<p>The Democrats were extremely lucky that Murtha’s resolution (essentially the same as the one put forth by the Republicans) never came to a vote. The vast majority would have voted against it, showing the great chasm in the Democrats thinking on the issue. The Republicans did them a huge favor, having them vote on the substance of Murtha’s resolution without each member having to reveal his/her own hand.</p>
<p>Pelosi’s office now reports that only 13 Democrats were willing to sign on to Murtha’s resolution, and the Dems have already dropped plans to consider endorsing it in December. Bunch of moral cowards. Best thing they have going for them is Republican ineptitude.</p>
<p><a href=“Democrats' War Opposition Not a United Front”>Democrats' War Opposition Not a United Front;
<p>Meanwhile, Bush has picked up new support for the War (in Mongolia.) But it is unclear whether Tuva will be willing to send troops.</p>
<p>Mini, I disagree with you that Murtha’s resolution and Hunter’s Republican substitute were virtually the same. Otherwise, the GOP wouldn’t have gamed it and Dems would have been happy to see the GOP on a slighly more meaningful record. I suggest that the reason they look the same is because the parallax is too insignficant from your distance.</p>
<p>Well, I already took apart the words, and you can do your own due diligence. Both call for immediate withdrawal; the main difference (besides the rhetorical partisan flourishes in the “whereas”), is Congress telling the Executive what he should do with the troops. The reality is that had the Republicans been smart enough to put Murtha’s resolution up for an immediate vote, the majority of Democrats would have voted against it, and it would have gone down to an ignominous defeat, with Democrats licking their wounds, and looking like the confused bunch of hacks most of them really are (but it would have been fun to see Hilary and Schumer trying to run away from the resolution as fast as possible.)</p>
<p>Again, Mini: Neither the war, nor any other aspect of the federal government, is up to the Democrats right now. The Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>It was the Republican controlled House who introduced the resolution for an immediate end of the Iraq occupation and controlled the votes to defeat it.</p>
<p>Yup. And so lucky the Dems are that such is true, because otherwise they would have been unmasked for duplicitous moral cowards that they are. Now, at least for awhile, they can breathe a sigh of relief. Bunches of folks will die in the process, but I don’t see them being overly concerned.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter if the Democrats are concerned. They can’t do anything. They are not in power. They have no say in the conduct of US foreign policy, military policy, or any other kind of policy.</p>
<p>You might as well blame US military deaths on my cat. My cat has the same power to change US policy as the Democrats.</p>
<p>ID,</p>
<p>Just curiously, how would your cat have voted would your cat have voted with the courage of its convictions or would it have done the ole duk-n-cover and voted with the majority?</p>
<p>Is your cat a moral cat?
Or, is your cat, like so many house cats these days, breed to grandstand?</p>
<p>We dont have a cat and remain in the dark as to the wily political philosophies and moral fortitude of either your standard breeds or the ever popular fat-cats.</p>
<p>Saw a movie last night- “One Bright Shining Moment”. It is a documentary about George McGovern and primarily focuses on the '68 and '72 Presidential campaigns. Very limited engagments so far around the country. I think it is worth seeing if you get the chance.</p>
<p>At the showing I attended, Senator McGovern was there. Had a chance to meet him and speak for a moment with him. He also had a Q&A session after the movie.</p>
<p>I got the chance to ask him if this was deja vu in comparing Vietnam to Iraq. His comment was that given what history has shown, the present situation is all the more pointless and he was more fearful of the road we were presently going down because of the current leadership. He shook his head saying that with Vietnam, you had seasoned and respected leaders in Jack Kennedy, Johnson (and then he took a pregnant pause and said) even Nixon, each of whom still had enormous difficulty addressing the situation. Now Bush (another pregnant pause), the Senator continued by only saying that he could not even understand how Bush was President (the clear implication to me being that he was fearful of Bush’s lack of ability to address the situation).</p>
<p>In the Q&A session he made several points, among them that today’s media is not doing as full, objective and honest job as the media in the Vietnam era; That much as with McCarthyism and the fear pounded into the country over communisim, post WWII, terrorism is now being used to promote that same fear and further the Bush agenda (although he wasn’t sure what the Bush agenda is). He also addressed our failure to study and understand the psychology and motivation of the (perceived) enemy and to instead simply proceed with force.</p>
<p>He drew an interesting parallel to the fact that in the '72 election he was painted as the “run and cut” coward although he had a distinguished WWII service record, while Nixon had no such record-fast forward to the relative service records of Bush and Kerry in the last election (and who has supported war and who has opposed it).</p>
<p>He also pointed to the “in” fighting among Democrats (Humphrey, McCarthy, Daley, etc.) that often paralyzed the party in opposing the right/conservatives of the Nixon era and that much of the same has continued to this day.</p>
<p>Finally, he pointed to U.S. policies from social security to medi-care etc. etc. feeling that any and all have been the product of liberal ideas/ideals and that virtually nothing of a progressive nature has ever been put forth by the Republican party/conservatives since the days of Lincoln. </p>
<p>I’m still trying to figure out any policy other than the destruction of social security and war that Bush has put forth. I guess it’s tough to address anything else, when you are a “war president”.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing that, bullwinkle. I always admired McGovern, and it is interesting to hear his take on this. I will watch for the film–if it makes it to my neck of the woods.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is largely true, but I will give credit to Teddy Roosevelt for being a trust buster and for promoting environmental conservation. They sure don’t make Republicans like that any more.</p>
<p>A generation ago, I had to give Republicans credit for fiscal responsibility. Now even that is gone. My senator that I remember most while growing up, Everett Dirksen, would now be a wild-eyed radical in the Republican party. A client of mine recently exclaimed–and he was a Reagan lover–“I didn’t leave the Republican party, they left me.”</p>
<p>They GOP has become the party of war: War in Iraq, war on the middle class, war on the environment, war on women and gays, war on those who don’t share their theology, war on the notion of good government, as opposed to cronyism and corruption. And then they get upset when some of us confront and tackle them on their own terms. May we govern with more moderation of spirit when Mordor falls. But some accumulated paybacks are inevitable and there are times when my impulse is to nod and then cry “Havoc!”</p>
<p>I consider tax cuts–giving people back some of the money they earned–very progressive. Unfortunately progressive is usually used as a synonym for socialist.
If you think the Dems are any different when it comes to taking care of their contributors look at how they kowtow to trial lawyers and teacher’s unions.</p>
<p>Well, as far as tax cuts, I suppose it depends on the purpose and who they benefit and why. As far as progessive=socialist, well I guess then that social security, medi-care, Job Corps, public education systems (most anything for the general welfare of the populace) are socialist and so? Without them, where would the country be. It’s the demonizing of such systems that keep us from having national health care and other vital help for those in need of same.</p>
<p>As to your last point, not sure I understand the relevance. Wasn’t talking about what the two parties have done for their “contributors”, the point was what has been done for the public good (not a big priority in conservative ranks).</p>
<p>For the last item see The Dad’s post to which I responded.
SS looks to be headed to more of a welfare program than the savings/benefit program it started out as. I would not mind having control of all the money I put in over the years and doing away with it but either way it looks as though I’ll come out OK on it unlike the younger folks. Job Corp?? Not worth much. Public education has long been supported by both parties.</p>
<p>I live near Canada and know many doctors in the area. Many of their patients come from Canada because they can’t get treatment in a timely manner. The unfortunate thing is no system can afford all the healthcare the system can provide–it would bankrupt it.</p>
<p>88% of those in British Columbia, when asked, prefer the Canadian medical system to the U.S. one, which they know well, living as they do next door. They must be doing something right. (And more than 60% of Washington residents hold the same opinion.)</p>
<p>So Murtha’s proposal was to “pull back to enclaves” surrounding Iraq, prepared to attack insurgents as necessary. Where? Iran? Saudi Arabia? (the whole idea was to get out of Saudi Arabia). Syria? Kurdistan? Turkey?</p>