Sorry pal. Genetics can grow an ear on a mouse in a few months, but has yet to master growing a spine and testicles on the majority of Republicans! 
Posted on 08/11/2007 10:45:48 AM PDT by neverdem
Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.
The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.
The row over the US Attorneys and the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been something of a typhoon in a teaspoon. The Democrats love it, since they imagine it portrays them to the public as resolute guardians of the impartial administration of justice, a concept whose credibility most Americans sensibly deride. The Democrats now plan to track Gonzales's firing of the US Attorneys back to that comic opera villain of the Bush era, Karl Rove, another great provoker of dust storms.
The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.
Just as the Democrats work tirelessly to demonstrate to the voters that it makes zero difference which party controls Congress, the political establishment forces all candidates for the presidential nomination to sever any compromising ties to sanity and common sense.
Right now they're hosing down Barack Obama because he said in the YouTube debate in South Carolina that he would be prepared to meet with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to hash over problems face to face. The pundits whacked him for demonstrating "inexperience." Experienced leaders order the CIA to murder such men.
Then Obama drew even fiercer fire by saying he would take nukes off the table in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama told the AP on August 2, adding, after a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
I'm beginning to respect this man. He displays sagacity well beyond the norm for candidates seeking the Oval Office. He comprehends, if only in mid-sentence, that when you drop a nuclear bomb, it will kill civilians. He also realizes that strafing Waziristan with thermonuclear devices in the hopes of nailing Osama bin Laden is a foolish way to proceed.
So Obama is being flayed for his "inexperience," first and foremost by Hillary Clinton, who permits no table setting that does not include a couple of nuclear weapons next to the sugar bowl. To recoup, Obama has declared his readiness as Commander in Chief to order US forces to hotly pursue Osama into Pakistan, whatever the government of Pakistan might think of this onslaught on its sovereignty.
Has the left the capacity to influence the conduct of the Democrats? In terms of substantive achievement the answer thus far has been no. People didn't like it when I wrote here a month ago that the antiwar movement was at a low ebb. They invoke the polls showing that 70 percent of Americans want the troops to come home. This is presumptuous, like a barking dog claiming it made the moon go down. It didn't take an antiwar movement to make the people antiwar. People looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust. Their attention is already shifting to the economic crisis: housing meltdown, car sales meltdown, credit crisis, threats from the Chinese to destroy the dollar. What war?
The left is as easily distracted, currently by the phantasm of impeachment. Why all this clamor to launch a proceeding surely destined to fail, aimed at a duo who will be out of the White House in sixteen months? Pursue them for war crimes after they've stepped down. Mount an international campaign of the sort that has Henry Kissinger worrying at airports that there might be a lawyer with a writ standing next to the man with the limo sign. Right now the impeachment campaign is a distraction from the war and the paramount importance of ending it.
For sure, there are actions around the country: Quakers and Unitarians picketing outside shopping centers, campus vigils, resolutions by city councils and so forth. It's all pretty quiet, in a conflict that has now--as my brother Patrick recently pointed out--gone on longer than the First World War. At the liberal blogger convention, Yearly Kos, held the first weekend in August, the organizers nixed any serious strategy session on the war. John Stauber of PR Watch had to force an impromptu (and very successful) session with leaders of the Iraq Veterans Against the War.
A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush's police-state executive orders of July 17--the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them. And guess what? Just as their poll numbers are going down, Bush's are going up, by five points in Gallup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?
It’s really amazing how sick the democrats are. They know full well if we cut and run in Iraq, Al-Qaeda will have an oil rich safe haven. And yet for pure political reasons they want us to lose in Iraq.
Sorry pal. Genetics can grow an ear on a mouse in a few months, but has yet to master growing a spine and testicles on the majority of Republicans!
People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times
It makes for a GOOD LAUGH........
I don’t care about the wimps in the senate. It’s the 170 or so conservatives in the house that need to lead a party revolt in order to save our nation.
this from a radical left wing source...
I believe that part of the 'R loss was that our President was not waging a real war.
A politically correct war where nobody is supposed to get hurt doesn't satisfy anyone.
It frustrates and angers people like me who want to win. We believe that winning early and often using all the might of the U.S. Military ultimately saves lives..both ours and our enemy.
On the other hand, a pc war frustrates and angers us AND the left because it drags on and on with no definitive outcome. Americans are being shown images of the squalor in Iraq...that has always been there, BTW, but never showcased like it is on CNN and the MSM.
A quick and victorious end to the war would have removed most, if not all, the ammo that the left uses to trash the Unites States.
I take offense to that statement. Drunken sailors spend only their own money.
Nice analysis of what motivated different factions in the last election.
Okay, drunken Doggies, then! Semper Fi!.............
When they are led by leaders whos main thrust is to get rid of our President, the results are forgone.
They have no plans, direction, answers or effective leadership. Their leadership is in place due to lenght of time living off the tax payers and not because of their ability to led.
If ever there ws a need for term limits, this is reason enough. Without an effective way to change the lenght of time these thieves in the sewer called Washington are serving we can expect a lot more of the same.
Voters are limited to choices that are rich and already living off the tax payers money, so there must be another more effective way to get rid of them.
This is insanity masquerading as commentary.
It makes for a GOOD LAUGH........
Well, statistically, given the number of articles the NY Slimes publishes every month, they're bound to print the truth every now and then, no matter how rarely.
Mark
The voters probably don’t even know what they did, and they will live with the consequences. Most don’t even know that the Democrats have majorities in Congress. Most think it is still a GOP Congress because GWB is still in the White House. Most people cannot even name their own congressman.
Blind squirrel finds acorn.........
C'mon, smiley says you're kidding, and you know Alexander Cockburn + The Nation is all the barf alert anyone needs.
I like to read the old Marxist just to reinforce my assumption that some people will always think communism is a great idea, it was just never implemented properly
Excellent!
No the dingbat republicans put the democrats in because Foley was caught messing with the page boys.
Was it conservatives who stayed home in 2006 to “teach the GOP a lesson” it is incapable of learning, or was it Oprah-style “free spirits” who switched to the Democrats?
I assumed everyone knew this Trotskyite, who declaims anthropogenic global warming as the next corporatist scam for Big Energy. I'm sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.