• commentary
  • WEDNESDAY JUNE 13 2007 9:00 AM

Democrats: Classic Fuck Ups



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.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8

Next

Comments
NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUN 20, 2007 06:32 PM

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
Oh yes. That's what we need. A country of 300 million people broken down into affinity groups of 3 to 20, each pursuing their own agenda.



I'm not saying that's the best way to run a country (although Lao Tzu might), I was just, for the sake of discussion, offering a model of how people can get things done without leaders.



Yes, well, I am betting that in each and every one of those affinity groups, a leader emerges.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 20, 2007 07:24 PM

NickFaust said:
Yes, well, I am betting that in each and every one of those affinity groups, a leader emerges.



Sure, there are tendencies in group dynamics to follow that course, but people can also take steps to avoid one person's, or a cabal's, dominance. People can rotate tasks, for example, so that no one person accumulates too much power or becomes indispensable. People who tend to keep quiet can be encouraged to speak up and voice their opinions and concerns, and people who talk too much can be encouraged to sit back and listen more. It's not the most efficient process, but look where efficiency has got us. We have specialized to the point of isolation.

How'd you like that bit from the Tao Te Ching? And this is pretty much the go-to site for tips on "formal consensus." (You must have some experience with Roberts Rules of Order, with your background in elected office. I think it is similar to that, though I don't really know much about how they differ.)

[Edit] Ok, one obvious difference is that Roberts Rules seeks a majority decision, whereas consensus facilitation, obviously, seeks unanimity.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUN 21, 2007 10:32 AM

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
Yes, well, I am betting that in each and every one of those affinity groups, a leader emerges.



Sure, there are tendencies in group dynamics to follow that course, but people can also take steps to avoid one person's, or a cabal's, dominance. People can rotate tasks, for example, so that no one person accumulates too much power or becomes indispensable. People who tend to keep quiet can be encouraged to speak up and voice their opinions and concerns, and people who talk too much can be encouraged to sit back and listen more. It's not the most efficient process, but look where efficiency has got us. We have specialized to the point of isolation.

How'd you like that bit from the Tao Te Ching? And this is pretty much the go-to site for tips on "formal consensus." (You must have some experience with Roberts Rules of Order, with your background in elected office. I think it is similar to that, though I don't really know much about how they differ.)

[Edit] Ok, one obvious difference is that Roberts Rules seeks a majority decision, whereas consensus facilitation, obviously, seeks unanimity.



I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.

Having been in many, many (many, many) meetings, I can tell you that my experience has been that a meeting needs someone to lead it (which is RROO does, it provides a structure for a leader to run a meeting.) The easiest meetings I have are meetings of leaders, because they all recognize the need for a leader and actively defer to that leader because the know that it facilitates the flow of the meeting.

I do not think that every group needs some strong charismatic leader.

I do think that a country does.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 21, 2007 03:00 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?



It's not directly coercive; it's more like self-censorship.
"Everybody knows" that this is the way that things are, and "everybody knows" that you have to go along to get along, and "everybody knows" that innovation is welcomed so long as it's technical or (maybe) entrepreneurial.
A lot of it is just that we're beginning to see just how many people there are, and how big the existing infrastructures are, and how hard it would be even to begin to change them.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 25, 2007 11:59 AM

NickFaust said:
I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.



Here is a recent article making an evolutionary argument for smaller nation-states. It gets a little tedious in the middle, but it's short and I think it makes a valid conclusion.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 25, 2007 12:04 PM

SignalNoise said:
I actually don't know *much* about the details of the petro bill - outside of the debate over sharing of revenue. But I'm not surprised the bill is heavily flawed. What I mean by a "win" would be successfully passing the bill ("meeting the benchmark") - not necessarily getting an objectively good bill. My point about the petro bill was just about building political capital, via progress, in order to stem the violence in Iraq and attract the interest of other nations in helping with situation there. That's all - I wasn't making a statement about the content of the bill itself.



Here is another, more recent article about the Iraqi Oil Law.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 25, 2007 04:22 PM

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.



Here is a recent article making an evolutionary argument for smaller nation-states. It gets a little tedious in the middle, but it's short and I think it makes a valid conclusion.



Two quotes from the article:


So, ask yourself: would you choose to kill an intelligent alien in a distant galaxy, if by doing so you could gain, say, a million dollars?




Now, ask yourself: would you kill your next-door neighbor, if by doing so you could gain a million dollars?



Next, ask yourself what you would do if your neighbour was being flooded out by a sea level rise, partly caused by the carbon dioxide emissions from your car.

And now, what if it was a Bangladeshi being flooded out?

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JUN 26, 2007 05:28 AM

herbancowboy said:

NickFaust said:
I agree that small countries are best. I also agree that agrarian societies are best. Sadly those days in the US are long past and I don't see breaking up in to a loose grouping of city states as being a reasonable solution - despite the fantasies of this by some of the libertarian friends on this site.



Here is a recent article making an evolutionary argument for smaller nation-states. It gets a little tedious in the middle, but it's short and I think it makes a valid conclusion.



Okay, finally got a chance to read the article.

The only thing that I can say about it is that I always find it interesting when "Darwinians" think and speak as if humans and human society have reached the end of the evolutionary process. His comments, no matter how relevant, ignore the evolutionary pressure of 6.5 billion inhabitants.

For better or worse humans and human society will continue to evolve, as they do so their morality and insitutions will evolve as well.

I believe we are, as always, in the midst of this.

edit: and evolution rarely works backwards. Sorry libs.

Darke

Darke

Columbia, MO
June 2005

JUN 26, 2007 06:30 AM

It's a throwback to a brief time ago, but...

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Snottlebocket said:

Zarth said:

Snottlebocket said:
Is there anyone who honestly thinks that after everything you did, pulling out of Iraq is as simple as just putting everybody on a plane home?


No. Of course not. There are no misguided, mistaken, or unthinkingly partisan people in this country at all.

That's why we're the greatest country in the world. After Kazakhstan, anyway.



Really, a UN peace force? I vaguely recall the UN having some pretty strong opinions about your little rampage at the start, and they were mocked and ignored.

But now that you want out it's time for the UN to step in?


That really would be the perfect ending for this gigantic fuck up. Unfortunately the Dutch (amongst others) are already stuck cleaning up your mess in Afghanistan, I seriously hope America doesn't get away with stiffing someone else with Iraq as well.



The Netherlands. Bitchy turndown maid to the U.S. I guess I'd be cranky if I had to clean up wearing clogs too.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8

Next