Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Jul 18, 2007.
Well if the all nighter didn't work, what will?
As long as Dubya is still in office congress really can't do much of anything.
errrrr... i think that should be, "until the congressional republicans break with bush and can provide a veto-proof bill, the congressional dems can't do much of anything."
If they can't even sniff the 60 votes necessary to bring the bill to the floor, how are they going to manage to get the 67 votes needed for conviction...?
We are going to have to find the vulnerable ones and hold their feet in the fire. We cannot allow these fools to think they can sit on the fence, yet pretend they are not supporting Bush. This actually worked with some environmental initiatives in the '80s. The anti-war movement needs to get better organized.
I wouldn't say this accomplished nothing. It showed the Dems are actually willing to fight. Something most of us figured they couldn't. Now if they actually use this and go out there spreading the message, saying the Repubs are now the obstructionists, they may have something. But they probably won't. And the press will continue to get the story wrong as they have been this whole time.
The neocons have a better advertising dept, too bad they have such a terrible product (though, unlike the Dems, at least they have something to sell).
Join the Cindy Sheehan hundreds! I understand they have a nice plot of land just outside the Crawford ranch. Porta potties and everything!
I think solvs pegged it right. The Dems may have lost the larger battle (the troop withdrawal vote), but they won the smaller one, i.e., emphasizing again that they are trying to do something to bring the troops home, but the Republicans are constant obstructionists.
The question is, will the Democrats capitalize on this by pounding away at it when they are on the stump, making speeches all over the country? My guess is, not straight off. But Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has vowed to continue bringing bills like this to a vote, and if they're still doing it a year from now, and the Republicans are still being obstructionist, Democratic candidates will be mentioning it a lot, and there's gonna be a whole lotta GOP Congressional candidates in trouble.
Failed attempts like this also serve a secondary purpose: they keep the pressure on the Republicans and Bush, which is something the Dems really wanna do leading up to the big September report.
The majority of the country is against the war. Wake up from your dream please.
Look at the way the poll questions are worded. Of course no want wants to be in a prolonged war, but I don't believe that the majority of Americans want to watch radical Islam spread throughout the world while we cower at home.
I always find it funny when one party calls the other "obstructionists" as if that is something bad. All of our founding fathers were obstructionists. When someone proposed something they did not agree with, they did what they could to keep it from happening. Both parties are full of obstructionists. When it is your party that is doing the obstructing they are just trying to stop the other party from doing something they don't like, but when it is the other party doing the obstructing, they become the evil obstructionists.
Are the Dems obstructionists for trying to obstruct the continuation of the war. Obstructionism has become such a bad term but I want my elected officials to be obstructionists and try to prevent things from happening that they do not agree with.
Oh-you mean like how communism took over the world?
You conservatives can never win elections without a boogeyman. It has never been more apparent than in this administration. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, but Bush conveniently used the threat of terrorism to go there, now didn't he? I don't know why that fact still seems to be so hard for you to accept.
As for terror- everyone wants it stopped. But this war isn't helping to stop it at all. It's been growing everywhere else, hasn't it? But we have no resources to combat it since we alienated our allies and got ourselves mired in Iraq. Afghanistan isn't looking too good these days and neither is Pakistan. But hey, why go to the source? let's play around in Iraq instead.
Radical Islam is spreading becase america invaded Iraq...
Before the Iraq war there weren't many radical islams, now there are thousands if not more.
Oh and it's also good to remember that while you are waging a futile war in Iraq, the american government forgot that they should really have captured Osama Bin Laden in Aghanistan.
Apparently I'm the only one that sees it this way..
But I don't think the all-nighter was really for the American people at all.
A radio talk-show host mentioned that the Dems planned badly by putting all the Presidental candidates speaking at 1AM, and scrubs that no one has ever heard of speaking during "normal" working hours.
Ostensibly it was to try and put a stop to the madness, but frankly, I think this was all a theatrical event for the rest of the world, for folks that aren't in the Eastern Standard Timezone. A way for a large portion of our government to (hopefully) ensure airtime on world news in other countries. I believe this was a start at an attempt to repair our world image and distance the American people and the American government from the foolishness that has now swallowed 3600 American soldier's lives, countless global civilians, and $400,000,000,000.
The "all nighter" was obviously a political stunt, but ironically, the real losers are the growing numbers of Republicans in Congress who are looking for a way to distance themselves from Bush's Iraq policies. Now they are going to have to wear it for another two, painful months.
I agree with you in a way about it being a stunt for europe news programmes.
However you could see it as showing that even the highest democratic party members, the presidential candidates, stayed up all night to show they wouldn't give up easy.
I figured it was targeted at the the Islamic world as well.
I think the last thing we need right now is america targetting more islamic people!
Since the U.S. Senate doesn't have any constituents in Europe, I'm having a difficult time making any sense of this theory.
Hence the second line in my post
Still you agreed that it was at least in part designed for European consumption, a theory that doesn't make any sense to me.
Understand, the number of Republicans who are feeling the need to break with Bush is slowly but steadily increasing. The Democrats are trying to flip a few more of them. The all-nighter was really a message from Democrats to wavering Republicans that they've got one more chance before September to take a stand against Bush's Iraq policies. That's why I say the real losers here are the fence-sitting Republicans. This effort having failed, they're going to have to grind their teeth for a couple more months, while they continue to be hammered by their constituents (from their home states, not Europe).
Seems to me that we had a lot to do with that and it took nearly 50 years to get rid of that threat.
I'm almost looking forward to seeing what the Dems have planned that's not a war but going to stop terrorism. They're certainly keeping it quite a secret.
Didn't the Soviet bloc collapse in on itself after the leading power became mired in an unwinnable Middle Eastern war?
That process was in long in coming. Their conflict in afghanistan only hastened the end. Trying to match US military spending in the early/mid 80s was far more devasting.