• commentary
  • WEDNESDAY JUNE 13 2007 9:00 AM

Democrats: Classic Fuck Ups

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Democrats, Bush, Republicans, Iraq



After the 9/11 attacks, George Bush had political capital to spend. With his support skyrocketing, he chose to make every idiotic choice he possibly could, alienating America across the globe and becoming the worst President in US history. Politicians do not get many opportunities like the one George Bush was given. But he blew the support in such a horrific fashion that in November of 2006, the Republicans suffered one of the worst defeats in Congressional history, losing both chambers of Congress. The American public wanted the Democrats to do one thing: Get the US out of Iraq. And, not surprisingly, the Democrats took that political mandate and totally fucked it up.

George Bush’s approval numbers are nearing Nixon territory. At this point, he could probably rape a blind 13-year-old midget on camera in the Oval Office and his numbers would not get much worse than they already are. Now, ad that to the fact that Americans support some sort of withdrawal from Iraq by a large margin and it sounds like a great combination if you are the opposing party, right? Not if that opposing party is The Party of Being Afraid. Like the pussies they are known to be, the Democrats caved on the recent spending bill and gave Bush a blank check.

The Republicans called the Democrats’ bluff and they scampered away like the frightened kittens they are. A tremendous opportunity lost. I believe the Democrats made a political calculation – one they will come to greatly regret. New polls out this week suggest the public is upset that the Democrats caved on the Iraq spending bill. Way back in April, the Democratic led Congress had a 54% approval rating, but that has now plummeted to 35%. In April, the Democrats held a 24% approval rating advantage over Bush. That advantage has now dropped to 3%. That is what happens when you play politics instead of doing what you were clearly elected to do.

The Democrats stupidly thought keeping Iraq alive and in the President’s court, would benefit them as people became increasingly upset over the summer. But that plan quickly backfired. The Democratic base, many of who were energized in their opposition against the war, has bailed – hence the rapid drop in poll numbers. Staffers on The Hill are said to be completely shocked at the anger spewing forth from the base. This just goes to show how distanced from reality they are. Did they not see the polls? Did they think they were given control of Congress to talk the talk and not walk the walk?

During the long standoff over the funding, Republican lawmakers kept throwing the month of September around. “We’ll wait until September to see if the surge is working,” they kept saying. The Democrats believed they could use the entire summer to hammer away at Bush on the war and they chose to wait until September. They were totally outflanked by Republican leaders. Now Republicans are beginning to float bills around, different ways to withdraw or reduce troops in September – in other words, the Republicans in Congress will take the credit for any withdrawal that takes place. After all, it will be done on their timetable. And worst of all, by signing onto the funding bill, the Democrats took part ownership of a war that was never theirs.

And make no mistake about it, the Democrats could have stopped this war – by not funding it. Bush could not veto an end to funding. He would not get a bill to veto, just a letter saying, “No more money after March. Sorry, bro.” All Congress had to do was grow a backbone and tell the President that funding for the war would end in March. If a year is not enough time to safely withdraw our troops, then we will never be able to remove them.

Will this translate in the next election? Probably not. The Republican field is one of the most pathetic in generations. They are a group of hardcore right wing/religious fanatics who are completely out of touch with the average American. Republicans will suffer greatly until they purge their party of lunatics.

But the Democrats had a moment in time they can never get back. A moment they wasted. They will now be seen as the “other” party. The party you go to if you don’t want to vote for the other guys, not as a party of action, not as the party a backbone, not as a party you can believe in to stand up for doing what is right.

Reid and Pelosi took it up the ass one this one, and they will deservedly suffer the consequences.

FearTheReaper hates Democrats but he hates Republicans more. He supported them hoping they would put a stop to the war. Now he thinks they can fuck off.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Next

Comments
skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

JUN 13, 2007 08:22 PM

Zarth said:

KUNGFOO said:

Zarth said:

KUNGFOO said:

smithers_jones said:

Zarth said:
See? There you go again - blaming the Republicans.


Someone has to, seeing as they are "the Party of personal-responsibility-for-everyone-but-themselves."


Bush has taken responsibility many times. However, all this means is that he says, "I take responsibility for this [insert failure here]". Then he does some fear mongering and says if we vote for any opposition, we'll all die.


I don't think a half-dozen utterances of "mistakes were made" over six of the ten most disastrously mismanaged years in American history really counts as "taking responsibility."

But then again, I'm a Godless Red.


He said it for the federal government's response to Katrina (kinda). And he... uh...

...hmmm.


As I recall, Brownie did a heck of a job, even though mistakes were made.

Some mistakes were also occasionally made during the firing of the attorneys, during Wolfowitz's tenure as head of the World Bank, with Abu Ghraib, with the Iraq War itself (though only in the postwar planning). I don't think he's ever acknowledged any others.

And fortunately 9/11 itself was entirely Clinton's fault.



I don't know if this counts toward post-war planning or not. But he did refer to the rash speed of the invasion, and subsequent chaotic clusterfuck in Iraq as a Catastrophic Success.

Rafi

Rafi

Santa Monica, CA
January 2003

JUN 13, 2007 10:34 PM

skeptik said:

I don't know if this counts toward post-war planning or not. But he did refer to the rash speed of the invasion, and subsequent chaotic clusterfuck in Iraq as a Catastrophic Success.



I wouldn't say that statement is tantamount to "taking responsibility" so much as it is "completely hilarious."

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

JUN 14, 2007 08:15 PM

RhymesWithPafi said:

skeptik said:

I don't know if this counts toward post-war planning or not. But he did refer to the rash speed of the invasion, and subsequent chaotic clusterfuck in Iraq as a Catastrophic Success.



I wouldn't say that statement is tantamount to "taking responsibility" so much as it is "completely hilarious."



Hey, let's not go playin' the Blame Game, 'kay?

FunkyPhantom

FunkyPhantom

Chapel Hill, NC
June 2007

JUN 17, 2007 08:55 PM

Political parties in our culture are wastfeul and distracting ALL OF THEM.
Heres how they treat us

Imagine you're a 15 year old dork (the US public) invited to a super cool college party (congress, the senate, etc) well not even really invited per-say it was mentioned by some college dude (or dudette) you met on the bus and they sarcastically said "yeah you should like TOTALLY go. . ." You go, and they talke to you for like 2 minutes and then they stick you holding people's coats, and no matter how hard you try to join a conversation, they just ignore you. Now sure theres the occasional nice person who slips you a drink, trying to say "hey you're cool with me" with a wink, and theres the occasional hottie from across the room that looks at you and smiles (they might be drunk you dont know). Alright I kind of got lost here, but I hope you get the idea. Be careful when a drink is given to you though, it might a kind gesture, or you might wake up naked the next morning in an apartment you don' recognize with your butt hurting really bad.

Both parties play their games and we pay the price, Its the republic we have, the indirect democracy. Its also partially our fault too, because we don't educate ourselves enough. The reason I say "we" is of course being that when stupid decisions are made, and our peers made them, WE ALL PAY FOR IT.

The democrats are just so wet in the spot because they have the house back, they arent paying much attention. Kinda like when kids make treehouses (if that even happens anymore) and the club they built it for has no real plans, they just want to argue about the club flag, and what posters they are going to put up in the culbhouse

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUN 18, 2007 04:45 AM

CaptPajamaSharkX said:
Political parties in our culture are wastfeul and distracting ALL OF THEM.
Heres how they treat us

Imagine you're a 15 year old dork (the US public) invited to a super cool college party (congress, the senate, etc) well not even really invited per-say it was mentioned by some college dude (or dudette) you met on the bus and they sarcastically said "yeah you should like TOTALLY go. . ." You go, and they talke to you for like 2 minutes and then they stick you holding people's coats, and no matter how hard you try to join a conversation, they just ignore you. Now sure theres the occasional nice person who slips you a drink, trying to say "hey you're cool with me" with a wink, and theres the occasional hottie from across the room that looks at you and smiles (they might be drunk you dont know). Alright I kind of got lost here, but I hope you get the idea. Be careful when a drink is given to you though, it might a kind gesture, or you might wake up naked the next morning in an apartment you don' recognize with your butt hurting really bad.

Both parties play their games and we pay the price, Its the republic we have, the indirect democracy. Its also partially our fault too, because we don't educate ourselves enough. The reason I say "we" is of course being that when stupid decisions are made, and our peers made them, WE ALL PAY FOR IT.

The democrats are just so wet in the spot because they have the house back, they arent paying much attention. Kinda like when kids make treehouses (if that even happens anymore) and the club they built it for has no real plans, they just want to argue about the club flag, and what posters they are going to put up in the culbhouse



It really amuses me when people talk about political parties in these metal terms, as if these folks - or any folks - could or would put self interest aside long enough to conspire to to anything.

Aside from that, no matter what you call it, when human beings congregate there will be in-groups and out-groups. There will be power factions and striving factions. There will be, well, there will be group dynamics.

This is the nature of human social interaction. You will never do anything to change it.

The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead. And before you go there, we should be clear that Bush has not done this. despite appearances, because Bush is not serving the people, he is serving special interests, and so, when he appears to be going in his own direction, what he is really doing is following the direction of those interests.

All of our leaders are followers. And what they follow is polls. Which really just means that they are chasing their tails.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 18, 2007 09:52 AM

NickFaust said:
The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead.



Do you have any theories on why this is, Nick?

FunkyPhantom

FunkyPhantom

Chapel Hill, NC
June 2007

JUN 18, 2007 12:25 PM

NickFaust said:

CaptPajamaSharkX said:
Political parties in our culture are wastfeul and distracting ALL OF THEM.
Heres how they treat us

Imagine you're a 15 year old dork (the US public) invited to a super cool college party (congress, the senate, etc) well not even really invited per-say it was mentioned by some college dude (or dudette) you met on the bus and they sarcastically said "yeah you should like TOTALLY go. . ." You go, and they talke to you for like 2 minutes and then they stick you holding people's coats, and no matter how hard you try to join a conversation, they just ignore you. Now sure theres the occasional nice person who slips you a drink, trying to say "hey you're cool with me" with a wink, and theres the occasional hottie from across the room that looks at you and smiles (they might be drunk you dont know). Alright I kind of got lost here, but I hope you get the idea. Be careful when a drink is given to you though, it might a kind gesture, or you might wake up naked the next morning in an apartment you don' recognize with your butt hurting really bad.

Both parties play their games and we pay the price, Its the republic we have, the indirect democracy. Its also partially our fault too, because we don't educate ourselves enough. The reason I say "we" is of course being that when stupid decisions are made, and our peers made them, WE ALL PAY FOR IT.

The democrats are just so wet in the spot because they have the house back, they arent paying much attention. Kinda like when kids make treehouses (if that even happens anymore) and the club they built it for has no real plans, they just want to argue about the club flag, and what posters they are going to put up in the culbhouse



It really amuses me when people talk about political parties in these metal terms, as if these folks - or any folks - could or would put self interest aside long enough to conspire to to anything.

Aside from that, no matter what you call it, when human beings congregate there will be in-groups and out-groups. There will be power factions and striving factions. There will be, well, there will be group dynamics.

This is the nature of human social interaction. You will never do anything to change it.

The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead. And before you go there, we should be clear that Bush has not done this. despite appearances, because Bush is not serving the people, he is serving special interests, and so, when he appears to be going in his own direction, what he is really doing is following the direction of those interests.

All of our leaders are followers. And what they follow is polls. Which really just means that they are chasing their tails.



We dont need leaders, thats the problem, what we do when we search out those people is we are trying to put the job on someone else instead of ourselves, We arent taking responsibility for our actions or partaking in a collective conscience

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUN 18, 2007 12:37 PM

CaptPajamaSharkX said:

NickFaust said:

CaptPajamaSharkX said:
Political parties in our culture are wastfeul and distracting ALL OF THEM.
Heres how they treat us

Imagine you're a 15 year old dork (the US public) invited to a super cool college party (congress, the senate, etc) well not even really invited per-say it was mentioned by some college dude (or dudette) you met on the bus and they sarcastically said "yeah you should like TOTALLY go. . ." You go, and they talke to you for like 2 minutes and then they stick you holding people's coats, and no matter how hard you try to join a conversation, they just ignore you. Now sure theres the occasional nice person who slips you a drink, trying to say "hey you're cool with me" with a wink, and theres the occasional hottie from across the room that looks at you and smiles (they might be drunk you dont know). Alright I kind of got lost here, but I hope you get the idea. Be careful when a drink is given to you though, it might a kind gesture, or you might wake up naked the next morning in an apartment you don' recognize with your butt hurting really bad.

Both parties play their games and we pay the price, Its the republic we have, the indirect democracy. Its also partially our fault too, because we don't educate ourselves enough. The reason I say "we" is of course being that when stupid decisions are made, and our peers made them, WE ALL PAY FOR IT.

The democrats are just so wet in the spot because they have the house back, they arent paying much attention. Kinda like when kids make treehouses (if that even happens anymore) and the club they built it for has no real plans, they just want to argue about the club flag, and what posters they are going to put up in the culbhouse



It really amuses me when people talk about political parties in these metal terms, as if these folks - or any folks - could or would put self interest aside long enough to conspire to to anything.

Aside from that, no matter what you call it, when human beings congregate there will be in-groups and out-groups. There will be power factions and striving factions. There will be, well, there will be group dynamics.

This is the nature of human social interaction. You will never do anything to change it.

The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead. And before you go there, we should be clear that Bush has not done this. despite appearances, because Bush is not serving the people, he is serving special interests, and so, when he appears to be going in his own direction, what he is really doing is following the direction of those interests.

All of our leaders are followers. And what they follow is polls. Which really just means that they are chasing their tails.



We dont need leaders, thats the problem, what we do when we search out those people is we are trying to put the job on someone else instead of ourselves, We arent taking responsibility for our actions or partaking in a collective conscience



This is non-sense. Leaders provide vision. They are the spark that can get people to think about things differently, often against their will, because their message - their presentation and personal commitment, are so compelling that we must.

I am not talking about a cult of personality here, I am talking about leadership. Nor do I think that supporting a leader is not "taking responsibility for our actions or partaking in a collective conscience ." A) there is no "collective conscience", that is astral plane bullshit and B) When a leader sets an agenda that I can support, I am responsible for any action that I take in that support - there is simply no way for me not to be, I am responsible for all of my actions, whatever the reason.

There is nothing wrong with leadership, except for its being lacking.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUN 18, 2007 12:38 PM

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead.



Do you have any theories on why this is, Nick?



I wish I did. It appears that we have become to fearful. It appears that we, having developed tools for really understanding the "will of the people," refuse to admit that "the people" can be a fool.

Improper

Improper

Oskaloosa, IA
June 2007

JUN 18, 2007 02:18 PM

this makes me smile. biggrin
keep going

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 18, 2007 04:07 PM

NickFaust said:

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead.



Do you have any theories on why this is, Nick?



I wish I did. It appears that we have become to fearful. It appears that we, having developed tools for really understanding the "will of the people," refuse to admit that "the people" can be a fool.



I do have a theory. I think it's related to the increasing speed of communication. It has become far too easy for consensus to appear; and the consensus is always "what are we doing already?".

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 18, 2007 05:40 PM

SockPuppet said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

NickFaust said:

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead.



Do you have any theories on why this is, Nick?



I wish I did. It appears that we have become to fearful. It appears that we, having developed tools for really understanding the "will of the people," refuse to admit that "the people" can be a fool.



I do have a theory. I think it's related to the increasing speed of communication. It has become far too easy for consensus to appear; and the consensus is always "what are we doing already?".



Now that's interesting. I should probably start off by disclosing that I am coming from an anti-authoritarian "neither leader nor follower" kind of place, and it's your word choice that really caught my attention.

How can you have "consensus" without active participation in dialog by all stakeholders in any given context? What you're describing sounds more like coercion from the top, down. "Consensus" must be among equals, no?

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUN 18, 2007 05:45 PM

herbancowboy said:

SockPuppet said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

NickFaust said:

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead.



Do you have any theories on why this is, Nick?



I wish I did. It appears that we have become to fearful. It appears that we, having developed tools for really understanding the "will of the people," refuse to admit that "the people" can be a fool.



I do have a theory. I think it's related to the increasing speed of communication. It has become far too easy for consensus to appear; and the consensus is always "what are we doing already?".



Now that's interesting. I should probably start off by disclosing that I am coming from an anti-authoritarian "neither leader nor follower" kind of place, and it's your word choice that really caught my attention.

How can you have "consensus" without active participation in dialog by all stakeholders in any given context? What you're describing sounds more like coercion from the top, down. "Consensus" must be among equals, no?



I think Gore's new book (and please don't consider this any more than a lukewarm endorsement, he still writes with far to much pomposity) touches on this. His point is that there is no dialog anymore, it is one way communication and is directed at inducing you to believe - (the marketing term is creating the perception of need) There is no real effort to develop consensus beyond manipulating the urge to buy whatever political product is being sold.

Adroitbeing

Adroitbeing

I'm lost
September 2003

JUN 18, 2007 08:57 PM

NickFaust said:

herbancowboy said:

SockPuppet said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

NickFaust said:

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
The problem, in the US, and around the world generally, is a complete dearth of leaders. There are no more Ghandis, or Malcolm Xs or Martin Luther Kings. No one simply saying "this is what is right, and this is what I will pursue" and actually lead.



Do you have any theories on why this is, Nick?



I wish I did. It appears that we have become to fearful. It appears that we, having developed tools for really understanding the "will of the people," refuse to admit that "the people" can be a fool.



I do have a theory. I think it's related to the increasing speed of communication. It has become far too easy for consensus to appear; and the consensus is always "what are we doing already?".



Now that's interesting. I should probably start off by disclosing that I am coming from an anti-authoritarian "neither leader nor follower" kind of place, and it's your word choice that really caught my attention.

How can you have "consensus" without active participation in dialog by all stakeholders in any given context? What you're describing sounds more like coercion from the top, down. "Consensus" must be among equals, no?



I think Gore's new book (and please don't consider this any more than a lukewarm endorsement, he still writes with far to much pomposity) touches on this. His point is that there is no dialog anymore, it is one way communication and is directed at inducing you to believe - (the marketing term is creating the perception of need) There is no real effort to develop consensus beyond manipulating the urge to buy whatever political product is being sold.



I fear that the real potential leaders of our country have discovered that politics is really not that rewarding, but starting a cool company and guiding that team with real vision and principles seems better. There are plenty of bad people running companies; but it seems like there are plenty more good ones than can be found in politics today.

To "win" in politics today, you must be elected/re-elected. To be elected/re-elected requires behavior most of us here find distasteful, even sickening. That's not a good prescription for attracting the best and brightest.

One question. This board is full of bright, insightful, sensitive, caring people. How many of you/us (except NickFaust has ever served in a political capacity? How many of us has said - nope, not for me?

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

JUN 18, 2007 09:13 PM

Adroitbeing said:

One question. This board is full of bright, insightful, sensitive, caring people. How many of you/us (except NickFaust has ever served in a political capacity? How many of us has said - nope, not for me?



I'm still on the short list to be Minister of Less Stupid People when Zarth takes over the world with his evil harem of love slaves. But other than that, I haven't blackeyed

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Next

featured interviews