Congressman Murtha Calls for Immediate Withdrawal

[sec159row2]

Are you saying that there were no Republicans who demanded Clinton pull out of Somalia?

 

 

i'm saying murtha is NOT A HAWK...

[kapkomet]

Here's the bottom line. In order for the Democrats to gain back power, we MUST "lose" in Iraq. Remember, they have painted this as George W. Bush's war, and his policy MUST fail for them to gain back power. If the job gets done over there, the war is a success, and the party in power wins.

 

What a nice position to put yourself in. That's why the Dems have more trouble then they know what to do with on this issue. And, it's quite interesting that one Democrat is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay far away from all the others on this issue - Hillary Rodham Clinton. I wonder why?

[Mercy!]

Here's the bottom line.  In order for the Democrats to gain back power, we MUST "lose" in Iraq.  Remember, they have painted this as George W. Bush's war, and his policy MUST fail for them to gain back power.  If the job gets done over there, the war is a success, and the party in power wins.

 

What a nice position to put yourself in.  That's why the Dems have more trouble then they know what to do with on this issue.  And, it's quite interesting that one Democrat is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay far away from all the others on this issue - Hillary Rodham Clinton.  I wonder why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That sounds like a raving lunatic talking. Did you mean to use green? Or should I just tune in AM blab radio?

 

By the way, what IS George W. Bush's policy in Iraq?

[southsider2k5]

That sounds like a raving lunatic talking.  Did you mean to use green?  Or should I just tune in AM blab radio?

 

By the way, what IS George W. Bush's policy in Iraq?

 

Classic.

 

Attack the messenger, not the message. Tex should be along anytime now to mock you.

[Mercy!]

Classic.

 

Attack the messenger, not the message. Tex should be along anytime now to mock you.

Son, you might want to look up yonder and see who started this thread. When someone drops into a pretty good discussion and starts up with the Dems are traitors who give aid and comfort to the enemy talk, as Kap just did, yes, I am disgusted. Or maybe exasperated would be a better choice of words.

 

But in my brief time in this forum, if I needed a model for a poster who did nothing but drop into political discussions with a sarcastic remark and then disappear, I need look no farther than you. Why don't you add to the discussion with something positive, or at least constructive?

[southsider2k5]

Son, you might want to look up yonder and see who started this thread.  When someone drops into a pretty good discussion and starts up with the Dems are traitors who give aid and comfort to the enemy talk, as Kap just did,  yes, I am disgusted.  Or maybe exasperated would be a better choice of words.

 

But in my brief time in this forum, if I needed a model for a poster who did nothing but drop into political discussions with a sarcastic remark and then disappear, I need look no farther than you.  Why don't you add to the discussion with something positive, or at least constructive?

 

LMFAO!

 

Keep on attacking.

[kapkomet]

Son, you might want to look up yonder and see who started this thread.  When someone drops into a pretty good discussion and starts up with the Dems are traitors who give aid and comfort to the enemy talk, as Kap just did,  yes, I am disgusted.  Or maybe exasperated would be a better choice of words.

 

But in my brief time in this forum, if I needed a model for a poster who did nothing but drop into political discussions with a sarcastic remark and then disappear, I need look no farther than you.  Why don't you add to the discussion with something positive, or at least constructive?

Where did I say the word "traitor"? That's not what I said. Reading is part comprehension, you know.

[Rex Kickass]

Here's the bottom line.  In order for the Democrats to gain back power, we MUST "lose" in Iraq.  Remember, they have painted this as George W. Bush's war, and his policy MUST fail for them to gain back power.  If the job gets done over there, the war is a success, and the party in power wins.

 

What a nice position to put yourself in.  That's why the Dems have more trouble then they know what to do with on this issue.  And, it's quite interesting that one Democrat is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay far away from all the others on this issue - Hillary Rodham Clinton.  I wonder why?

 

I'd disagree with you here. I think Iraq is only an issue in the campaign if Iraq is still an issue. Rarely do administrations and majorities win on foreign policy "victories." If that were the case, the Dems should have taken back Congress in 98. And Bush 1 should have won in 92. If Iraq stops being such an issue, then it gets to bread and butter, pocketbook politics. And that's why the GOP hurts right now. It's put itself in a bad position to market itself to all the people that make under 100K a year on economic issues. This is a situation where the GOP has to hope that the Dems can't get people to the polls - because if they do, they lose.

 

2006 will be entirely about base motivation, not about swing voters and not about Iraq. It will be "How pissed off, concerned, motivated can we get our core constituents so that they'll vote this year?"

[kapkomet]

I'd disagree with you here. I think Iraq is only an issue in the campaign if Iraq is still an issue. Rarely do administrations and majorities win on foreign policy "victories." If that were the case, the Dems should have taken back Congress in 98. And Bush 1 should have won in 92. If Iraq stops being such an issue, then it gets to bread and butter, pocketbook politics. And that's why the GOP hurts right now. It's put itself in a bad position to market itself to all the people that make under 100K a year on economic issues. This is a situation where the GOP has to hope that the Dems can't get people to the polls - because if they do, they lose.

 

2006 will be entirely about base motivation, not about swing voters and not about Iraq. It will be "How pissed off, concerned, motivated can we get our core constituents so that they'll vote this year?"

But what is the referendum about right now? What were all the analysts chomping on during the losses this year? It was about George W. Bush and his handling of Iraq. I agree part of what you're saying, but 2006 looms VERY large as far as the #1 issue of the day, and that's Iraq. The Democrats have to make it look like George Bush screwed the pooch on his Iraq policy. Frankly, the economy isn't news because it's not that bad right now. If it were bad, you would have the media hounds going ballistic about how bad things suck right now. It's good, so that's why you don't hear about it.

 

It's all about Iraq and making Bush look like either a liar, or totally misguided. And, if we "win" over there, it makes Bush look better, and that's hard to swallow. The only issue the Dems can win on right now is the firecracker issue of Iraq. Caveat: that could change a LOT in a year.

[southsider2k5]

Caveat:  that could change a LOT in a year.

We have already long passed the worst of things economically. The economy is doing pretty amazing considering what energy and commodities are at. If it hasn't collapsed now, it isn't going to. Basically it will take an indictment of Bush or Cheney, or a terrorist attack to take the focus off of Iraq IMO.

[Balta1701]

We have already long passed the worst of things economically.  The economy is doing pretty amazing considering what energy and commodities are at.  If it hasn't collapsed now, it isn't going to.  Basically it will take an indictment of Bush or Cheney, or a terrorist attack to take the focus off of Iraq IMO.

Caveat: I wouldn't say that if it hasn't collapsed it's not going to, just because right now we haven't a clue what's going to happen as the "Froth" in the housing market begins to dissipate over the next few years. If it were to happen rapidly...it could do serious damage to the economy (hopefully Bush's pick for the Fed chair is smart enough to keep his eye focused strongly on the housing sector, and I think he is...the goal right now I think is to hope for a soft landing on that front, which won't do serious damage to people's pocketbooks.)

[kapkomet]

Rex, one thing I didn't touch on was your comment about hurting those who make less then $100k. Please explain that more - because I know you were just out there listening to people and I'm curious on your take.

[southsider2k5]

Caveat:  I wouldn't say that if it hasn't collapsed it's not going to, just because right now we haven't a clue what's going to happen as the "Froth" in the housing market begins to dissipate over the next few years.  If it were to happen rapidly...it could do serious damage to the economy (hopefully Bush's pick for the Fed chair is smart enough to keep his eye focused strongly on the housing sector, and I think he is...the goal right now I think is to hope for a soft landing on that front, which won't do serious damage to people's pocketbooks.)

 

It could, but I don't think it will. I honestly think it would take a big interest rate hike to have that happen. Even with our move up, we are still on the low end of the historical norm when it comes to interest rates. The measure increases in interest rates tells me that they realize they don't want to blow up the housing market the way they did the stock market in 2000 when no one listened about irrational exhuberence.

[Mercy!]

Where did I say the word "traitor"?  That's not what I said.  Reading is part comprehension, you know.

If I were saying that you used the specific word “traitor,” I would have surrounded it with quotation marks.

 

When someone says that “In order for the Democrats to gain back power, we MUST ‘lose’ in Iraq” – I MIGHT take that as the remark of a comedian, or as someone who loves to get a rise out of people regardless of the circumstances - but in either case, it is someone who is painting an entire political party as treasonous.

 

If, on the other hand, you were merely quoting a source, could you provide a link, please?

[kapkomet]

If I were saying that you used the specific word “traitor,” I would have surrounded it with quotation marks.

 

When someone says that “In order for the Democrats to gain back power, we MUST ‘lose’ in Iraq” – I MIGHT take that as the remark of a comedian, or as someone who loves to get a rise out of people regardless of the circumstances - but in either case, it is someone who is painting an entire political party as treasonous.

 

If, on the other hand, you were merely quoting a source, could you provide a link, please?

No, that was my thought, not someone else. And I'm sure, however, that the blowhards on AM radio is parroting this, but in this case (and seriously if you read most of what I say, I think these AM blowhards take it waaaaaaay too far) I think they're somewhat on the right track.

 

Let's look at the facts.

 

The Democrats, as of last week, really made some noise about "get the troops home." There was a lot of BS noise on the other side of the aisle about *gasp* we CAN'T do that. The Democratic position has been made very clear. The war was/is wrong, it's time to get out. You said it yourself somewhere else on this forum - something about we won the war but lost the peace, which is somewhat true. If we leave now, we will lose. And that clearly is a 'win' for the Democrats. They have basically put all their eggs into the Iraq debate, and therefore we must 'lose' the war for them to gain back power. It's pretty simple, really. That's part of the danger of playing politics with war. And I mean that on both sides of the aisle. It's VERY dangerous.

 

I'm not questioning a Democrat's patriotism, or calling them treasonous, but I am saying that "politically" the only way they can 'win' is to make Bush's policy on Iraq 'lose', and that's (translated) get out of there now or very soon.

 

Clarification: Get out before we're ready... meaning in the next two to six months. Realistically, I think you will see a draw down next summer, and I think it was planned that way anyway from all indications I have heard or seen. And those plans have been drawn up waaaaay before this latest call from the Dems to get our troops home. The timing is interesting in that the plans are already being made, so it's going to look like their pressure was what made some of our troops to come home. Welcome to silly ass politics 101.

Edited November 22, 2005 by kapkomet

[Rex Kickass]

The economy might be doing great! But that doesn't trickle down to people working harder for less. People making 100K a year might see an abstract statistic showing unemployment lowering, but they UNDERSTAND GM is cutting 30,000 jobs and Ford doing roughly the same thing. They don't necessarily see the direct economic effects of higher GDP right away.

 

Times may be alright economics wise, but that doesn't mean that most people feel that way. Real wages aren't growing hugely, but the price of health care is still growing and growing. The price of heat and gas is going up. They might still be spending, but it doesn't mean they aren't scared.

 

Coupled with a government that has been handing out tax breaks to mega corporations, and the very rich, the stage has been set for a populist election that would be the reverse of 1994. The Republicans in Congress are going to be the elites in Congress according to the Democratic base. And the more the Dems can rile their base up and get them out to vote, the better their chances of making big gains in 06. And things getting better in Iraq won't stop the allegations and questions about the war's motivation to begin with. A big part of the outrage - at least from the hardcore Dems - comes from questions regarding how the war started, not how the war's going. That's why Iraq really won't be a big negative for the Dems.

[Balta1701]

That's why Iraq really won't be a big negative for the Dems.

Don't underestimate how much it could hurt any Democratic Candidate to not be able to offer up a firm plan of his own for how to get out of Iraq when his opponent offers up some version of "I support Mr. Bush and want to stay the course." You cannot just assume it won't be a negative.

[Rex Kickass]

People don't vote for Joe Congressman like they vote for the President. It's more about why are my taxes so high, and about personality than it is about foreign policy.

 

You want my big prediction for social/non-economic big issues next year?

 

1. Honesty/Integrity

2. Abortion

3. Gay Marriage

[kapkomet]

People don't vote for Joe Congressman like they vote for the President. It's more about why are my taxes so high, and about personality than it is about foreign policy.

 

You want my big prediction for social/non-economic big issues next year?

 

1. Honesty/Integrity

2. Abortion

3. Gay Marriage

If that's the case, the Dems might be in trouble. I'll explain later if I have some more time.

[Rex Kickass]

Probably for the same reasons I think the GOP is in trouble. Will gay marriage hurt the Dems? Absolutely. Will abortion? Probably not, because if that's as big of an issue as I think it will be this year, the bigger motivator is going to be on the pro-choice side.

 

Ultimately, I think change will happen because we live in some sour times. Things don't feel like they're going well. Even if they are going well. And there's one way to change things in government, vote new people in.

[kapkomet]

Probably for the same reasons I think the GOP is in trouble. Will gay marriage hurt the Dems? Absolutely. Will abortion? Probably not, because if that's as big of an issue as I think it will be this year, the bigger motivator is going to be on the pro-choice side.

 

Ultimately, I think change will happen because we live in some sour times. Things don't feel like they're going well. Even if they are going well. And there's one way to change things in government, vote new people in.

This is when I wish we had a real third party.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Probably for the same reasons I think the GOP is in trouble. Will gay marriage hurt the Dems? Absolutely. Will abortion? Probably not, because if that's as big of an issue as I think it will be this year, the bigger motivator is going to be on the pro-choice side.

 

Ultimately, I think change will happen because we live in some sour times. Things don't feel like they're going well. Even if they are going well. And there's one way to change things in government, vote new people in.

 

I don't understand how gay marriage can hurt the Left, but I guess I'm being naive. Being on the morally correct side of the debate doesn't necessarily mean you are on the winning side from a political standpoint.

[Rex Kickass]

It hurts the Dems because Gay Marriage initiatives fires up the Republican base.

 

It doesn't hurt the left at all. Because the left is on the right side of this issue.

[kapkomet]

Wow. The arrogance shown here, no offense guys, is why it hurts the left AND the right.

 

Who's to say who's right and who's wrong on this issue?

 

Personally, I don't think this is a government issue at all... I think you know that. But, when I see statements above that says "we're right"... don't be so sure of yourselves.

 

Edit: that sounded snarky, and I didn't mean for it to... just trying to point out that being so sure you're right on a highly debateable moral issue is treading on thin ice.

Edited November 22, 2005 by kapkomet

[Texsox]

Classic.

 

Attack the messenger, not the message. Tex should be along anytime now to mock you.

 

ahem, thanks buddy?