Democrats Losing Race For Funds Under Dean

[mr_genius]

I, too, am really down on our two party system. But third parties are too rare on the national stage to put any effort into.  I often wish that we had a parliamentary system, with true proportional representation requiring coalitions to form and work together around shared issues.  I think minorities of all stripes can feel that they have more of a stake in society that way.

 

And I darn well don’t like our winner take all electoral college, despite understanding why it was originally conceived.  You sure don’t see us holding it up as a neat way to decide national elections in those “emerging democracies” do you?

 

 

I think there is a silent majority that is fed up with the two party system. Unfortunately, people are afraid to vote for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican because if they do they are preached to about how they elected the 'evil Democrat/evil Republican' that won.

 

As far as winner take all... thats not completely how it works. States rights are important to make sure a slight majority doesn't dictate to minority how and what they can do. If an individual wishes to live in a more liberal or conservative atmosphere they have the choice of which state they reside in. Example: Laws in California and laws in Mississippi vary in many ways.

[kapkomet]

I, too, am really down on our two party system. But third parties are too rare on the national stage to put any effort into.  I often wish that we had a parliamentary system, with true proportional representation requiring coalitions to form and work together around shared issues.  I think minorities of all stripes can feel that they have more of a stake in society that way.

 

And I darn well don’t like our winner take all electoral college, despite understanding why it was originally conceived.  You sure don’t see us holding it up as a neat way to decide national elections in those “emerging democracies” do you?

I have long wished that we had more of a "parliamentary" system of government, however, there's many reasons why that's not the case. Well, besides the obvious pesky constitution.

 

I need to get some other things done right now, I'll join in more on the three party deal tomorrow.

[EvilMonkey]

The fundies are about fear, hatred, being against something, and believing their morality is the only valid way to live one’s life. 

Kinda like Howard Dean when he refers to anything Bush, with fear, hatred and believing that morality (the Dem way) is the only valid way. I just heard his quote this mornign that went somethign like "We don't have to come up with ideas to help the country because we aren't in power". What a loser. If you have an idea, speak up. If it is a good one, and the other side rejects it, just bring that back up come election time. But no, instead it is utter hatred of all things Bush and the belief that their way is the only way.

 

HOWEVER, I DO agree with the last 3 paragraphs of your post. I think that is one of the signs of the apocalypse!

[mr_genius]

Kinda like Howard Dean when he refers to anything Bush, with fear, hatred and believing that morality (the Dem way) is the only valid way.  I just heard his quote this mornign that went somethign like "We don't have to come up with ideas to help the country because we aren't in power". What a loser.

 

 

If you're a Republican you gotta admit the guy is probably one of the best things to happen in a while. He's makes his party look so bad.

[Texsox]

If you're a Republican you gotta admit the guy is probably one of the best things to happen in a while.  He's makes his party look so bad.

 

Actually he is rebuilding from the bottom up which is his strength. That could be huge. I dislike his rhetoric.

[mr_genius]

Actually he is rebuilding from the bottom up which is his strength. That could be huge. I dislike his rhetoric.

 

 

He'll lose more votes than he gains if he doesn't tone it down.

 

Democrats are most potent when using an approach closer to that of Bill Clinton.

[EvilMonkey]

Actually he is rebuilding from the bottom up which is his strength. That could be huge. I dislike his rhetoric.

TEX, how is it building anything other then scepticism when he says "We have a plan", but when asked what that plan is, either cannot or will not tell. He actually said that they 'don't have to' tell their plan now since they weren't in power. Well, how can you convince someone YOUR plan is better than the other guys when you won't say what it is to begin with?

[Texsox]

TEX, how is it building anything other then scepticism when he says "We have a plan", but when asked what that plan is, either cannot or will not tell.  He actually said that they 'don't have to' tell their plan now since they weren't in power.  Well, how can you convince someone YOUR plan is better than the other guys when you won't say what it is to begin with?

 

Infrastructure at the state level. He ain't running for anything, but if he can fire up the local groups to elect their candidates, he's accomplished something. And I suppose someone may vote for the GOP congressional candidate because of something Dean said, but I doubt it would be too many.

[Rex Kickass]

TEX, how is it building anything other then scepticism when he says "We have a plan", but when asked what that plan is, either cannot or will not tell.  He actually said that they 'don't have to' tell their plan now since they weren't in power.  Well, how can you convince someone YOUR plan is better than the other guys when you won't say what it is to begin with?

 

Actually, the Dems came up with a plan on how to handle the Iraq situation right now. Which is more than you can say about the Bush administration as of late.

[kapkomet]

Actually, the Dems came up with a plan on how to handle the Iraq situation right now. Which is more than you can say about the Bush administration as of late.

Please enlighten me. What is that plan?

[YASNY]

Please enlighten me.  What is that plan?

 

Cut and run.

[Texsox]

Like Reagan, they ain't telling unless they win

 

The Top 7 Least-Liked Senate Confirmation Questions

 

 

7> "If a picture paints a thousand words, then why can't I paint

  you?"

 

6> "Paper or plastic? Explain."

 

5> "Which of my Senate colleagues is the ugliest?"

 

4> "When did you stop aborting fetuses from your wife?"

 

3> "Ginger or Mary-Ann? You'd better get this right."

 

2> "Can you fix this parking ticket for me?"

 

 

                  and the Number 1 Least-Liked

                Senate Confirmation Question...

 

 

1> "Who, in fact, did let the dogs out?"

 

 

 

            [  Copyright 2005 by Chris White    ]

            [      http://www.topfive.com      ]

[Texsox]

Please enlighten me.  What is that plan?

Undermine the insurgents by:

 

Pursuing a political settlement.

Tie Troop withdrawals to specific, responsible, benchmarks beginning with 20,000 before Christmas in response to the Iraq Constitution being completed.

 

There is more to it of course, but these are the two talking point highlights.

[Rex Kickass]

Http://reid.senate.gov

 

# First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.

 

# Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.

 

# Third, the President needs to submit – on a quarterly basis - a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.

 

Later yesterday, Frist said pretty much the same thing. As his idea.

[kapkomet]

Come on. #1,#2,#3... has been repeated ad naseum ... but funny how the spin machine doesn't want to report it that way. Hell, there's a speech or press conference updating us damn near every day on what's going on over there. Unless the news is "bad", it never hits the airwaves.

 

#2 especially frosts my ass because it has been said since day ONE that we are not staying over there. Again, funny how that falls through the cracks of the media spin machine.

[kapkomet]

BTW, I think I'll add that BOTH sides of the media machine are spinning loudly on this deal. The loudmouth AM media want you to believe that we're s***ting rose petals over there, and the "mainstream" media wants us to believe we're doing nothing but clogging up the streets with bullets, explosives, and carcasses of a sovereign nation over there. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sorry Kap - but this unless the news is "bad" horses*** is just that.

 

If the news isn't bad but isn't extraordinary - it's not news. It's the American government just doing its job.

 

If that is newsworthy, that's a sad state of affairs for this country.

[kapkomet]

I'm sorry Kap - but this unless the news is "bad" horses*** is just that.

 

If the news isn't bad but isn't extraordinary - it's not news. It's the American government just doing its job.

 

If that is newsworthy, that's a sad state of affairs for this country.

I somewhat agree.

 

Where I disagree is, you hear EVERY SINGLE DAY about a soldier who died on ABCNews. But do you ever hear about schools being rebuilt? Infastructure that is being rebuilt?

 

We're constantly being reminded about deaths, and the insurgent's activity. But we're not hearing a lot about the other stuff.

 

Granted, hearing a soldier's death should give us all pause, but I bet it doesn't for most, sadly. It's only on the news because it's "bad" news, and I know you differ with me on this point, but it's more true then not. It's a reminder to the Democrats looking for blood in the water that we shouldn't be there at all.

[Rex Kickass]

Please don't lump all Democrats in the same boat. A lot of us are concerned - but most of us are not advocating a cut and run strategy.

 

A lot of us are very concerned though with the path that our President took us to where we are. A lot of us are very concerned with the lack of foresight for this situation we are in now. A lot of us are very concerned with the future of Iraq - because it will play a big part in the future of us.

 

The problem lies in that it seems as if people who are in the halls of power and are making the decisions seem less concerned with doing the right thing and more concerned with what the public wants or feeding their own egos.

 

Dissent in the intelligence gathering community appears to have been stifled. Different points of view in the NSA appears to have been stifled. And we have an administration that apparently out and out lied about whether this situation could have ended peacefully in the first place. And to be honest, until those situations are addressed - we need to hear more about the loss of American life in this operation and less about whether or not a fresh coat of paint and a handful of books were passed out in Baghdad.

[kapkomet]

Please don't lump all Democrats in the same boat. A lot of us are concerned - but most of us are not advocating a cut and run strategy.

 

A lot of us are very concerned though with the path that our President took us to where we are. A lot of us are very concerned with the lack of foresight for this situation we are in now. A lot of us are very concerned with the future of Iraq - because it will play a big part in the future of us.

 

The problem lies in that it seems as if people who are in the halls of power and are making the decisions seem less concerned with doing the right thing and more concerned with what the public wants or feeding their own egos.

 

Dissent in the intelligence gathering community appears to have been stifled. Different points of view in the NSA appears to have been stifled. And we have an administration that apparently out and out lied about whether this situation could have ended peacefully in the first place. And to be honest, until those situations are addressed - we need to hear more about the loss of American life in this operation and less about whether or not a fresh coat of paint and a handful of books were passed out in Baghdad.

I agree with the sentiment of your post in that we should all be concerned. However, OUR ENTIRE GOVERNMENT, whether Deomocratic or Republican, Congress or CIA, FAILED US. To pin it solely at the feet of George W. Bush I have a problem with. You all say that it was HIS decision to go to war. Hmm, funny, I think Congress passed a resolution for it as well. I think they ALL have blood on their hands, and they are ALL playing Mickey Mouse poltical football over it, and that's SICKENING as soldiers continue to die.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't disagree with you there.

 

But there are two things that the Republicans are saying that simply isn't true.

 

That Congress - when voting for the resolution authorizing force - were privy to the same intelligence as the President. Not true. The intelligence the Senate was given was provided BY the White House. Filtered and all.

 

And that the Senate found no wrongdoing by the Whitehouse in misleading Congress with the intelligence after an investigation. Again not true. Congress was charged to make an investigation into that. In two parts - the first - which dealt with the accuracy of the intelligence showed that the intelligence was wrong. The second - still hasn't taken place after 18 months and is the reason that Harry Reid closed the Senate the other week.

 

I genuinely think that many on both sides acted in good faith on the President's request. I don't think blood is intentionally on their hands. However, when it became apparent - two years ago that there may have been deliberate misrepresentation, Congress should have been more aggressive to investigate these claims. They weren't. And as a result, there is plenty more blood on their hands.

[Balta1701]

I agree with the sentiment of your post in that we should all be concerned.  However, OUR ENTIRE GOVERNMENT, whether Deomocratic or Republican, Congress or CIA, FAILED US.  To pin it solely at the feet of George W. Bush I have a problem with.  You all say that it was HIS decision to go to war.  Hmm, funny, I think Congress passed a resolution for it as well.  I think they ALL have blood on their hands, and they are ALL playing Mickey Mouse poltical football over it, and that's SICKENING as soldiers continue to die.

EJ Dionne in hte WaPo today....

 

"There is a great missing element in the argument over whether the administration manipulated the facts. Neither side wants to talk about the context in which Bush won a blank check from Congress to invade Iraq. He doesn't want us to remember that he injected the war debate into the 2002 midterm election campaign for partisan purposes, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that he used the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised."

[FlaSoxxJim]

I don't disagree with you there.

 

But there are two things that the Republicans are saying that simply isn't true.

 

That Congress - when voting for the resolution authorizing force - were privy to the same intelligence as the President. Not true. The intelligence the Senate was given was provided BY the White House. Filtered and all.

 

And that the Senate found no wrongdoing by the Whitehouse in misleading Congress with the intelligence after an investigation. Again not true. Congress was charged to make an investigation into that. In two parts - the first - which dealt with the accuracy of the intelligence showed that the intelligence was wrong. The second - still hasn't taken place after 18 months and is the reason that Harry Reid closed the Senate the other week.

 

I genuinely think that many on both sides acted in good faith on the President's request. I don't think blood is intentionally on their hands. However, when it became apparent - two years ago that there may have been deliberate misrepresentation, Congress should have been more aggressive to investigate these claims. They weren't. And as a result, there is plenty more blood on their hands.

 

All of these are good points that for some reason are failing to get any traction.

 

In regard to the second point about the investigation, the first part of the Congressional investigation was specifically limited to how intel was mis-handled, with the second (yet to happen) investigation to focus on the potentially more sinister why aspects.

 

As for the assertion that Congress saw the same intel as the White House, of course that is untrue. Congress was sent a ca. 100 page NIE report and a much shorter, "slicker" Executive Summary from which to draw their conclusions.

 

But neither the NIE or the Exec Summary bothered to note there were many dissenting views within the intelligence community. One specific example, is that Congress was not made aware until much later that the Energy Department voiced serrious doubts that the infamous aluminum tubes were designed for atomic centrifuges. Similarly, the State Department had vocalized a dissenting opinion about the existence of the supposed "mobile biological weapons labs," but Congress was unaware of such when they gave war authorization.

 

Fred Kaplan's Slate piece on Parsing Bush's New Mantra does a very good job in highlighting these and other divergences between what was said in GWB's Veterans Day speech and the facts.

[FlaSoxxJim]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 09:44 AM)

I agree with the sentiment of your post in that we should all be concerned.  However, OUR ENTIRE GOVERNMENT, whether Deomocratic or Republican, Congress or CIA, FAILED US.  To pin it solely at the feet of George W. Bush I have a problem with.  You all say that it was HIS decision to go to war.  Hmm, funny, I think Congress passed a resolution for it as well.  I think they ALL have blood on their hands, and they are ALL playing Mickey Mouse poltical football over it, and that's SICKENING as soldiers continue to die.

 

Kap, please square your statements with the information I gave in the post above citing as INCORRECT the assertion that Congress had the information they needed to make an informed decision. They did not.

 

They were duped.

 

Congress only failed us in taking this administration at its word. Hopefully it doesn't make the same mistake again, and hopefully we don't let them.

[Balta1701]

In regard to the second point about the investigation, the first part of the Congressional investigation was specifically limited to how intel was mis-handled, with the second (yet to happen) investigation to focus on the potentially more sinister why aspects.

I basically agree with you but I think that this is a poor way to phrase what is really a key point.

 

The 2 previous investigations, the 1 by the Senate and the Silberman-Robb investigation, were both designed more to look at where the bad intel came from. In other words, how it was collected and what decisions were made in the process of collecting it.

 

I don't know that it's as much a question of how it was mishandled...they looked at where it came from (defectors, Chalabi's group, Curveball, the guy we just learned about last week, etc.).

 

The only political-related issue they were able to look at was whether there was direct political pressure on intelligence people at the lowest levels to produce data fitting the administration's conclusions. As far as I know, both studies found that there wasn't major pressure at those levels.

 

The question which has not been investigated at all is what happened at the highest levels...how those doubts disappeared from the documents given to Congress or from the speeches made to the people.