrats are caving, regardless of whether or not the Democrats are caving (except in the past they almost always caved, so the sources were 'reliable').

Of course we expect this from Rahm Emanuel. And the last time I looked Leon Panetta's post was Chief Magistrate of Nothing.

Good. The worst that can happen is Dems will cave, and learn a hard but firm lesson; but we can't really tell which way it will go, with sources like these.

Positioning for '08 / '10 Trough (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by seabos84 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:05:01 PM EST

as someone who has followed politics since ... I was 12 in '72? 10 in '70? AND

who believed the DLC mantra in the 80's about hippy Dems scaring the middle and losing, AND

who wondered during clinton's reign why progress had been defined to be NOT as bad as the f$$$ing fascist RayGun, AND

who has been contemptuous, since the campaign of 2000, of the parasites living large in this losing party,

Leon & Rahm & &&& ONLY care about keeping their fat paychecks, fat lifestyles, and fat pampered asses fat and pampered.

They are using thug memes to define the fights so that they are the natural .................

puke ...

HA HA HA HA HA

'leaders' against the fascists.

IF we the peeee-ons are stupid enough to swallow this losing strategy yet again, we deserve this kind of crap leadership.

rmm.

Dumb like a fox. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Lora on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:25:02 PM EST

They are funded by corporations.

The corporations have no desire to see the end of the war.

Not dumb. Greedy.

ridiculous! (1.00 / 2) (#22)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:00:09 PM EST

It won't take long to sift through the real posters here and the others.

You over-value the exit polls

Ha ha. I see. You mean the same exit polls that the nation relied on to tell uas that Iraq was the number one issue in 2006? You mean the same exit polls that Reid and Pelosi rely on and cite weekly?

So those exit polls are good for making Iraq the number one issue but all the other secondary issues mean nothing?

If that is what you think you are not thinking.

On The Other Hand (none / 0) (#4)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:10:52 PM EST

On the other hand maybe he is just acknowledging that our hands are tied on Iraq and we don't have many more cards to play. Maybe he is saying that as important as Iraq is there are other issues that Americans want us to tend to. I believe that. People do not want us to be ONLY about Iraq.

Our options of stopping Bush are limited and defunding the war is not a viable option unless we want to increase the chances of the Repubs gaining back control. If that happens we will be right back in Iraq and then Iran and the deaths of Americans will make todays deaths look pale in comparison. Not to mention the continued domestic destruction they will continue cause.

That is something that defunding advocates like Armando do not talk about.

You obviously have not followed (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:19:40 PM EST

what Big Tent has written about defunding, or thoughts from others about it. And before you retort with a whining "address my points", you haven't made any that haven't been dissected and refuted countless times. I'd say you're just here to get a dig in.

[ Parent ]

I Know (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:32:01 PM EST

Armando and others are for defunding. And I have yet to hear any of the things I brought up discussed from any of them.

If they have been discussed here then I'm open to reading them if you want to point me to the thread - if they do indeed exist.

I'd say you're just here to get a dig in.

Your wrong. I'm here to discuss and exchange ideas and differing views. I have views on defunding that run counter to most defunding advocates because they have not thought about them.

[ Parent ]

Not thought about them (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:37:55 PM EST

Ha! YOur point about the politics of it? Riiiight.

Edger just told you that I have and written on it extensively.

Read the Krugman piece linked here for more.

[ Parent ]

Good! (1.00 / 2) (#17)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:53:21 PM EST

I'd like to read what you wrote. There are probably some points I may not have considered.

You are good at knowing what your past posts are and linking to them. So please direct me to that post or posts.

[ Parent ]

If you're unfamiliar with the literature (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:55:14 PM EST

then it is quite rude for you to barge in here insisting that you know everything.

[ Parent ]

No Wonder You have So Few Posters Here (2.33 / 3) (#25)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:04:50 PM EST

If you expect every new poster to read through every front page post and every comment before posting themselves.

If that is what you think you are nuts pal.

[ Parent ]

No (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:07:26 PM EST

But it is easier for them if the know what they are talking about first.

[ Parent ]

: It's brutal on this blog if you don't (none / 0) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:23:06 PM EST

They will be happy to hand you your fanny on any thread on here! Friggin lawyers ;)

[ Parent ]

For crissakes talex (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:04:37 PM EST

You came on pretty strong here and pretty arrogant. Suire I am all that too but on this issue, I have done a lot of work.

There are a group of folks here that know I have written about this for months and there truly is not an angle I have not considered.

I may be wrong but not because I am unaware of any arguments.

[ Parent ]

: OK (none / 0) (#49)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:10:56 PM EST

I'm on the way out the door - but real quick.
Point me to some links of yours on the subject of defunding. Like I said before I would like to read what you have had to say on the subject. One poster pointed me to every post you have ever written. Ha ha. I'm sure you can understand that isn't much help as I am interested in this one particular subject given how timely the issue is.
As to coming on strong I do not think my original post was overly strong. I just disagreed with your read on what Rahm said and offered an alternate opinion on what he may have meant and subsequently offered examples that show that he is saying nothing that is not already being said by others - i.e being currently discussed in both houses and in the two presidential debates - not to mention Pelosi's First Hundred Hours.
So he said nothing that has not been already legislated or is slated to be legislated prior to his statement. How can that be caving? If you want to take issue with him it might be with his "tied for first place" statement but that is rather minor IMO.

There are a group of folks here that know I have written about this for months and there truly is not an angle I have not considered.
Well good. Then if you could provide me some links where you have addressed the political ramifications that could happen in the event that we would do a flat out defunding in the near future I'd like to read what you said. And if you wrote about the aftermath of those political ramifications, both world and domestic, I'd be interested in your thoughts on that too.
**note - if anyone came on strong it was some of the other posters to the point of troll rating me for asking you for links. Troll rating when asking for links to your work?? Even you have to admit that is rather over the top and not in good taste or in the spirit of legitimate troll rating.
And for people to say that a subject has already been discussed so take a hike is counter productive to new posters coming here. If those are the rules of the game here I guess the owner of this site is not keen on building their readership so that they may charge more and sell more ads that support this site and hopefully add dollars to their bank account. Is that the case?
Thanks in advance for the specific links to your work on the subject of defunding.

[ Parent ]

edger and andgarden (none / 0) (#52)
by Miss Devore on Sat May 05, 2007 at 04:12:23 PM EST

have been going door to door selling the a/bdt-opedia like crazed jehovah witness'. here's the cliff notes for free:

(skip the broder & lieberman stuff-talk about the Department of Redundancy Department!)

de-funding is a position almost no one will undertake, much less understand, so A is sticking to it.

but see jeremy scahill, for why it don't matter anyway, cuz the Dems won't even mention the mercenaries. the latter is how the Brits intended to get out of Basra, tho 'tis not faring so well.

word of the day: stallin'-Hil & Byrd's de-authorization will lead to re-authorization under terms where Hil can assume presidency and still lay blame.

At any rate, visitez Je blague, where no toes are sucked by Joe Klein, but there's plenty of impeachment porn:

http://missdevore.wordpress.com/

[ Parent ]

Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 04:18:51 PM EST

de-funding is a position almost no one will undertake, much less understand

Not paying for something you don't want is complicated.

[ Parent ]

as an atheist (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 04:54:12 PM EST

being compared to a jehovah's witness is probably one of the more interesting things I've had said about me.

[ Parent ]

It's that crazed gleam you get (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:01:43 PM EST

in your eyes when people who say they also don't want what you don't want, want to keep paying for it and want you to keep paying for it too.

[ Parent ]

: Our host must be immersed in the (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by oculus on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:12:55 PM EST

Kentucky Derby!

[ Parent ]

no doubt (none / 0) (#57)
by Miss Devore on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:26:15 PM EST

I can't think of anything else.

[ Parent ]

Your Krugman Link (none / 0) (#20)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:55:28 PM EST

does not work.

[ Parent ]

You mean (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:38:51 PM EST

And I have yet to hear any of the things I brought up discussed from any of them.

You demand they agree that you have a point. Sorry, Iraq was THE issue of 2006.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah Iraq (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:49:42 PM EST

is the issue of 2006. At least it was the big one. But if you look at the exit polls it was not the only one.
Americans did not say concentrate on Iraq and Iraq ONLY..
Pelosi acknowledged that with her 'First Hundred Hours'.

[ Parent ]

defeatism masquerading as pragmatism (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:23:51 PM EST

sends the wrong message to bushco but more importantly the american public and the world. the occupation in iraq is draining funds from the "kitchen table" issues.

[ Parent ]

defeatism ??? (1.00 / 2) (#11)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:45:08 PM EST

So passing a minimum wage bill was defeatism? Addressing health care should not be addressed or even be whispered until we are out of Iraq? Stem cell research neither?

Seems that the defeatism rests with those who do not want to move forward on those and other issues because Bush's war has them paralyzed and unable do think about other important matters.

[ Parent ]

False Dichotomy. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:46:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

No You Are Wrong (1.00 / 3) (#14)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:50:45 PM EST

And two word responses are a weak argument.

[ Parent ]

You have nothing new to say (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:00:40 PM EST

so you have no right to demand respect for your ill-conceived "arguements."

[ Parent ]

What? (1.00 / 2) (#27)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:06:46 PM EST

What is ill conceived about my arguments?

[ Parent ]

: The fact that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:11:10 PM EST

you have no informed ones.

[ Parent ]

Now you start with the strawmen. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:51:18 PM EST

I think you're here trolling. Nothing more.

[ Parent ]

: The things I Listed (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:13:33 PM EST

are not strawmen. They are serious issues. I guess you didn't watch the last two debates and hear them discussed.
I guess you have not paid attention that these a re issues currently being discussed in both Chambers of congress.
You have no arguments to what I originally posted so you want to play games no thanks. You lose.

[ Parent ]

Here' a way to save your reputation (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:55:08 PM EST

and rebuild your credibility.

Take a couple of weeks off, go read these and come back when you're up to speed.

[ Parent ]

Yeah (1.00 / 2) (#32)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:17:27 PM EST

Like I'm going to read through every one of those to find the one pertinent to what I posted.

That tells me you have no credibility because you can't discuss the issues yourself so you point me to a library of SOMEONE ELSES posts.

Guess I won't waste any more time with you until you have something to say about what I posted.

[ Parent ]

: You are trolling. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:18:51 PM EST

You just confirmed it.
I pointed you to what you asked for.

[ Parent ]

you just proved the fallacy of your argument (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:00:23 PM EST

if the dems have managed to pass stem cell legislation and are continuing to work towards univeral health care and raising the minimum wage and reversing global warming, while confronting the administration on iraq, why should they abandon that effort now? what sense does it make to view one discounting the other? the reality of this moment is that iraq is issue at hand - it has become increasingly apparent that people are dying needlessly, for a lie.

i'm mixing arguments here, but even francis fukuyama sees the light:

The surge was the last military card we had to play, and now our bluff will soon be called.
...
This means that we will have to engage in a very different debate from the one we have been having up to now, a debate not about surging and not about withdrawing with our goals accomplished but about how to draw down our forces in a way that minimizes the costs that will inevitably accompany our loss of control.
This is a difficult situation, but it is necessary. The questions we need to address include: How do we reconfigure our forces to provide advice, training and support, rather than engaging in combat? How we can withdraw safely without a serious Iraqi army to cover our retreat? How will we dismantle enormous bases like Camp Liberty or Camp Victory and protect the diminishing numbers of U.S. troops in the country? Do we trust the Iraqi military and police sufficiently to turn over our equipment to them? How do we protect the lives of those who collaborated with us? The images of South Vietnamese allies hanging to the skid pads of U.S. helicopters departing Saigon should be burned into our memories.
...
The presence of U.S. forces has itself been a spur to terrorist recruitment, but as it becomes clear that we are on our way out, it will be easier for Iraqi nationalists to turn against the foreign jihadists (as they have already begun to do in Al Anbar province).
An intensifying civil war will be a tragedy for Iraq, but it is not the worst outcome from a U.S. standpoint to have a number of bitterly anti-American groups duking it out among themselves.
Civil wars eventually come to an end when one side wins (unlikely, in this case) or when the parties exhaust themselves and drop their maximalist aims.

That's My Point (none / 0) (#34)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:21:07 PM EST

if the dems have managed to pass stem cell legislation and are continuing to work towards univeral health care and raising the minimum wage and reversing global warming, while confronting the administration on iraq, why should they abandon that effort now? what sense does it make to view one discounting the other?

Exactly!!! But I didn't say they should abandon it. Armando is the one who said Rahm is caving in by mentioning those things not me. My post actually disagreed with Armando.

What you quoted above you should take up with Armando.

[ Parent ]

no, you said (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:28:30 PM EST

On the other hand maybe he is just acknowledging that our hands are tied on Iraq and we don't have many more cards to play.

which i read as saying that it is time to cave on iraq and deal with the other "more important issues." you seem just as ready as emanuel to give up on fighting bushco on iraq. emanuel and levin have been undercutting reid and feingold from the outset, so his willingness to cave hardly comes as a suprise, but it is not something with which i agree.

[ Parent ]

You Read it Wrong (none / 0) (#40)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:43:00 PM EST

It's common knowledge that we don't have a lot of political options available to us because of the veto. so yes the veto does tie our hands. Now we are talking about benchmarks with the Repubs. That is a viable strategy in the long term if we are to defeat Bush which I do not have time to go into right now.

But flat out defunding is not a viable strategy for many reasons. one being the public does not 'yet' support it. Maybe in the future they will. But until that time comes defunding could be poetically disastrous for us and could cause us to lose both congress and the white house in '08. If that happened it would be disastrous and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.

Now I am out for the day. Have a good weekend.

[ Parent ]

: Finally some clarity here. (none / 0) (#61)
by Edger on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:56:25 PM EST

until that time comes defunding could be poetically disastrous for us and could cause us to lose both congress and the white house in '08.
Now I understand you. We come at this from two different perspectives and with distinctly different goals.
I want the occupation ended as soon as possible so that the fewest Americans and Iraqis die. Preferably none. Period. I also see the occupation as a specific instance of the more general doctrine of preemptive war - really imperialist hegemony - that the neocons and rethugs want to pursue. I want the specific instance ended and the mindset behind the general doctrine made politically and socially unacceptable and people who hold that mindset treated as pariahs, so that no matter which party is elected it will not happen again.
You, on the other hand, don't really want to end the occupation.
You want, or rather, need it to continue so that you can try to use it for political purposes because you think that positioning against it will help you win elections. It is in your interest to have it continue till after elections so that you can do that. You are operating with the assumption that you will win them by doing so.
You see defunding and ending the occupation as a threat. There is no difference between you and the neocons and rethugs.
You don't need to be discussing this with people who are advocating defunding it and ending it because it is morally wrong.
You need to be discussing this with the mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters of the soldiers who will die while you try to make political hay, and ask for their support. In fact you will be doing exactly that in the election campaigns. You just haven't realized it.
Good. Luck.
Thanks for dropping in and being thoroughly disgusting. You know where the door is.

[ Parent ]

Which part of this (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:24:31 PM EST

This is Emanuel's way of saying 'look, we did our political game on Iraq, now we are going to cave in to Bush and face his intransigence on "kitchen table" issues.

do you disagree with?

[ Parent ]

This Part (none / 0) (#39)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:35:58 PM EST

we did our political game on Iraq, now we are going to cave in to Bush

Armando is being a mind reader - and he is not.

Where in Rahm's quote did he say he "we did our political game"? No where.

Where did he say "now we are going to cave in"? No Where.

He didn't even insinuate any of those things.

Like I originally said if you read what Rahm wrote he is just saying that the issues he mentioned are issues that we also need to be addressing. And he is right. Like I said upthread Pelosi addressed some of them in the first hundred hours. And they are being discussed in congress and in both Dem and Repub debates. If that does not show how wrong Armando is then I can't help you.

Lastly if Armando was right he would be here defending his words himself. But he knows the bolded words above shows that he is dead wrong on what he said.

Facts don't lie.

See ya - I'm out for the day.

[ Parent ]

: On your last graf (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:35:15 PM EST

Don't flatter yourself.
I don't think your points really require response is why am not responding more.

[ Parent ]

paralyzed? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by conchita on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:04:52 PM EST

russ feingold is paralyzed? is that why he introduced introduced the bipartisan State-Based Health Care Reform Act?

[ Parent ]

Question? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by MO Blue on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:08:42 PM EST

Has the minimum wage become a law? No and neither has any of the other things that are important to our society. The Republicans or Bush's veto pen is going to prevent most of the Democratic legislation from becoming law.

Also, $9 billion dollars a month is being spent on the Iraq debacle. The longer that continues the less money the U.S. will have to spend on ANY domestic program. At the rate we are throwing money away in Iraq, we won't be able to pay for even the minimal services we have now let alone provide better health care etc.

If the Dems can't spend the time necessary to end the occupation of Iraq AND pass needed legislation, then they need to go sell shoes and we can elect people that are capable of doing more than one thing.

[ Parent ]

You Are Getting Way Off the Orig Subject (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by talex on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:26:38 PM EST

My point is that Armando is wrong in saying Rahm is caving in by mentioning other important issues. It is as easy as that. And if anyone here should be making HIS assertion clear it is him not others. Only he knows what he was thinking when he wrote it.

Now as far as defunding goes I summarized in my original post what I felt were some of the negatives of that. If anyone here wants to intelligently refute them then they should but so far no one has.

[ Parent ]

: So you're a troll AND a poor reader (none / 0) (#38)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:31:59 PM EST

Go back and read what Rham said again. As to defunding, come up with a new arguement or go away. You won't get "intelligent" discussion on points already beaten to death here.

[ Parent ]

Yellow elephant in the room, henh? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by walt on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:16:12 PM EST

We've got this big old yellow elephant dropping hourly 20-pound loads of fresh manure all over the carpet & Rep. Emanuel wants to change the drapes, clean out the refrigerator & put an organizer in the closet. And you seem to want some support for this mindless effort at re-arranging the tableware on the Titanic.

Also, beyond the polls is a wide range, now, of local politicians' awarenesses, local letters to the editors, internet website comment traffic & anecdotal "stuff" that a remarkable percentage of the American citizens want the war in Iraq brought to a summary close--quickly, in the next few months, soon.

Whether BigTentDemocrat points this out, edger, Molly Bloom, conchita, etc., is of no consequence on this website--we're all pointing at & discussing the same yellow elephant & it's steaming piles of odorous rethuglican crapola.

This place is named TalkLeft, not talkdoofus. No, that's your other left; you're off on the wrong foot here.

[ Parent ]

No profanity (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:01:28 PM EST

I have to delete your comment.

: Sorry. Understood. n/t (none / 0) (#44)
by andgarden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:15:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The Dems Fear. (none / 0) (#60)
by darby1936 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:01:06 PM EST

The Dems have been out of power for a few years and they think they deserve to be a marginal party. Someone tell them when the majority of the country is with your base, you da man. Can't they tell by now that no matter how timid and close to the vest they play it the Republican congress and this administration are not going to let them lose. They need to be reminded of Iraq, Katrina, corruption and the Republicans gift to the top 1% and the theft from the rest of us. They won't win as big, though if they don't go to the mat with this administration on Iraq.