Not A Good Day: Democrats Failed On Iraq Pullout And Failed To “Restore” Habeas Corpus
Not a good day for the Democrats. I won’t bother citing this poll. Drew points out:
The Senate just voted down an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would have set time limits on how much time troops would have to stay home between overseas deployments. The measure offered by Jim Webb of Virginia was billed as a “support the troops measure” but would have the effect of making it nearly impossible to maintain sufficient troop levels in Iraq.
Keep in mind that the Webb Amendment was shot down after the “Habeas Corpus Restoration Act” failed to reach cloture 56-43. National Review Online has a great article that I would encourage you to read in its entirety, but for now, here is a snippet:
If ever there has been cravenness hidden under bold rhetoric, it is the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, brainchild of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s senior members, Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy. This effort to return to the federal district courts the cases of alien enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay might more aptly be called the “Avoiding Congressional Accountability Act” ” or, as the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes has tartly suggested, the “Leave It to Justice Kennedy Act.”
September 19, 2007 - 10:44 PM on September 19th, 2007
Yeah…well, we just don’t have the votes to do much good.
They sure are trying, though.
Of course, that’ll all change in 2009…when we gain more seats in congress – hopefully enough to shut down filibusters and flip a veto.
President Clinton (#44) will have so much power with congress full of Democrats.
The war WILL end in 2009.
September 19, 2007 - 10:54 PM on September 19th, 2007
Y’all Chickenhawks to Me – by Elmo (MP3)
(If you have trouble with the link, right click and “save target as”)
/
September 20, 2007 - 05:18 AM on September 20th, 2007
SFL, stop posting after you’ve taken your “medication” from your local canibis buying club. You’re full of it. The public is catching on that the real Culture of Corruption is just where it was when the Democrats got thrown out in 94. They’ve McGovernized the party again and they’ll be thrown out in ‘08 so much so that you will leave the country.
September 20, 2007 - 06:05 AM on September 20th, 2007
This is excellant news- terrorist per the Geneva Accords should be tried via military tribunal. The Webb Amendment would be a grevious error- no doubt to be overturned by the Supreme Court if ever passed.
And with an 11% approval rating (not due to the Iraq War, but due to much deeper corrution issues) I wouldn’t count your chickens before they are hatched SFL.
If Clinton runs against Guiliani, she doesn’t stand a chance if there is no recession. (That will be the only possible way she can win.).
September 20, 2007 - 06:21 AM on September 20th, 2007
4, Ted, why do you think the Democrats are trying to destroy the economy before the election?
September 20, 2007 - 06:22 AM on September 20th, 2007
hEY mATTHIAS- CAN WE CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION?
http://rightvoices.com/2007/09/16/the-gathering-of-eagles-get-a-big-fat-0-to-the-anti-war-protestors-189/
September 20, 2007 - 06:24 AM on September 20th, 2007
5.
How are they doing that before the election? I know the paint as grim a picture as possible but I need more than just that.
September 20, 2007 - 06:46 AM on September 20th, 2007
Ending the tax cuts that stimulated the economy. Enacting new “luxury” taxes. More and more regulations. Out of control spending and earmarks. All the stuff they pulled during the Carter and Clinton presidencies.
September 20, 2007 - 07:17 AM on September 20th, 2007
And remember that it took Ronald Reagan and his economic policies to pull us out of the abyss Carter had set us into.
September 20, 2007 - 08:01 AM on September 20th, 2007
9, BonBon, what we suffered under Carter had been set into place by the Democrat Congress years before. Anyone remember the Dow Jones average under Carter? It was under 1000. Now where is it? How many Americans own stocks in and outside of IRAs now than under Carter or Clinton?
September 20, 2007 - 10:19 AM on September 20th, 2007
No, actually, the chances are VERY good that the Dems will pick up more seats in congress.
In the senate, some 23+ republican seats are up for re-election. Only a 10 or so Dem seats are up for re-election.
That RIGHT THERE gives the Dems a HUGE advantage…
And, remember, the Dems were sent to congress to stop the war. they haven’t yet (because of the lack of votes) and are paying for it in public aprroval.
I’ve said it before, if a pollster called ME – SF LIBERAL – and asked my opinion, I’d have to give Pelosi a thumbs down. Certainly not because I don’t agree with her ideology, but with her inaction on the war.
As far as the 11% being for “corruption” as you said…that’s just fucking silly. Do you have any evidence for this?
Look at the polls – the negative feelings are because the war is still dragging on with no help ending it from the Dems.
Corruption…LOL.
You confuse yourself, I think. Corruption is why YOU LOST congress last year…
September 20, 2007 - 10:22 AM on September 20th, 2007
“If Clinton runs against Guiliani, she doesn’t stand a chance if there is no recession.”
———————
We’ve talked about this before…
Guiliani has NO CHANCE as the republican nominee.
He DOES NOT have the support of your strongest voters – the christian fundamentalists.
Without the fundies, you team goes NOWHERE.
Romney is disliked by the fundies, and Fred Thompson just got DISSED by James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
Seriously, your team is F*CKED in 2008.
Clinton – with Obama as her VP, with the war and with a poor economy (the public trusts Democrats more on economic issues – look it up if you don’t believe it) will run right over ANY candidate you have to offer.
September 20, 2007 - 10:26 AM on September 20th, 2007
Bottom line is, you people LOST CONROL of congress last year.
And you actually think you’ll make gains in the next election?
September 20, 2007 - 11:18 AM on September 20th, 2007
12- the fundamentalists will take Rudy over Hillary..The Democratsa I know in my personal life will vote Republican over Hillary..get off the coast and the attitude toward her changes SFL…People have grown tired of Bush/Clinton/Bush and now potentially another 4 to 8 years of another Clinton? We as a country have more options than that.
September 20, 2007 - 11:20 AM on September 20th, 2007
11,12,13, stop smoking weed before posting. Your own nutcases are disrupting Congressional hearings and picketing your officials’ homes. You think the average American likes that? They’ll dump your bums.
SF, you are so partisan you can’t see the culture of corruption you Democrats wallow in.
September 20, 2007 - 12:50 PM on September 20th, 2007
11, 12, 13.
Hmm…three responses to one post. You come here to rattle people but it seems that I’ve hit a nerve.
September 20, 2007 - 01:26 PM on September 20th, 2007
“hit a nerve”
—————
What? Hardly…
I thought this was a site for discussion.
Not sure what you mean, here.
September 20, 2007 - 01:28 PM on September 20th, 2007
I have an observation to make.
Historical facts and documents show that the founding fathers were:
1. PRO tobacco, (many were plantation owners)
2. church going, ( most of the colonies were founded as a means to insure the free expression of religion for a given sect)
3. meat eating, (Only the poor who weren’t able to afford meat were vegetarians)
4. pro self defense, ( There are writings by James Madison that specifically states that self defense is one of the benefits of gun ownership)
5. gun owning (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about the individual’s right and duty to own and bear arms.)
6. hunters (hunting was a means of providing meat for the table in frontier areas.
7. who spoke out against entangling foreign alliances (Washington’s farewell address)
and
8. revolted against the big British Government because of high taxes and government intrusion into their lives. (Stamp tax, Tea tax and other taxes as well as British troops being forceably quartered in private homes lead to the Revolutionary War. They didn’t fill Boston Harbor with tea because they wanted to drink coffee.)
With those FACTS in mind, I have to ask exactly which Democratic party policy IS patriotic?
September 20, 2007 - 01:32 PM on September 20th, 2007
I understand that Hillary isn’t the most popular choice.
Hey, I’m for Obama, so I kind of know how many of you feel.
If Hillary gets in, we’ll have had a Bush or Clinton in the presidency or vice presidency for nearly 30 years.
That said, the right doesn’t have anyone that really excites your fundamentalists and your die-hard righties.
Go to FreeRepublic.com, MAJOR right wing site…they HATE Guiliani and Romney, and are banking on Thompson and nobodys like Hunter.
My mom lives in Michigan. She is a born again christian, and she says she would never vote for Guiliani. She certainly won’t vote for Clinton…but that means she might not vote for president at all – leave it blank or fill in.
I’m sure there are thousands, if not millions of fundies who would agree with her on this.
A clinton presidency would be painful, but to them, it’s better to not vote than to vote for someone they don’t believe in or someone who doesn’t believe in them.
I’m very confident that should Clinton get the nomination, she WILL win the presidency – unless, of course, some unforseen scandal hits her. But so far, she’s built like Bill. Everything bounces off him.
September 20, 2007 - 01:35 PM on September 20th, 2007
FAO – that was over 200 years ago.
The majority of the public agrees with Democrats on most issues.
Social Safety Net protection, Protection of Civil Liberties, Ending the War in Iraq…
Oh, and just about every poll out there shows the Americans favor Democrats when it comes to the economy. Look it up.
I’m not sure what your team has going for it right now.
Not a whole lot.
Well…you DO have President Bush.
(snicker)
September 20, 2007 - 01:48 PM on September 20th, 2007
20. Earth to SFL….you are living in a fantasy world or maybe just San Francisco. Most americans do not agree with the current crop of democrats policies.
September 20, 2007 - 02:45 PM on September 20th, 2007
“Not sure what you mean, here.”
Suuuuure you don’t.
September 20, 2007 - 11:47 PM on September 20th, 2007
Well SFL if the polls show that people agree with the Dems, that just shows how pathetic the liberal controlled education system really is. A recent poll (since you put so much stock in them) shows that most college seniors are pathetically uneducated when it comes to American History and government. Over half didn’t know who Paul Revere was or what he did. Over half failed the test about important events in US history. Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. Obviously the people who supposedly favor the Democrats on the economy are too young or stupid to remember the Carter Administration. I personally have no desire to live through another Carteresque presidency. A second grade history teacher in Georgia was caught indoctrinating the kids in her class and then giving them the questions and answers the day before so that they would pass the standardized tests. Exactly what do editorials in the Atlanta Constitution journal have to do with American history? Their homework assignment was to read the editorials, not their textbooks. While I believe a teacher of that sort should be fired and blackballed from the teaching profession, seeing as she has a PHD and probably tenure, that’s just not going to happen. She’s derelict in her responsibilities and needs to be treated accordingly.
September 21, 2007 - 12:18 AM on September 21st, 2007
On the topic of Obama, I have little to say about him other than I feel that he, like Jimmy Carter, may have his heart in the right place but, he’d be in WAY over his head. His comments have already shown he’s incapable of understanding the complexities of being Commander in Chief during a time of war. He’s probably a really nice guy, he’s simply NOT up to the job. At least not at this point. Unfortunately, we simply don’t have the luxury of having someone who isn’t up to the task while we’re at war. I have to honestly say that other than Thompson, I don’t know who on either side is really up to the challenge. Rudy would be strong on security, Romney would be strong on the economy. Neither really have any international foreign relations experience. For that matter NONE of the Dems do. Let’s face facts, both parties are putting up a bunch of mostly lightweights. Hillary is a closet communist, John Edwards is essentially a lying hypocrite, Obama is in over his head, Rudy has a lot of personal baggage, Morons will not vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon (sad isn’t it that in a country of supposed religious freedom, people won’t vote for someone solely because of their religion?). At least Fred Thompson was an accomplished attorney BEFORE becoming an actor, then Senator, and left the Senate because of the death of his daughter.
When it comes right down to it, the Liberals tell lies and half truths about the outcome of their plans and the Conservatives don’t elucidate their plans at all.
Here’s how the plans break down:
Higher tax rates = fewer jobs, lower revenues and more people in poverty
Lower tax rates = More jobs, higher revenues, fewer people in poverty.
More people with legal firearms = less crime
Fewer people with legal firearms = more crime
Criminals in prison until old and infirm = less crime
Criminals on streets with slap on wrist = more crime
Higher minimum wage = Fewer people working producing less
lower minimum wage = more people working producing more
Tax payer funded healthcare = lower quality and longer waits
Private funded healthcare = higher quality and shorter waits
From what I’ve heard of the Democratic plans, if they win the White House, and control of the Congress, we should be right back into another Carter economy with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit mortgage rates, criminals spending little time in prison for victimizing law abiding citizens, while law abiding citizens are rendered defenseless against the criminal element. Likewise, the waits at government run (which will be every hospital BUT the ones the dems themselves will be using) will increase from 6 to 30 hours as the illegals who currently crowd them will not have to fear deportation and the US taxpayer will be funding their treatment. Likewise, law abiding US citizens will be unable to receive the life saving procedures that their private insurance currently covers. Why? Because there won’t be enough doctors available to provide them, and the federal government will simply deny the treatment worse than the current HMOs do.
Liberals need to get off the “it’s the thought that counts” mentality. That went out the window with the 6th twelve pack of tube socks your aunts gave you for Christmas. Good intentions are wonderful, but it’s the results that matter. And good intentions with BAD results are what history shows the dems are headed for.
September 21, 2007 - 01:02 AM on September 21st, 2007
#20: “FAO – that was over 200 years ago.”
And that kind of thinking is the essence of what is wrong with America today.
September 21, 2007 - 05:51 AM on September 21st, 2007
18, My part Cherokee step-son proudly wears a t-shirt that says Vegetarian is an old Indian word meaning BAD HUNTER.
September 21, 2007 - 08:22 AM on September 21st, 2007
FAO #24 what you are describing about Liberal thoiught is more than just having the right intention but being wrong. It is evidence of mental illness to ignore reality, fail to consider human nature (which is constant and can be predicted in every case), throw out the lessons of thousands of years of lessons learned the hard way about human behavior that led to the establishment of traditions and mores, etc.
The only conclusion I can think of that explains everything about Liberal thought is that at its most empirical level it is a form of mental illness.
September 21, 2007 - 09:40 AM on September 21st, 2007
Wow, most Democrats I know, don’t agree with their party on fiscal issues..
September 21, 2007 - 10:07 AM on September 21st, 2007
“but to them, it’s better to not vote than to vote for someone they don’t believe in or someone who doesn’t believe in them.”
I am not a Christian fundie or hard right winger. I am a typical moderate, and his is how I feel also though.
I beleive that this is the way many moderate conservatives and moderate liberals feel also. In the Zogby poll, he said that folks have a distrust of governement in general and that folks now are pretty much anti-establisment. This was a major contributor to the 11% approval rating that Congress is now at.
I got news for you SFL- the Dems are part of the establishment just as much as the Reps are and folks understand that. Your parties don’t represent our values.
I am hoping this is the beginning of an awakening of Ameicans. We have choices like Obama, Clinton, Romney and Rudy because people have been apathetic towards the polictical process and have allowed the establisments of the party to wrech power from us.
Unfortunately, it is only a hope because I have no faith in what once made America great- the people. We are at the dusk of our existence. Night will fall.
September 21, 2007 - 10:13 AM on September 21st, 2007
“Wow, most Democrats I know, don’t agree with their party on fiscal issues..”
Indeed, but most liberals are not of the “moveon.org” brand that SFL is either.
September 22, 2007 - 03:39 PM on September 22nd, 2007
Ted, you may be right about this country as it currently stands heading into the abyss. Historically, most governmental systems fall apart after about 200 years. Jefferson said that a revolution every so often is a good thing. The question keeps coming to mind as to what faces this country down the road. A revolution against the the liberal ideologues who will destroy our freedoms to feed their notion of “fairness”? A subtle invasion from other countries of low or unskilled labor that causes such a drain on the economy as to make it collapse? A not so subtle invasion of Islamofascists that has already begun and are only waiting for the people of this great nation to become disarmed physically and emotionally before launching a series of devastating attacks? Will it simply wither on the vine as liberals lie their way into power and then squeeze the life from it like a python crushing its prey? Or perhaps it will be sold off bit by bit in back room deals to foreign countries?
I’m sure the statement of someone being emotionally disarmed may require some explanation. It is the state of being so afraid of and unwilling to defend oneself as to be willing to surrender everything that you own in order to avoid confrontation. This is unfortunately the lesson being taught in the government schools at this time.