Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Dang.....


(Image swiped from Culture Catch, at the inspiration of Purple Avenger over at Ace's Place.)

I was outside pulling some weeds and trimming some roses, and instead of being productive and shit, instead I should have been inside glued to the TV with a big bowl of popcorn on my lap.
"...Sen. Coburn demanded that the full text of the 767 page Sanders amendment be read by the Senate clerk...."
....followed by (socialist) Bernie Sanders withdrawing his amendment, which itself is questionable (from the Malkin citation above)....
...How Sanders was able to withdraw his amendment is unclear — under the chamber’s rules it appears that a motion to withdraw would not be in order during the reading of the bill. However, the Senate Parliamentarian — in what a GOP aide called “an incredibly bizarre decision” — ruled Sanders’ request was allowable....*
And now, the SEIU--whom Zero has leaned on heavily--has backed away from his Healthcare Reform (sic).

And Drudge is reporting under the headline "Pelosi: No Health Care Deal this Year".

Those weeds aren't going to pull themselves, but that said, I hope I have enough popcorn.

* For as much fun as I'm having watching this whole thing self-destruct, there are serious issues here.
  • It is clear that Coburn and the Republicans are pulling every trick imaginable to stop this thing. Healthcare Reform (sic) has been at the top of Zero's agenda since the summer, and the more Americans know about the bill, the less they like it. Coburn delivered a shot-across-the-bow with the idea of reading into the record an amendment from a socialist that was never going to pass as a means to test his on-again/off-again threat to have the entire Healthcare Reform (sic) bill read into the record.
  • This, of course, plays right into Zero's promise to govern with "transparency" and his campaign promise to debate healthcare on CSPAN.
  • The Left and the D's have long claimed that the R's are the "Party of 'No'", and this action makes that claim more valid.
  • The R's do risk losing some cred' by slowing the Senate's business to a crawl--even if for a good reason.
  • But the D's lose cred' too by taking action through the Parliamentarian to prevent the Senate and Americans from hearing exactly what is in a bill of this import.
  • I expect the R's to attempt to get some clarification on the Paliamentarian's ruling here, if for no other reason than to preserve their ability to pull this stunt when the entire Healthcare bill comes up. But it is important to remember: Sanders pulled his amendment to stop the reading. The D's certainly will not pull their entire bill if Coburn and the R's insist that it be read. The R's still have a bullet left here.
  • But it's their last bullet, and once it's fired, it cannot be called back. If they do fire it, we should all expect that regardless of which party controls Congress, an insurgent in the Senate can stop the action by simply having everything read into the record.
The lesson here is this: Zero made a fundamental error when he said "I won". He had a chance at true bi-partisanship helping him with his agenda, but with these words, and with the remainder of his actions this year, he has shown no interest in Republican concerns, and the problems he has had all this year show because of this. Sixty seats in the Senate isn't enough. Not nearly enough.

Friday, October 23, 2009

A little late at....

....Getting to this, but Chris Muir nailed things down pretty securely with this one....

[Click image for a better view.]

Friday, August 28, 2009

In yet another act of rank copying of some else's work.....

I present this, from Kevin over at The Smallest Minority. Can I say that I am rightly impressed that Kevin would remember and/or have a way of keeping track of a piece by Peggy Noonan from nearly 4 years ago, and be able bring it back into relevance today?

"...Do people fear the wheels are coming off the trolley? Is this fear widespread? A few weeks ago I was reading Christopher Lawford's lovely, candid and affectionate remembrance of growing up in a particular time and place with a particular family, the Kennedys, circa roughly 1950-2000. It's called "Symptoms of Withdrawal." At the end he quotes his Uncle Teddy. Christopher, Ted Kennedy and a few family members had gathered one night and were having a drink in Mr. Lawford's mother's apartment in Manhattan. Teddy was expansive. If he hadn't gone into politics he would have been an opera singer, he told them, and visited small Italian villages and had pasta every day for lunch. "Singing at la Scala in front of three thousand people throwing flowers at you. Then going out for dinner and having more pasta." Everyone was laughing. Then, writes Mr. Lawford, Teddy "took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. 'I'm glad I'm not going to be around when you guys are my age.' I asked him why, and he said, 'Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.' "

Mr. Lawford continued, "The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of 'maybe we shouldn't go there.' Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on."

Lawford thought his uncle might be referring to their family--that it might "fall apart." But reading, one gets the strong impression Teddy Kennedy was not talking about his family but about . . . the whole ball of wax, the impossible nature of everything, the realities so daunting it seems the very system is off the tracks.

And--forgive me--I thought: If even Teddy knows . . ."

Friday, August 07, 2009

Am I the only one who thinks that....

...When these guys call me part of "the Mob", that they are offering high praise?

Also, I've gotten out of the habit of reading Peggy Noonan--she's become a bit too squishy for me--but she is spot on with this column. I have a hard time believing that the internal polling operation that I imagine any political party to have, would so miss the pulse of America so badly on a topic like Zero's Health Care Reform (sic). They haven't prepared their Congresscritters at all for what they're facing, and for now, they're making worse.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

More on the Cult of Personality....

H.J.RES.5

Whoooo Hooooo! A Permanent President! What could possibly go wrong?

h/t: Purple Avenger over at Ace's Place.

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Post-Election Democrats...

I've long thought (although I admit that at times certain circumstances have had me waver a bit) that this country will not elect an anti-war President in a time of war. I agree with John Fund here that McCain may have a better chance against either Clinton or Obama than many give him credit for.

However...

I have a nagging concern on what a post-election Democrat Party will look like should McCain win. Not long after 9/11...probably due to the closeness of Bush's win in 2000 and certainly after the Republicans increased their majority in 2002, the Democrats' public face showed that they had simply lost their minds. They embraced, then ceded their foreign policy agenda to a woman who is a simple fool. They held on to her until after her 15 minutes of fame were gone. They tolerated shrill harpies who are capable of taking the most vile of positions. Their lions were unable to take a calm rational argument to the public.

However, maybe the face of the Democrats was not insane, but something they cynically used to oppose the Republicans. Early on, Democrat David Obey knew that they did not have the votes to support a proposal to defund the war. Yet, they spent the entire year after they attained the majority doing nothing except to do exactly this. And when President Bush adopted Gen Petraeus' Surge, did the Democrats even allow that this approach might yield the desired results? No. They (or more correctly, their mouthpieces) questioned the General's patriotism. And after the Surge had had it's time in the field, did the Democrats even state the obvious: that it was actually working? No. The Rolling Stone now has a name for them: Chicken Doves...those Democrats who took an anti-war stance, not as a true measure of their commitment to ending the war, but to use as a tool to club the Republicans and Bush with.

So what will happen if Obama wins the popular vote, but Clinton takes the nomination through her strength with the super delegates? What will happen if McCain wins? What will happen if either Democrat wins, and then decides that we cannot leave Iraq? Will the Democratic faithful take to the streets (again)? Can the leadership rein in their extreme edges to be able to actually accomplish an agenda?

As much as I think it will be a disaster for either Clinton or Obama to win the Presidency, I don't think that a McCain win will be easy. Over the last 7 years, the Democrats haven't shown that they're able to do much other than attempt to obstruct.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

A few thoughts on Mitt's departure...

I've never been much of a Mitt-fan, so I can't claim I'm heart-broken by his departure. However, I am much less of a McCain-fan, so I would have voted for him on Super Tuesday had this not been Arizona. McCain was going to win Arizona no matter what. My gripe about Mitt seems largely to be that he appeared to be running for CEO-in-Chief.

Angler in the comments to Slublog's piece over at Ace's Place makes a good point that Romney's departure puts pressure on Huckabee to shit-or-get-off-the-pot. All that said, Romney's announcement that he was dropping out of the race was handled with a grace that is hard to imagine coming from McCain. It will be interesting to see how McCain handles this Manna-from-Heaven. Does he arrogantly maintain the Maverick persona or does he truly try to move towards the conservatives who revile him so?

Couple this with the impending brokered convention on the Democrat side, and this will be a very interesting campaign.

Wow.

What a good point Captain Ed focuses on here. If they're not careful, the Democrats are headed to a big fist floor fight at their convention.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Labor Unions and Democrats...

I recently flew with a guy who was going to vote Democratic for the first time ever because he's come to the realization that "we're Labor". I can't (and won't) debate him over this, because as a card-carrying union-member, I am Labor. It's not the first (or second, or third) thing I am, but I can't deny it.

That said, even Democrats are coming to realize that unions aren't always the best thing for the country. The postscript here, makes this point. Following the link to Ygelsia's point, I get this gem...

...sometimes the interests of a given union's members run against the general interests of the country and there's no sense in denying this....


Ergo: I may be a union-member, but I am (in no special order) a libertarian, pro-2A, pro-life, pro-Take-the-Fight-to-the-Islamists, etc, American far before my union interests enter into my decisions.

Friday, December 14, 2007

As if we needed more evidence...

Nancy Pelosi: Idiot [I know. I know. That's redundant.]

"...The grassroots are justifiably disappointed and I am too that we could not do something to end this war," Pelosi said at a press conference today. "The assumption that I made that the Republicans would soon see the light and listen to their constituents was not an accurate one."

She continued: "They like this war. They want this war to continue. We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we need a new direction in Iraq. To affect that we need redeployment of our troops with a goal of a year to do that. But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is just not George Bush's war, this is the war of the Republicans in Congress...."


h/t HotAir, via Blackfive.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Obama...

Vote for me, and everyone gets some of that free gubmint cheese.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Wes Clark...

...pwoned by Tucker Carlson. Yes. Tucker Carlson.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

"Why Dems' Iraq pullout failed"...

So asks the top-of-the-fold headline in today's Arizona Republic. Anne Flaherty, AP's analyst here, brings out three No-Duh reasons...
"A convincing four-star general, an activist group that overplayed its hand and a plainspoken Defense secretary who doesn't bother to defend the Iraq invasion."
It's not until the second to last paragraph that we get...
"...Public opinion still remains in [the Democrats] corner, and they believe that, as the 2008 elections inch closer, Republicans will be in a tighter spot."
But what if this does not reflect American public opinion, but rather just the unchallenged view of the vocal Sheehan/Code-Pink/KosKidz/MSM left? Personally, while I do believe that the American public is tired of our Iraqi War front, I don't believe that we have ever wished to end it on terms other than victory. And the American public is becoming increasingly aware of the danger that Iran poses to us.

We are no more than thirty years into a Hundred-Years War against Islamofacism. Despite that the Democrats believe that they can legislate an end to the war, this won't be over soon.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Democrats on Iraq...

A gem from Theo.



BTW, I continue to get some of my very few visitors from the very kind links of Theo and Fran at Eternity Road. If you're a returning visitor; Welcome back. If you're new here, I hope you like the place...such as it is. I'm especially proud of this posting from last fall. I haven't seen anyone else make this point about John and Elizabeth Edwards. Finally, we enjoyed a great Arizona vacation earlier this summer.

Bush and the Democrats on the MoveOn Petraeus ad...

I watched, over my shoulder, President Bush's press conference yesterday. He was asked:
Question: What's your reaction to the MoveOn.Org ad that mocked General Petraeus saying he cooked the book on Iraq. Would you like to see Democrats including presidential candidates repudiate the ad?
His answer, like most of what he says about the military, seemed to me to be both heartfelt and pitch-perfect.
President Bush: I thought the ad was disgusting. And I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. Military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democratic Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. That leads me to come to this conclusion -- that most Democrats are [more] afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.Org, than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. And one thing to attack me -- another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus.
Many of the Senate Democrats, also pitch-perfect, have refused to condemn the MoveOn ad. The names of these Democrats deserve to be remembered in future elections.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not voting were Obama and Biden.