Say Anything Blog

I saw nothing that was troublesome in last night’s activity in the House.

Missed the part when Rep Schmidt said

asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.

Then she had to

ask for unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.

So much for serious rational debate.

What is new is the continual saturation coverage by electronic media. In the past, newspapers and pamphlets were the only sources of information available to the voting public. Radio came into the mix in the ‘20s. Television has radically altered our political discourse. It could have been the greatest innovation to the representative republic form of government since its inception. This has not been the case. Instead of the voter becoming better informed we have been turned into soap opera junkies. The internet, wait, let me capitalize that. The Internet has changed the dynamic again. Not just here, all over the world. With the rapid and widespread distribution of information voters can be very well informed, indeed. Now. Will they become informed? Will they read vital information about their community and nation AND world. Or will they go read the latest gossip about TV personalities and sports figures. My money is on the crap. And now I am off to watch some attractive, semi-nude young ladies play volleyball.

Wishing for a change in the “tone” of American politics is futile.

So was Bush lying back in 2000?  Or just misguided?

I saw nothing that was troublesome in last night’s activity in the House. Was the vote a political stunt? Sure it was. Just like the closing of the Senate by Democrats was a political stunt

So one stunt is good and the other isn’t?  You’re straining credulity and distracting attention from the issue at hand.  If stunts are bad, they’re bad.

Now that we’re all in agreement on it, maybe we can start talking about what we’re going to do to achieve this objectives.

Exactly what a vote on Murtha’s proposal could have brought about.  Instead, the GOP was more interested in protecting their offices than addressing the issue. 

The question I’ve been asking isn’t hypothetical: if the Republicans were so sure of both the results of a vote on Murtha’s proposal, and the response their vote would have gotten from their constituents, why didn’t they put it up?

robert108, The House of Representatives
rules do not allow members to impugn the integrity of any other members.
Schmidt had to recant or be censured.

Ms. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed at any member of the House and I did not intend to suggest that they applied to any member. Most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. I therefore ask for unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.

Woof:  I guess Rep Schmidt doesn’t have free speech rights, like the right to dissent from what Murtha said.  She is welcome to express her opinion, I hope, just like toxic lefties like Mother Sheehan, don’t you think?

I guess Murtha impugning the Vice-President was OK, though.  What a double standard!  No free speech rights for Republicans, I guess.

So one stunt is good and the other isn’t?

One stunt sought to undermine President Bush’s foreign policy, in turn damaging our ability to win the war in Iraq.  The other sought to stop the mindless bellyaching and shift the focus back to winning.

See the difference?

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:

Ok, really, should I just leave?  Do I make a sound if nobody is hear to hear me?

I guess Murtha impugning the Vice-President was OK, though.

It was also very humorous to hear Harry Reid crying “stunt” only a short time after pulling his own stunt.  Of course, the Dems have been pulling one stunt after another ever since the 1994 elections.

What I wonder is why Murtha, who lived through the Democrat cut-and-run strategy in Vietnam, is advocating for the same sort of thing with Iraq.

This guy should know better.

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:

Woof: So you approve of Murtha slagging the VP, but not of Schmidt slagging Murtha?  Why the double standard?

As a member of the Vietnam generation, I can tell you that we were heavily propagandized against the war, and now those of my generation who followed the leftist propaganda and didn’t go to war are being told that we have no right to say anything about anything military being done by our country now.  What total hypocrisy!  You leftists want it both ways, all the while spewing your anti-American hate.

So, you’re saying we should go back to duels Wood-man?  Is that your argument?

WOOF:

I like guys who’ve never been there who criticize us who’ve been there,” Murtha said. “I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don’t like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done.”

What empty logic. Yet another vapid Democrat.  Who knew there were so many?

Our exit strategy from Vietnam was a clear failure, so in any case, Murtha’s resume doesn’t look all that great.

I guess Murtha’s being a part of the wrongful cut and run in Vietnam qualifies him to judge our situation in Iraq to the same degree as Kerry’s conduct(lying about our troops in Vietnam) qualifies him to be Commander in Chief of our armed forces.  Never could understand his logic there.

WOOF said, “I like guys who’ve never been there who criticize us who’ve been there,” Murtha said. “I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don’t like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done.”

I like guys who have never been President who criticize those who have. I like that. Guys like Bush who have been elected President twice criticized by people who never have come close to the office. You know what else? Sportscasters who have never played the game. I mean, who do they think they are? Music critics who have never been stars. Who do they think they are? Fashion critics who have never been models. I like that. Guys who have never walked the runway and have never been there.

Really WOOF, what was the point of quoting Murtha’s statements? You know, they apply to you as well.

For those who think the “tone” has gotten progressively worse in Washington (and who apparently weren’t old enough to remember the rotten and horrible things that were said about Reagan or who think the stunts performed by and performed on Nixon were somehow better than today’s “tone"), we could always revert back to the days of the political arguments of our founding fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton and Vice President Aaron Burr.

The tone back then was just so superior to today’s tone.

MI:

So, you’re saying we should go back to duels

It would also resolve the “locked-in legislative seats” gerrymandering problem, so there would be added benefits…

So, anything short of drawing arms is acceptable behavior?

So, you’re saying we should go back to duels Wood-man?

I vote for fistfights, and an occasional duel just to keep Congress honest.

So, you’re saying we should go back to duels Wood-man? Is that your argument?

No; just pointing out that people who think the political “tone” is worse today than it has been in history doesn’t know squat about history.

You’d have to admit it would be pretty cool.

Stephen Colbert put a Rock’em Sock’em Robots game on his bookshelf on The Colbert Report.  One red, one blue.

you request, we provide(isn’t that what you want?)

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3718

I’m afraid that’s as much of a response as we’re gonna get Ryan

Yes.

Has anyone answered this question yet?

The question I’ve been asking isn’t hypothetical: if the Republicans were so sure of both the results of a vote on Murtha’s proposal, and the response their vote would have gotten from their constituents, why didn’t they put it up?

Anyone willing to step up?

It was answered in other threads, but I guess I’ll answer it again.

Murtha’s resolution wasn’t voted on because the Republicans made a mistake.  They should have voted on it.  It meant the same thing, there would have been the same outcome.

Satisfied?  We can stop talking about withdrawal and start talking about winning this war yet?

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:

Murtha’s resolution wasn’t voted on because the Republicans made a mistake. They should have voted on it. It meant the same thing, there would have been the same outcome.

Please explain how the resolutions are similar.  “Earliest practical date” and the whole bit about leaving a strike force in the region doesn’t seem to me to be the same as the Republicans’ “leave immediately.”

One other question - why did the Republicans make the mistake of writing their own resolution instead of voting on Murtha’s?  What was the reasoning behind that move?

Robert,

The link you provided has nothing to do with the question I repeated that MI asked:

The question I’ve been asking isn’t hypothetical: if the Republicans were so sure of both the results of a vote on Murtha’s proposal, and the response their vote would have gotten from their constituents, why didn’t they put it up?

Anyone willing to step up?

Please explain how the resolutions are similar. “Earliest practical date” and the whole bit about leaving a strike force in the region doesn’t seem to me to be the same as the Republicans’ “leave immediately.”

I wrote a whole post about it here, but I’ll give you a summary:

Murtha called for re-deploying our troops to other areas at the “earliest practicable date.” He set no objectives to be achieved before withdrawal (like, you know, victory) so what else can “earliest practicable date” mean other than “as soon as the troops can break away and pack up.”

Immediate, in other words.  Add into the mix that Murtha is now saying that we cannot win in Iraq and one wonders how anyone could think that he didn’t mean immediate withdrawal.

After all, if we can’t win why leave troops in Iraq even one day longer?

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:

Ryan: In his comments before calling for withdrawal, Murtha asserted that we could go no farther toward victory in Iraq.  This ia a nuanced way of saying “defeat”.  That is why his resolution wasn’t entertained.  Got it?

Rob: I disagree with you on this one.  The Reps made no mistake:  their resolution made no admission of defeat, it just put the defeatists feet to the fire.  It said, in essence:  “Put your money where your mouth is!” “You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?” Murtha’s attempt at nuance was the usual Kerryesque BS.  If you read his entire statement, he obviously wanted us to get out as soon as we could pack up our stuff and leave, since, according to him, we had already lost in Iraq.  I hope this is clear now.

This was answered before we went into Iraq. What else do you want to hear. That we don’t think that outfit makes you look fat? That we will call tomorrow? You keep mentioning"reachingacrossthepartisandivide". How many times do we have to have our hands cut off before we stop"reachingacrossthepartisandivide"? At exactly what point do we, America, stop this decent into YOUR socialist nightmare? We, the majority, don’t want your,the minority’s, crap. Go away. You are not America. You are the minority. Go away. Find someplace that agrees with your crap, and go there. We don’t want to hear it. It does not work.

The resolutions are obviously not similar at all. What’s most interesting is that nobody (except a lonely forum poster on SayAnything) is asking why the Republicans didn’t vote on Murtha’s resolution and introduced their own version:  Modern Instances in the SayAnything comments: The question I’ve been asking isn’t hypothetical: if the Republicans were so sure of both the results of a vote on Murtha’s proposal, and the response their vote would have gotten from their