Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Still reminds me of grade school elections where the 8 year old candidates ran on a platform of Rootbeer in every drinking fountain.<< I hear you, but the fact remains that at this point, it's up to the Commander in Chief. The buck stops there. I'm concerned when he seems to suggest that the lesson of Vietnam is that we should have stayed longer. Or maybe he meant Iraq. Or maybe he meant everything in Iraq will be fine eventually. It's hard to say, and wide open to all sorts of interpretation as it relates to Iraq. I just don't know that the benchmarks for victory that this White House has long said are the only way to win are at all realistic. I hope they are. I hope someone can come up with a plan.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I hear you, but the fact remains that at this point, it's up to the Commander in Chief. The buck stops there.>> And I would say that he has no problem of taking responsibility for the consequences so far, Rumsfeld not with standing. No one sees him pointing fingers wildly.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Who else is he going to point fingers at but himself? The President has gotten nearly everything he has asked for in Iraq. There were quite a few skeptics at the beginning of this whole episode back in 2002-2003, but they gave the President and his team the benefit of the doubt. The strategy has failed, and there aren't too many people outside of the administration to blame for that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<WSJ editorial board can consider a "disaster" something that will be forgotten outside the beltway by next Tuesday>> <Some people believe it was a disaster for Rep. Pelosi.> People predisposed to think the worst of her and/or hope for disaster on the Democratic side, sure. In the real world, Hoyer is the new #2, he and Pelosi are already making nice, the whole thing was forgotten outside the beltway yesterday - hardly a "disaster."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <People predisposed to think the worst of her and/or hope for disaster on the Democratic side, sure.> Or people who follow politics and know how it would be portrayed if it was the Republicans doing it. <Hoyer is the new #2, he and Pelosi are already making nice, the whole thing was forgotten outside the beltway yesterday - hardly a "disaster."> Or they are making nice for the cameras, and quietly plotting against each other.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't care what anyone says, I still think Disney's California Adventure is a darned good park!! Oops... wrong Darkbeer quote-a-thread.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Hoyer is the new #2, he and Pelosi are already making nice, the whole thing was forgotten outside the beltway yesterday - hardly a "disaster.">> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz ine/article/0</a>,9171,1561136-2,00.html From Time Magazine Did Nancy Pelosi Get The Message? She followed up her victory with a self-defeating blunder. Now people are asking, Is Pelosi up to the job? By KAREN TUMULTY, PERRY BACON JR. "She didn't just politely suggest that people vote for Murtha; . . . . including suggestions that anyone who bucked her might lose committee assignments." " After Hoyer still drubbed Murtha by a vote of 149-86, Pelosi emerged from the ballot room and pronounced Hoyer's win "a stunning victory." By the look on her face, she meant it. " " Did her support for a man who is notorious for slipping special-interest earmarks into spending bills prove that she didn't really mean all that talk about cleaning up Congress? " " . . . now that the Democrats are partners in governing and not just critics: charting a course on Iraq. Hoyer insists the phased withdrawal he supports is not all that different from the exit strategy that Murtha and Pelosi are pushing, but his victory tells Pelosi her caucus members will not tolerate her getting too far ahead of them. " " After an election in which exit polls showed that voters are more concerned about corruption than the Iraq war, " " . . . .she lost with her endorsement of Murtha, who said he thought her reform measures were "total crap." " " Pelosi might now lack the backroom clout needed to get results. "When key votes like the budget come around, this will make it a lot harder for her to pressure members," said a Democratic Congressman . . . ." " Here is not the loopy liberalism of San Francisco, where you can be branded as a right-wing extremist if you vote, as Pelosi once did, for cracking down on rave parties. " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - See, this isn't going away, not be a darned sight. And with her impending appointment for the head of the Intelligence Committee in the balance, she once again has painted herself into a stupid corner. This is all Democratic infighting, the Republicans are just sitting back and watching with baited breath at a woman ready to go down in flames. Remember, Pelosi has touted a huge 100 hour commitment once she begins in January. If she gets 25% of what she wants, I would be very suprized. But if that's all she gets, she will just have to get in line behind the rest of her caucus. The Beltway never, ever forgets. Not when it can be used as a powerful weapon against someone with Loopy Liberalisim.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Gotta love the bipartisanship being expressed by both sides here. Jeezz.....
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Nobody cares, you know. About this.>> Trust me, Nancy cares. Nancy cares a whole lot. But her ego may get the better of her. If so, then she just blew an incredible opportunity.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Trust me, Nancy cares. Nancy cares a whole lot." I'm not a Pelosi fan, not by a long mile. But I'm curious. You obviously come down on the conservative side. How do you know what Pelosi cares about?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Gotta love the bipartisanship being expressed by both sides here. >> This has nothing to do with bipartisimship when it is the Speaker who decides who heads committee positions. And those positions will be held by Democrats, when they win and Republicans when they are subsequently in power. This is simply all about who controls the power.
Originally Posted By jonvn The Republicans run a very large risk of being labeled obstructionist now. If the Democrats can get together some populist legislation and can show the Republicans as blocking things that are plainly good for the people of the United States, then they're going to face another creaming in two years. That is the job of the Democrats right now. Not this junk. With a Republican President, they are likely not going to do anything that will get by him without veto. They have to make it look like they are trying very hard for the people, but gee, those Republicans just won't have any of it. That is what will happen in the next two years. All a play for the Presidential elections. At least, that is if the Democrats are smart about it. If the Republicans are smart about it they can either go along with the Democrats, in which case it makes it look they were poor leaders when they were in charge (after all, why didn't they do any of these things?) or they can try and do what they are doing, which is sniping at unimportant issues to make the Democrats look bad. Looks like they are taking the latter road. But they run the risk of looking like sore losers, and if the Democrats can get some populist legislation through Congress, and the Republicans block it, they are just screwing themselves over. The Democrats are in the driver's seat right now, and they have the power to make the Republicans look very bad. It's up to them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Trust me, Nancy cares. Nancy cares a whole lot." I'm sorry, but are you her boyfriend? In any case, she should care. It's her job to care. The public, on the other hand, does not. They simply want someone to govern effectively. Articles like this are of absolutely no importance to the average person, and as long as the Democrats can get something going, it never will be. Now, if they can't, and we get no results, then that is what becomes important.
Originally Posted By crapshoot << How do you know what Pelosi cares about? >> This is a trick question: Right? I know what Nancy cares about because I read what she says. And more than anything, she cares about: " . . . the agenda that she had laid out for her first 100 hours as Speaker, which includes raising the minimum wage, forcing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription-drug prices, cutting student-loan rates and making the national-security fixes recommended by the 9/11 commission." Every blunder she makes, every Democrat Rep she angers, makes this lofty agenda that more unreachable. She needs to slow down.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Articles like this are of absolutely no importance to the average person,>> The average person rarely looks to Wash. to be effective and in their own best interest in the first place. But what is happening now towards the shift in January will either show the general public that the Democrats can deliver or can't deliver. Bottom line.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And quick, let's start making judgments barely two weeks since the election.
Originally Posted By jonvn "This is a trick question: Right?" Yes, because we know you're her boyfriend. "And quick, let's start making judgments barely two weeks since the election." Really. It's pretty silly. They'll figure it out and get things moving. There are bound to be a few bumps, and it is simply no big deal. The only thing that matters is results.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, in which case they've blown a very big opportunity. As I said, the only thing that matters is results. They either produce, or they are going to lose. Produce does not mean final signed legislation. All they need to do is show the Republicans to be obstructionists in terms of popular and good sounding legislation, and they still will come out on top.
