Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Democrats Will Say Anything To Get Elected

Ellen Ratner:

"If you got [Dem leaders] in a room off camera everyone agrees, but people are trying to look tough on security so the Democrats can win the House back in 2006."


In other words, it is not really about national security or the war on terror. All this turmoil and wringing-of-hands from Democrats pre-war intelligence and the war in Iraq is really just about winning elections.

Which means that if forcing America to run from the conflict in Iraq with our collective tails between our legs is what it takes to make the current Congressional and White House leadership look bad so that they can win elections, Democrats are going to do that.

Forget the demoralizing effects such defeatism has on our troops. Forget that a cut-and-run from Iraq would likely result in a purging of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq and the country's fall back into totalitarianism. None of that matters to the Democrats.

All that matters is winning. And it kind of makes me want to throw up.

Update:

Another Democrat "hawk" has come out of the closet about his anti-war views.

My response: Yaaawwwnnn....

Most of these guys voted for the war because they felt it was politically expedient to do so. Now they're coming out against it for the same reasons. These are not principled objections, these (including Murtha's own "coming out") are calculated political tactics by the left hyped by an all-too-willing media.

Comments

Avatar for John

Hey Rob,

I believe that democrats and republicans have a lot more in common that most people like to admit. Namely, that most members on BOTH sides will say anything to get elected. I believe it has very little to do with party affiliation and everything to do with the culture of kickbacks and favors that pervades Washington. I have a very hard time believing that if the current roles were reversed in today’s government, the republicans would be doing anything else but grappling for every piece of ammunition against the democratic majority, even if it meant “demoralizing” the troops or leaving Iraq a more unstable country than it’s been since the British left 60 or so years ago.

John on November 26, 2005 at 05:12 am
Rob
Rob
19965 comments
Send a private message

That’s a valid point, John, but I’m not sure you could reverse the roles with Iraq.  Were the Democrats in charge we wouldn’t even be in Iraq.  Hell, I’m not sure we would have gone into Afghanistan.

You’re right, both sides are capable of being unconscionable partisan morons even to the detriment of this country.  But on the Iraq issue, specifically, the Republicans have it right and the Dems are on the wrong side of history.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 26, 2005 at 06:12 am
Avatar for QuickRob

This post reminds me of an ipsofacto cartoon I saw the other day.

Check it out!

QuickRob on November 26, 2005 at 09:11 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

And people need this explained to them because,,,,,,,,,,???  Of course Dems will do whatever is necessary to regain power. Lie, cheat, steal, these are the morals they have exhibited throughout their reign. Why would it change now? They have nothing else. Well, except socialism. That is a non-starter without the power to utilize coercion and blackmail. Polling data is their poison, I hope they keep guzzling it down. Morons.

2Hotel9 on November 26, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Avatar for just~me

Changes the title

Most politicians will say anything to get elected and stay elected.

just~me on November 26, 2005 at 03:11 pm
Avatar for John

Rob, you’re right, we wouldn’t be in Iraq if the Dems were in power (since we’re on the topic: I agree that we can’t just up and leave now, but I don’t believe we should have ever gone in the first place). I guess I wasn’t thinking of an exact role reversal, but more along the lines of: if the Dems controlled the executive and legislative branches and were stuck in a quagmire such as Iraq (Somalia, Bosnia for example?) and were facing serious scandal within their ranks (intern-gate?), I really don’t think the republicans would be patting the Dems’ backs telling the country that the Dems are doing the best they can so let’s just give them two more years to set things straight. They would be out on the air waves every day pushing their own political agenda and bashing the way the other party is handling things in the hopes that it would translate into votes in the next election cycle, exactly like the Dems are doing now. It’s really disingenuous when pundits/politicians on both sides accuse their opponents of saying certain things just to get elected. Sure both parties do it, so just cut the crap. 2Hotel9’s comment proves my point, I believe. Recent revelations surely make it plainly obvious that lying, stealing and cheating are most definitely are not tactics that are unique to the Dems’ political/governing strategy.  If you think it’s any other way, you need a serious reality check. That said, I don’t believe every politician is a lying, stealing, cheating scum sucker...sadly, it just seems to be most of the real important ones. I like just me’s title change.

John on November 26, 2005 at 04:11 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Did not mean to imply Repubs are better, necessarily. Lawyers, by definition, lie,cheat,and steal. I just happen to believe Dems are dragging us down into the same socialist nightmare that killed 150,000,000 people in Eastern Europe and Asia in the last century. And you know how Americans are, always got to do it bigger,better, and more efficiently. I would really like to avoid that.

2Hotel9 on November 26, 2005 at 05:12 pm
Avatar for robert108

Actually, we have some examples of role reversal.  The Republicans didn’t undermine LBJ when he escalated the Vietnam War.  The Republicans didn’t filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was nominated for the Supreme Court, even though they could have and for good reason(s).  The Republicans didn’t attack FDR when we were getting our asses kicked all over the world during most of 1942.  In 1994, the Republicans under Newt presented the Contract with America instead of simply attacking Clinton.  I have a lot more, but these will do for a start.

robert108 on November 26, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

John said, ...if the Dems controlled the executive and legislative branches and were stuck in a quagmire such as Iraq (Somalia, Bosnia for example?) and were facing serious scandal within their ranks (intern-gate?)...

“Quagmire” and “intern-gate”? How desperate.

likwidshoe on November 26, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] Because, you see, its not about sound foreign policy for the left, its about getting back into power. [...]

Avatar for Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Thinkin

[...] Confederate Yankee Don Surber Say Anything Filed in: Politics | No Comments » [...]

Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] That last point is one I’ve been making again and again. All this dissent from Democrats over Bush’s foreign policy decisions has less to do with sound policy than it has to do with winning elections. [...]

Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.