Liberal Blogs Heading Toward A Meltdown

On news that the Senate and now the House are backing away from de-funding the war in Iraq, the Liberal blogosphere is starting to look like an ice cream cone in an Al Gore movie.

These are just a few early reax - look for many more. There are two lessons the nutroots could take from this, though I doubt they will. One - they are out of step with a majority of Americans who would rather win than run; and two - for the first time in years the Democrats can't simply sit on the sidelines and hurl angry rhetoric. They have some power and with that comes some responsibility. Welcome to what you wanted Dems, you are finally in control.

House Democratic leaders are backing away from a plan to scale back U.S. involvement in the Iraq war by using Congress' most powerful tool _ withholding money in the budget.

Paralyzed says Taylor Marsh, before offering up Harry Reid as cannon fodder in Iraq.

Well then, I say we put uniforms on all members of Congress and ship their sorry privileged butts off to Iraq to see how they like the reality. Maybe then the war won't vex the poor babies anymore. I mean, reeally.

Democrats are acting like chickenhawk Republicans and I've had enough of them to last a lifetime. Why do they think the public threw them out of Congress last November?

At the Liberal Oasis, see it's only because the Senate wants to get to sixty votes, conveniently ignoring that they don't even have a majority to de-fund the war effort. And, what the heck, Bush is a dictator who would escalate anyway, so no big deal. That's just another convoluted rationale ignoring that Bush couldn't do anything without the funding.

Yes, it's a flinch, and a disheartening sign that congressional Dems still haven't learned how to stand together and pushback against conservative hit jobs.

But there's no need to lament that the flinch is letting Dubya go ahead with the escalation.

Because Dubya will escalate anyway, no matter what Congress does, as he fundamentally does not believe in checks and balances.

To her credit, McJoan at DailyKos gets it - but her post sounds about as optimistic as a Kucinich campaign manager - she's in the mood to kick a few Blue Dogs.

All due respect to those members, you will only appear that you are turning your back on the troops if you don't do everything in your power to get them the hell out of Iraq. That will have to come from some effort at defunding, whether it's Feingold's approach or the Wu/Ackerman approach that caps funding and sets a redeployment date. But any approach that will move us forward will have to come from the House, and it will require leadership that gets the Blue Dog Dems in line.

And Dick Polman pulls out nutroots arch villain Joe Lieberman, surely this is all his grand design.

I wrote yesterday about the latest symptoms of Democratic incoherence and inertia on the Iraq issue. Well, this is exactly what I was talking about: splits between Senate liberals and moderates, and no debate over Iraq for two more weeks. If they keep this up, Lieberman will get his wish. In the Wall Street Journal yesterday, he urged Democrats to stay silent until the summer.

Comments

[Darth Malice]

Now they know how we feel when we deal with our weak Republican Party.If you don't pay attention to your base,whatever it is.Your party gets punished.

[Buzzy]

The funny thing is the DEMS are taking care of their base. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Democratic voters want a victory and not a surrender in Iraq. This is just the moonbat fringe finding out that once the elections over they aren't needed anymore. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, I do feel their pain (well at least on the border issue).

[Jeff]

The dems thought everything would be open and shut - now they will know what its like to be harrassed by the minority party for two years. And I have to say Republicans are coming off better in the minority and the dems.

Now how could the far left moonbat libs be wrong? They make so much noise... we never landed on the moon... 9/11 was a setup... If didn't know the actual stats, I would think that many Americans believed those things 5% of Americans believe that we never landed on the moon (conversly, 5% is the amount of Americans likely to be drunk at any given time. 7% believe that GW Bush setup 9/11.

They my be load, but certainly not influencial.

[Pablo]

"All due respect to those members, you will only appear that you are turning your back on the troops if you don't do everything in your power to get them the hell out of Iraq. That will have to come from some effort at defunding, whether it's Feingold's approach or the Wu/Ackerman approach that caps funding and sets a redeployment date."

Just, wow. If you don't defund the troops, you're turning your back on them.

How bent do you have to be to twist your mind into a logic pretzel like that?

[seekeronos]

It comes veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery easily to a moonbat.

Scary, isn't it?

[Darth Malice]

Buzzy,yep the Dems serve their base.Republicans go out of their way to hose theirs.

[Hard Right]

Pablo, the thing to remember is that much of the liberal psyche is built upon feeling good about themselves and/or superior to others. So they justify actions which are harmful to our soldier's safety by denying the actions are harmful since that would make the libs the bad guys-which would make them feel bad/inferior.

[Hard Right]

BTW Dan, the nutroots folks are one missed med away from meltdown at all times.

[templar knight]

"....an ice cream cone in an Al Gore movie".

ROTFLMAO! Dan, that has got to be one on the best lines ever.

[Zifnab]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_022607.htm

"67% disapprove of the current sitution in Iraq, 56% want our troops withdrawn, regardless of conditions on the ground, 67% oppose George Bush's plan to escalate the war, and 58% favor Murtha's plan that would require fully trained, equipped and rested troops."

Getting out of Iraq was the number one reason Dems won 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats in the last election. Americans want out.

The fact that Dems are waffling and hedging on this most important issue of our time could be because A) the Dems enjoy watching Bush suck turd on the Iraq issue, B) the Rovian lie machine has succeeded in psyching out the Dems... again... despite having no effect on the general public, C) some Dems in the House or Senate have their hands in the military-industrial cookie jar, or D) the Republican Senate tie-up has been denying us our upperdown vote and Dems still haven't found a way to break the impass. Or some or all of the above.

But nowhere have I seen some sort of groundswell of support for staying the course. The Victory Carcass is a popular blogger's joke. Bush's poll numbers are still in the gutter. Protests are increasing, not decreasing. Money is getting tighter. We're rolling into a recession, and no one gives a flip about Iran's phantom nukes when they're worried about their next paycheck.

[templar knight]

Uh, Ziffy, have you ever thought about the fact that many House Democrats hold seats in conservative to moderate districts, and that a vote of the kind you propose would sink their re-election chances. You see, that's how a Republic works, not a democracy mind you, but a Republic, which is what our Constitution requires.

Perhaps 90% of the people in New York oppose everything going on in Iraq, but perhaps 55% approve of it in Texas; you have a larger percentage of people nationwide against the war, but a Congressperson from Texas might not want to vote to cut off funding for the troops given the percentages in his district. See how the system works. Now do you understand why some Democrats aren't going to support cutting off funding for the troops?

[Zifnab]

It gets more complicated than that, TK. Because its not who supports what, but who votes in support of what. If pro-war advocates just don't see the point of going out and supporting another round of failed missions and military disasters, your numbers shrivel up like rotten fruit. Of course, if Dems sit on their hands and talk about non-binding resolutions the President won't even read, you lose alot of support from anti-war voters.

That said, I don't know where you've pulled these 90% here, 55% there numbers from. I'm just laying down the raw statistical data. If you've got regional statistical data to talk about, by all means, produce it. As it stands, we elected a Democrat in Tom Delay's bedrock district. If that doesn't say something about war support in Texas, I don't know what would.

[Hard Right]

Zifnab, if you think that poll is worth anything I have swampland in Florida to sell you.

[seekeronos]

Tossing out poll numbers these days seems in a political discussion seems to be the equivalent of a locker room discussion over who has "bagged the most babes".

Usually a grain of truth mixed in with a ton of BS, depending upon who you ask... especially for those "randomly sampled" polls typically done in the liberal-leaning coastal cities which are hardly representative of what people in fly-over country might think.

[Zifnab]

Just out of interest, who swept the elections in '06? Do you guys even remember? Do you guys remember why? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't because of taxes.

[southdakotaboy]

Zifnab, you elected a Democrat in Tom DeLay's district because the Republicans had to go with a write in candidate and she had a hard name to spell. The Democrats made sure to get a ruling that said that it had to be spelled perfectly and that there couldn't be posters of here name with the correct spelling in the polling place. And since we are on the subject in several of the conservative districts that the Democrats won they had to fight to keep Republican replacement candidates names off the ballot.

[Andrew]

Of course, that begs the question of why there was a need for Republican replacement candidates in the first place? Could it be that the original Republicans were crooks/perverts etc??

[southdakotaboy]

Point being Andrew the Dems won a one vote majority in the Senate and a small majority in the House that could easily evaporate or become even thinner if those Democrats step to far out of the mainstream of thier district. The people of their districts punished the Republican holding the seat by voting them out and then were denied a fair shake at electing another, but thats the way politics works. Now if alot of the Independents voted Democrate to send a protest then the Democrats will lose their majority in 2008 under a wave of Rudy support.

[charles]

how's that first 100 hours going for you guys?

thank you nancy

[Zifnab]

Yeah. It was really tight with all those Dem losses. Wait, how many incumbant Dems went down? *counts on fingers* Zero? Oh, well, how many Senate seats did Dems lose. *counts again* Zero? Again? What about New Jersey? They hate their Senator up there. No? Well, Virgina must have been a keeper, with the Heir To Reagen... Macaca'd you say?

It's like the entire country did a 180 turn from '02. Wow. Some would call that a mandate.

[scarshapedstar]

"Buzzy,yep the Dems serve their base."

Yeah, like that credit card bill.

Are you daft?

[Legalize]

I'm curious why the uber-patriotic, courageous, and heroic war bloggers aren't touching the story about the Pentagon punishing soldiers at Walter Reed who spoke out about how the Pentagon ACTUALLY "supports the troops," and why they are being told to shut the fuck up about it: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSreedinspect070227/

I'm also curious why the coward who calls himself "the Decider" hasn't made any public statement as to the Walter Reed report; I mean if he "cares" so much about teh tr00pz and all ....

[charles]

the conditions in walter reed were discussed, at length at several "war blogs" just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen

i'm curious why you chose to cherry pick a small part from that article and ignore the related articles on the same page (actually i'm not)

or maybe even ignore the information written about later in the article which says the affected personnel were moved to better quarters and higher ups were being disciplined

members of the military are well aware of the long standing problems in the VA that go back many years before 2000 which seems to be when leftist history begins

but you go ahead and push your agenda, get the troops more and better if you can, they certainly deserve all that and more and i don't care how they get it, if it was because of the lefties it would be gratifying

but i doubt your interest goes further than a couple of words posted on a blog you hate

oh, how's that first hundred hours going for you guys

[templar knight]

Ziffy, I wasn't using a specific poll at all, but just demonstrating how you could have a solid majority of the country against something, but still have a specific district that would be for it, and that district could well be represented by a Democrat. I know of Democratic districts like this in Texas and Arkansas, for example, where the Democratic representatives, and even Senators, are highly unlikely to vote for the cutoff of funds to our troops in Iraq.

[southdakotaboy]

Zifnab, when the Republicans had aneven bigger majority then the Dems have now, the Dems were always saying that the President and his party didn't have a mandate. Also many of those elections you sited were won by the slimest of margins sometimes less than 2% not an overwhelming majority. Do we even need to talk about the massive voter fraud commited by ACORN in favor of the Democrats. Its funny how after they win the election there is no more mention of voter fraud by the Democrats. You would think Zifnab the Dems would want congressinal hearings on that wouldn't you?

[Legalize]

"Cherry pick," charles? The title of the article is "Walter Reed Patients Told to Keep Quiet." That's what the article is about, professor, which is why I linked to it.

And I'm not sure if you have ever been tested in reading comprehension, but you'll notice that my post didn't address whether or not war-bloggers had discussed the original WaPo story, but why war-bloggers weren't addressing the fact that the Pentagon is NOW punishing those soldiers for speaking to the press about their conditions. See how that works - the whole addressing the question put to you and not the question you wish was asked?

As for posting here - freedom of speech. Why are you so eager to quash dissent?

[Jeff]

If the dems are so sure that the country is behind them they will defund the war. They can't even pass a non-binding resolution, given that they mopped the floor with us dumb ol' conservatives, they sure aren't doing much.

But Zifnab is happy, he is getting a McRaise!

[Hard Right]

Well Zif, since you love polls so much, why do you ignore the one that says Americans want to win in Iraq and that they hope the surge works? It's because it doesn't support your POV, that's why.
In other words, the dissastifaction with Iraq was that we weren't being aggressive enough. Now that has changed you lefties may have a problen next time around.
BTW legalize, try to stay on topic. Or did you try to change it because you saw your side was losing again?

[Zifnab]

"They can't even pass a non-binding resolution, given that they mopped the floor with us dumb ol' conservatives, they sure aren't doing much.

But Zifnab is happy, he is getting a McRaise!"

I've got two words for you Jeff. Upperdown Vote!

And certainly one beauty of raising the minimum wage is that all salaries rise. Think of it as trickle-up economics. When poor people - who spend high amounts of their income - get a raise, the money quickly recirculates into the economy, creating more demand for goods and services. This increased demand allows for economic growth, which in turn results in high salaries for the professionals who provide the goods and services that minimum wage earners purchase. ... Wait, I forgot. Conservatives hate college and these principles are getting a bit advanced. I haven't lost you yet, have I?

[templar knight]

charles, don't be too hard on Legalize, as I'm sure he's opening his wallet as we speak, and giving a large donation to benefit our wounded veterans. And I'm sure he is planning a trip to the nearest VA to volunteer his services, cheering up the troops and helping to improve morale. And I believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, too.

[Legalize]

"BTW legalize, try to stay on topic. Or did you try to change it because you saw your side was losing again?"

My side losing? Losing what? Elections? Public sentiment? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? No, little boy, that's what your "side" lost in November, and continues to lose today.

[southdakotaboy]

Is it just me or is the MSM focusing on anything other than the surge in Iraq? Could it be " gasp " working?

[templar knight]

I have a question for you, Milton Zifnab. Using your trickle-up theory, why not raise the minimum wage to $25, or hell, $100 an hour, and make everyone rich. Using your logic, that is exactly what would happen. Right.

[Jeff]

Good... One...

And Zifnab, I'm sure that you aren't as familier with economics as I, but you need to understand two things, the multiplyer effect, and the equilibrium wage. If the equilibrium wage is forced up, people lose jobs, its very simple. If they lose jobs, they can't spend (and people, per $/hour they make more, only spend about half of their wage increase). So instead of the multiplyer effect getting thrown into motion, we have to rely solely on GDP growth, which will inevitably be lower because of less people working... its a slippery slope...

[charles]

most military people don't bother with that newspaper, and if i did look around i could probably find some "war blog" commenting on "Walter Reed Patients Told to Keep Quiet."

why do you not acknowledge what else is written in that article instead of focusing on the meme the title of sais article is trying to push, after all you linked to it

the US govt and military are just so conspiratorial and nefarious aren't they?

and since you are the one who brought up reading comprehension how does this - "but i doubt your interest goes further than a couple of words posted on a blog you hate", which is a question (sorry i left off the ? mark in the original)

equal this - "freedom of speech. Why are you so eager to quash dissent?"

unless of course in your world asking a question is stifling dissent, seems kind of grasping to me

must be a bummer to have your "dissent" so easily quashed

but more importantly, how's that first hundred hours going for you guys?

[Legalize]

"charles, don't be too hard on Legalize, as I'm sure he's opening his wallet as we speak, and giving a large donation to benefit our wounded veterans. And I'm sure he is planning a trip to the nearest VA to volunteer his services, cheering up the troops and helping to improve morale. And I believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, too."

I do love it when you morons speculate about things you know nothing about - all while deliberately avoiding discussion, because well, you have to. For your information, not that you deserve a response, one of my pro bono (that means "for free") clients is a nurse at a local VA hospital; I help her address administrative and legal matters with soldiers who have PTSD and are having a hard time adjusting - you know things like helping them with their car insurance, student loan deferments, employment matters. Little things like that. So, kindly, suck on your ignorant sanctimony.

You cowards can't address any issue head-on.

[Jeff]

TK libs hate Milton Friedman.

I have some trivia. Hoover believed in the trickle-down theory, and what happened next?

And also TK, for the libs this isn't about helping the poor, its about hurting the rich. It's communism in disguise. First we defund the rich, and then the government sets a standard wage, then, the government pays the wage.

*And I meant multipier effect earlier, before these libs jump on my balls for making a spelling error.

[Jeff]

Legalize, all your clients are pro bono.

[Jeff]

And pro bono doesn't mean for free in Latin, it means "for good", or "for the good."

And I'm not a lawyer...

[Hard Right]

My side losing? Losing what? Elections? Public sentiment? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? No, little boy, that's what your "side" lost in November, and continues to lose today.

Jeez. I need to use smaller words for you lefties. You're losing the arguement, genius. Gloat all you want about the elections, but right now it's looking like your side's time in the sun will be brief.

[templar knight]

Legalize, if you are helping any soldiers, that is laudable, and you know you have my sincere apology, because they need our help in a multitude of ways, and I would never disparage anyone who gave their time or money for our men and women in uniform, who have no choice but to serve where commanded by civilian authorities.

[Legalize]

Alot of them are, Jeff. Not as many as I would like, but that's how it goes. When you become a professional some day, you might want to use your skills to help people; maybe.

I take it that your "position" here is that devoting free time to soldiers in need is somehow a bad thing. I'm trying not to write you off as just another Riehl Wurld drone, but you do make it difficult.

[Legalize]

"Legalize, if you are helping any soldiers, that is laudable, and you know you have my sincere apology, because they need our help in a multitude of ways, and I would never disparage anyone who gave their time or money for our men and women in uniform, who have no choice but to serve where commanded by civilian authorities."

Apology accepted. Let that be a lesson to you.

[Legalize]

"Jeez. I need to use smaller words for you lefties. You're losing the arguement, genius. Gloat all you want about the elections, but right now it's looking like your side's time in the sun will be brief."

Here's a little hint, professor: you haven't made an "argument." Regurgitating talking points and NOT providing authority for anything you've asserted is not an argument. It's you flailing about like a ninny as per usual.

[charles]

"I help her address administrative and legal matters with soldiers who have PTSD and are having a hard time adjusting - you know things like helping them with their car insurance, student loan deferments, employment matters. Little things like that. "

if this is the truth then god bless you and keep up the good work, that's very admirable and our troops deserve every good thing we can do for them

it still doesn't mean i have to like you

[Legalize]

"if this is the truth then god bless you and keep up the good work, that's very admirable and our troops deserve every good thing we can do for them"

Thank you.

"it still doesn't mean i have to like you"

I could care less.

[Legalize]

And I misspoke: she isn't techinically a "client" because I do not represent her. I assist her with HER clients, or patients.

[templar knight]

Actually, charles, I like him a lot better than I used to. I go to numerous functions at our local National Guard Armory, and several of us guys do a meet and greet for the soldiers coming back from Iraq, and I have rarely if ever seen any of our more liberal citizens there, but maybe some of them are actually helping our soldiers in ways I don't know about. I going to find out if anything like what Legalize is talking about exists here, and if it doesn't, I'm going to approach the local Bar and try to get them to do something along these lines, especially pro bono legal work for our veterans.

[charles]

"I could care less."

in my short time here that's the most honest thing i've seen you post yet

,,,,,interesting

[charles]

thanks templar

maybe one day they will realize hate of the other gets you nowhere

lead by example, it works