Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
Democrats coming unhinged; As if you couldn't tell that already
Topic Started: Nov 3 2005, 12:15 AM (1,517 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Coming Unhinged
Nov 3, 2005
by Matt Towery

Momentum in politics often shifts when a political leader or party overplays their hand. When Republicans rushed to pass legislation to prolong the life of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo earlier this year, I noted that much of the public saw it as grandstanding. I also wrote that the beginning of current GOP woes started with the party's Schiavo strategy.

Now the Democrats may be having their turn at costly misjudgment. Their closed-door meeting of Democrats-only in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday of this week was designed with drama in mind. They wanted to bring renewed attention to their claim that the Republicans are still stonewalling an investigation into the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war.

The stunt achieved nothing. If anything, it may one day be looked back on as the day the American public started to take a more positive view of President Bush and the Republicans again.

Yes, a White House indictment and a withdrawn Supreme Court nominee have Republicans on the run.

Even so, the public often senses when opportunistic politicians are trying to reach too far to score partisan blows.

There is now evidence that public support for the Iraq war may be making a slight comeback. Iraqis recently voted to approve a constitution. Now there are hints from the White House that modest numbers of U.S. troops might start to come home before Christmas.

Meanwhile, all the "who shot John" questions about prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction don't move the public. Most people know already that the weapons aren't there. Those who still support the war do so for other reasons.

Most who oppose it do so because of American casualties -- WMDs or not. Media have emphasized those casualties almost to the exclusion of any other news from the war front, good or bad. Others condemn the war because they say the American government is spending too much time and money helping other countries and not enough improving its own.

But even blood-happy media had to report the successful constitutional referendum; the one that even Saddam Hussein's Sunnis participated in. The subtext of these reports is that some form of democracy may actually be taking hold in Iraq. (And that voter participation in Iraq exceeds participation in America.)

The Democrats were handed Republican scandals and missteps on a silver platter. But they have managed to fumble them. Now the Democrats are appearing to many to be more concerned with being politically destructive than being policy constructive; and in failing to support American troops in the field in what may be the months of ultimate decision in Iraq.

Public political moods are cyclical. My guess is that last week -- with its indictment of Scooter Libby and Harriet Miers' withdrawal of her consideration for the Supreme Court -- was probably the nadir of the Bush presidency. From here, the White House may be about to enjoy the American people's instinct to rally around a beleaguered president when they think attacks on him have crossed over to the gratuitous.

A classic example of this phenomenon was the decision in 1998 by special prosecutor Ken Starr to make public his report on alleged misdeeds and possible crimes by then-President Clinton in the events leading up to Clinton's impeachment.

Top Republican leaders felt that by releasing the Starr Report's details, including fairly graphic descriptions of alleged sexual misconduct, Clinton's polling numbers would plummet and within a week he would be asked to resign by top Democratic leaders. (Let me assure you this scenario is fact, not speculation.)

The opposite happened. The public viewed the GOP as going too far in hunting for Clinton's hide. Most people sympathized with Clinton and subsequently awarded him with amazingly high approval ratings.

Did he deserve that new support of the people? Probably not. But that's the way it is in the game of politics and the people.

That brings us back to the Democrats' parliamentary temper tantrum this week. It was silly, pointless and transparently a cheap shot.

Worse for the Democrats, they may now have to rethink how stridently they should oppose Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. They have to consider that they now may be seen as rock-throwers more concerned with poking around in the ashes of the past than in lighting fires for the future.

And President Bush may be the beneficiary. Just when he needs it most.

Matt Towery is a graduate of England's Cambridge University and Florida's Stetson University Law School (Cum Laude). He is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and at age 30, he was his party's nominee for Lt. Governor of Georgia.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Of course, the Dems refuse to acknowledge that it was the Clinton White House that insisted Hussein had WMDs -- rather they need to find some machination whereby Bush lied-- and now Libby is taking the fall to their jeerings.

Are NONE of them honest enough to look at the history? These three quotes PREDATE the Bush presidency.

William J. Clinton :

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. February 4, 1998

William J. Clinton :

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons of mass destruction program. February 17, 1998

John Kerry:

We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Letter, October 9, 1998
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Go to google.

Type in 2 words and a number.

Clinton Iraq 1998



See what happens
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Add this to the mix: the Democratic tactic of completely trashing the tradition of past Presidents not publicly bashing the policies of sitting Presidents. Clinton has done it for some time now, and while generally viewed as tacky, the public seems to have given him at least a bit of a pass, spotting him a few jabs in light of his bitterness over his impeachment. Now it's Jimmy Carter. Sure, he's opened his mouth in the past too, but his timing now is awful - or wonderful, for the Republicans. This time, his comments are being viewed largely as a clumsy, opportunistic attempt at piling on. Beyond the immediate boomerang effect that his words will have, these two Presidents have now irretrievably set a precedent for future Presidential-bashing that will only be harmful to the country. Both of them should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, one of them won't be, and the other is physically incapable of shame.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
You know, when Clinton was in power and carrying out bombings of various unfortunate countries I distinctly remember a number of Republican supporters shouting 'war criminal!'. Or did I dream this? Why is it necessary to consistently criticise the opposing party, whatever they do? Or is it only a crime when the opposition do it?

Edit - Anyone who claims that either Party A or B has monolopy of the moral highground needs to step out of the crack den.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Dwain Lee
Nov 3 2005, 05:30 AM
Add this to the mix: the Democratic tactic of completely trashing the tradition of past Presidents not publicly bashing the policies of sitting Presidents. Clinton has done it for some time now, and while generally viewed as tacky, the public seems to have given him at least a bit of a pass, spotting him a few jabs in light of his bitterness over his impeachment. Now it's Jimmy Carter. Sure, he's opened his mouth in the past too, but his timing now is awful - or wonderful, for the Republicans. This time, his comments are being viewed largely as a clumsy, opportunistic attempt at piling on. Beyond the immediate boomerang effect that his words will have, these two Presidents have now irretrievably set a precedent for future Presidential-bashing that will only be harmful to the country. Both of them should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, one of them won't be, and the other is physically incapable of shame.

I'm not sure that's fair in the short run. If we look at Republican ex-Presidents, their post-presidential situations were different.

Nixon--laid low post-resignation. Seriously, who would have cared what he said. It took decades before people even acknowledged his foreign relations a la China.

Gerald Ford--retired to play golf, not elected

George HW Bush--still quite influential, needless to say.

Reagan--sadly, began having Alzheimer's symptoms

In addition, Carter and Clinton were both (relatively) young men after they left the White House, which may have played a part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
Nov 3 2005, 05:14 AM

Edit - Anyone who claims that either Party A or B has monolopy of the moral highground needs to step out of the crack den.

Psst. It's "crack HOUSE," "opium den," "shooting gallery"...

However, I agree. One thing wrong with a lot of these discussions is an inability to see anything positive in the ideas or actions of the opposing party, or the ability to suspect the motives of what your own party is doing.
It should be obvious that what Reid did was political grandstanding, and over the top. I'm glad he did it, though because we should get all the way to the bottom of who knew what, and said what to whom regarding the Wilson/Plame business.
Bush's administration has too many sleazy yes-men smear artists. I'm glad one of them was indicted, and is gone. I wish a few more of them would be gone too.

I said the same thing back in the not so gay '90s, when you had operators like Ron Brown (sorry to speak ill of the dead), Cisneros, Panetta, and the rest of the merry gang in the Clinton WH.

Phlebas: Who thinks all of Larry's threads should have the word "unhinged" in the title.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
When the Bush Administration gets it right, I'm happy to say so. For example ... not pulling out of Iraq. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, but, now that we are there, we have no choice but to finish the job.

For example ... the Roberts nomination. I've consistently said that, if I were a Senator, I'd have voted for him. I would never have nominated him myself, but I don't think it's possible to conclude that he wasn't qualified.

Pending further review, I feel the same way about Alito.

My criticisms of Bush and the Bushies are real, live criticisms. I don't feel compelled to oppose him on every single point ... there are plenty of places where he is so deeply, tragically wrong that I'm perfectly happy to concede the instances where he gets it right.

Some conservatives are the same way. I may have philosophical differences with them, but they are capable of perceiving reality, and of conceding areas in which they believe the Bush Administration has gone off the rails. Others ... I don't really need to name names, do I? ... are not.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
It should be obvious that what Reid did was political grandstanding, and over the top. I'm glad he did it, though because we should get all the way to the bottom of who knew what, and said what to whom regarding the Wilson/Plame business.
Bush's administration has too many sleazy yes-men smear artists. I'm glad one of them was indicted, and is gone. I wish a few more of them would be gone too.

I said the same thing back in the not so gay '90s, when you had operators like Ron Brown (sorry to speak ill of the dead), Cisneros, Panetta, and the rest of the merry gang in the Clinton WH.


It's a pretty depressing description of US politics over the last 15 years.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
You can always tell when the right-wingers start to feel threatened; they start talking about Clinton.

Clinton is gone, boys. He can't hurt you any more. This mess is yours; your congress, your president, your incompetence, your cronies, your war.

Clean it up yourself. Bill had nothing to do with it.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Yes, OUR congress making OUR laws, OUR president nominating OUR judges for OUR interpretation of the constitution, OUR accomplishments, OUR men and women for the job, and OUR war saving and liberating millions of people.

Don't you want to be on OUR side? ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
You can always tell when the right-wingers start to feel threatened; they start talking about Clinton.

Clinton is gone, boys.  He can't hurt you any more.  This mess is yours; your congress, your president, your incompetence, your cronies, your war.

Clean it up yourself.  Bill had nothing to do with it.


You don't think Clinton's quite declarative statements on Saddam Hussein's WMD capability are relevant to the "Bush lied" debate? It would seem that Bush lying was really Bush repeating what everyone else thought at the time on both sides of the fence.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Yes, OUR congress making OUR laws, OUR president nominating OUR judges for OUR interpretation of the constitution, OUR accomplishments, OUR men and women for the job, and OUR war saving and liberating millions of people.

Don't you want to be on OUR side?


This too will pass.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Nov 3 2005, 09:00 AM
Quote:
 
Yes, OUR congress making OUR laws, OUR president nominating OUR judges for OUR interpretation of the constitution, OUR accomplishments, OUR men and women for the job, and OUR war saving and liberating millions of people.

Don't you want to be on OUR side?


This too will pass.

... kind of like a gall stone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Painfully? :lol:

...only time I ever heard my dad cry....... :eek:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Steve Miller
Nov 3 2005, 08:52 AM
You can always tell when the right-wingers start to feel threatened; they start talking about Clinton.

Clinton is gone, boys.  He can't hurt you any more.  This mess is yours; your congress, your president, your incompetence, your cronies, your war.

Clean it up yourself.  Bill had nothing to do with it.

Steve:

OUR mess???

Who was it that signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act"? Bush or Clinton?

Who was it that stated
Quote:
 
"This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress
that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi
opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the
bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the
current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . .
Bush or Clinton?

Who was it that stated
Quote:
 
My Administration, as required
by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile
information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity,
and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to
justice those directly responsible for such acts.
Bush or Clinton?

It has nothing to do with right wingers feeling threatened. It has everything to do with not letting the weaselly Left squirm away, and lie through their teeth to the American public that "Bush Lied" and that it is all about "Oil for Money".

I would be shocked and saddened if you were that bereft of integrity to not ackowledge the history of these events.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Add this to the mix: the Democratic tactic of completely trashing the tradition of past Presidents not publicly bashing the policies of sitting Presidents.


Why shouldn't they? Everybody is very busy trashing past Presidents. What's so special about the one who's sitting?

Politics is a dirty game, and they're all in the dirt pile together.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rontuner
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
"OUR mess???"

What all you Bush Davidians (you remember those folks that would rather burn than surrender?) miss in this questioning about the previous administration, is that THEY didn't push for war... so yes, YOUR mess.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Yes, Ron. We remember the Davidians -- those AMERICANS who were slaughtered -- man, woman and child -- by the US Government under Clinton and Reno. What again was your point?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I was thinking the same thing, IT. The last thing I'd want to mention if I was a Bush hating antiwar pacifist would be the biggest example of criminal conduct and abuse of power our country ever saw....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
The last thing I'd want to mention if I was a Bush hating antiwar pacifist would be the biggest example of criminal conduct and abuse of power our country ever saw....


Well, if you're going to do hyperbole, you might as well do it to the max, I guess. There have been much larger abuses of power in the history of the US, as you well know.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Yep, to some, Mr. Lincoln holds that title right nicely.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rontuner
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
"Yes, Ron. We remember the Davidians -- those AMERICANS who were slaughtered -- man, woman and child -- by the US Government under Clinton and Reno. What again was your point? "

That they had a chance to leave their man, but chose to ignore reason, as the Bush Davidians do now. (As to criminal conduct and abuse of power, well I think the Repubicans are showing their true colors! That's one thing they are really familiar with...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Yep, to some, Mr. Lincoln holds that title right nicely.


Yes, and I'm glad he did.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5