I'm tired of hearing the Democrats whining about the war....

[Postman]

They are in the majority. The American people voted overwhelmingly in November to end the insane policies of these crazies in the White House. Yet, the Democrats act as if they aren't in charge when it comes to stopping the war.

"We don't have the votes" is total BS. Let's have the vote and see just who it is that insists that the madness continue, then we take care of business in the next election for those that see it differently.

Stop playing political games with the lives of other peoples children.

End this friggin illegal occupation now.

[BlooInBloo]

1. You can thank the fuckwipe Connecticut electoare for a lot of this.

[bullimiami]

5. seriously. forget that business about being hamstrung by lieberman.

vote your damn conscience and how the people want you to. if joe wants to join the republican madhouse, let him go ahead.

[CTyankee]

11. As a foot soldier for Ned Lamont, I am more than willing to admit that CT voters

were culprits here. But please, don't paint us so much with one brush. The repubs decided to back Joe big time. Some folks in CT, Dems and Repubs both, thought they "knew" Joe and they didn't know Ned, thought he was just a Greenwich millionaire (which he was) who didn't know what he was talking about (untrue).

We have our problems here in CT, but lots of good people worked really hard on Ned's campaign. It was a "good fight" but we knew from the outset that it would be uphill all the way. At least we fought!

Could you please give us a little credit?

[LeftishBrit]

12. Also surely one has to give some blame to the voters of other states who elected the 49 Republican

senators?

(Not trying to be smug; we elected Thatcher. And Blair. But surely Connecticut isn't the only state to slip up?)

[BlooInBloo]

14. Some, but not as much. Those other states didn't *change party*....

... and in general, one doesn't expect/hope for much from republican states. One *does* have hopes for Democratic states. Which Connecticut no longer is - I'll have no such hope for anything from them in the future.

[CTyankee]

16. Well, thank you. I don't know what state you are from but

I can assure you that we Dems in Ct are not so easily dismissed by you or anyone else. Go on your way. We will continue to fight for our state. The fact is that the Repubs took over our so called Dem candidate's campaign, not that the Dems were not active. As a matter of record, Ned Lamont mounted a maginificent fight against everyone's odds in a primary and in a general campaign on the important issue of the IRaq war.

Your state would be honored to do as well as he did in CT. I am proud to be one of his lowly volunteers!

[BlooInBloo]

18. It's hard to tell if you *sincerely* don't get it, or if you're just pretending...

... for the sake of being able to take offense.

True or false:

Connecticut's electorate elected Lieberman.


If one acknowledges the truth of that sentence, it's very hard to see what (rational) grounds exist for whining about criticism of Connecticut's electorate.

If one does not acknowledge the truth of that sentence, then one wonders why the word "electorate" exists. Coming up with an explanation is, I think, I rather tough row to hoe.

I criticize Connecticut's electorate, because Connecticut's electorate elected Lieberman. If that justification turned out to be false (say, it were discovered that 80% of Lieberman's votes came from Diebold), I'd be happy to apologetically withdraw the criticism.

But as long as it is agreed that the Connecticut electorate elected Lieberman, it continues to be appropriate to criticize said electorate.

I'm sorry you and many others evince a rather thorough-going inability to distinguish between statements about *an aggregate* and statements about *a member of an aggregate* - but that's your lack, not mine.


EDIT: I'm a Washington state resident, in case you prefer to drive down irrelevant rhetorical roads.

[CTyankee]

17. Oh, dear , Bloo

Really. Did you think all of us in CT were just waiting breathlessly for Joe to proclaim himself an "independent Democrat"?

where DO you get your ideas, Bloo? Perhaps our terribly unsophisicated thinkers here could benefit more by a more detailed analysis. My friends at Yale will be so interested.

[BlooInBloo]

13. The CT electorate elected him (tautology), hence I criticize the CT electorate....

... *Anything else* is simply you reading things I didn't say - i.e., making shit up.

[CTyankee]

22. Rather than being so contemptuous of our state, you might try

to see Ned's valiant campaign for what it was: a very hard thing to do, uphill the whole way, with (I believe) great consequence for things to come. No one else dared to even think about challenging Joe. Ned had no base built up from prior service in office (such as A.G. whence Joe came when he first ran). But he knew that someone had to challenge Joe because of his stand on the war. The Republicans cynically turned on their own weak candidate and threw themselves behind Joe.

Ned was ahead of his time for many of the unaffiliated voters in the state. Some were unsure of giving up a guy who had all of Joe's experience. Some bought the line that Joe had secured the naval base in New London.

There were Dems who had vested interests in getting Joe back in, one of them a devotion to Israel (but there are others). And some Dems were simply prejudiced against him because he was rich. But there were some great Dems who against all odds helped get Ned the Dem nomination in the primary. It was pretty astonishing given the fact that our primary was in early August, when half of the state is on vacation!

Would you really rather have had Joe just slide back into office again in 2006 without a murmur from the electorate? The fact is that we did a very difficult thing here in CT and we did take a chance. One man stood up and fought. That counts and attention must be paid.

[BlooInBloo]

23. The state's fine. It's the state's electorate I'm contemptuous of....

... Why you refuse to accurately re-state my views is beyond me.

[CTyankee]

24. I was only trying to get you to understand what happened in CT

We had been through a very tumultuous time with the electorate. We had no idea of what would happen with them. But we DID IT ANYWAY.

OK?? We didn't whimper and gripe, we did it. It was hard, so be it. We all knew it wasn't easy. We did it anyway.

OK, the outcome for you was everything. I get that. But I know what we did do. And it changed the political landscape.

You can give us that, can't you?

[BlooInBloo]

25. I'm sure the Katrina victims, getting no relief or investigation, hearts BLEED for you and the...

... "tumultuous time" you've had.

[CTyankee]

26. BUT we tried! We were conscientious. I think we did our duty as citizens.

Why are you csstigating us? What did we do to you? We tried to change things, not keep them the same!

OF COURSE, Joe is in charge of this damn committee that won't investigate Katrina. Is that our fault? Those of us Dem activists got out there and tried to change things? Would you have preferred we sat the campaign out and done nothing?

Look. Ned Lamont took on a big deal challenge. We fought long and hard. We lost, but we lost honorably. Can you not, at long last, give us that much?

[PDJane]

2. Before the decider-in-chief

Decides that invading Iran is the next stupid step.

[cosmik debris]

3. Not one red cent could be spent on this war without the consent

Of the Democratic controlled House of Representatives. IF Ms. Pelosi decided to STOP cooperating with Bush, the war would be over. Amen.

[rodeodance]

4. truth is----we do not have the votes (in the senate)

[bullimiami]

6. truth is. they dont have the votes to pass ANY budget. only the dems do.

money stops, war stops.
let the republicans block funding for everything if they dont like it.

[edhopper]

7. True.

Lieberman will not vote to end the war. That leaves a 50/50 tie. Dead-eye Dick then casts the deciding vote. The Dems must have a bill that gets support from a few Republicans.

[Rusty MacHenry]

10. If that's case, don't we then have Hagel in our backpocket

If we a few Republicans on our side, can we count on him to reject the spending bill?

[newyawker99]

20. Hi Rusty MacHenry!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[cosmik debris]

9. We don't need the senate

If the House refuses to pass a budget that includes war funds, the war must stop. The Senate can pass or defeat anything they want, If the House denies funds, the war is over. Period.

[bigtree]

21. yet, Bush would still have command over the forces

nothing in that rejection of funds would compel Bush to do anything. He would likely just limp our troops along, claiming he's fulfilling the original mandate under the original IWR. If there's money 'in the pipeline' to effect a withdrawal, like Rep. Kucinich and others claim, there's also money enough for Bush to continue. Along the way he can, then, blame Democrats for every shortfall and failure.

How much of the money appropriated has reached the troops, so far, anyway? Aren't they already experiencing shortfalls? What will be the effect of a fund cut on the troops if Bush takes money from elsewhere in the budget and continues his occupation? What would have us think he would care at all about the safety, security, and well-being of our soldiers any more than he cares now as they are being sacrificed at the rate of 1-3 killed a day? What would have us believe the generals would pay any attention to a missing supplemental to the point where it would cause them to abandon Iraq in defiance of Bush?

I think you are overestimating the effect of the rejection of the supplemental and underestimating the need for our party to use our majority to provide the funds the soldiers need to effect the withdrawal outlined in the respective leadership plans. Even Rep. Kucinich, in his support of the more strident amendment from the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' supported providing funds in a supplemental to effect the withdrawal outlined in the bill.

I think our party should do their job and craft their own supplemental - as they have in the compromise legislation which the leadership in both houses announced this week - which directs Bush in the way we believe our forces should be used in Iraq. The leadership proposal is a withdrawal plan which addresses deployment abuses and equipment shortfalls. It sets an end date for our involvement in Iraq and limits Bush to a determinate number of funds for the specific purpose of bringing our troops home. It is a proactive initiative from a leadership which has correctly reconciled the myriad of proposals and crafted a measure which they expect to have the widest margin of support to effect its advance to Bush's desk.

None of that would be effected by a simple rejection of one supplemental budget request.

[theoldman]

8. You need to study up how the system works.

You have to have a two thirds majority to override a veto. As noted in a previous post, we don't really have a 51 to 49 majority in the senate.

[trashcanistanista]

19. Then they need to get the majority.

Focus on flipping repubs. Publicize everything. There should be at least one major news story of the calibre of the Libby trial every day. God knows there is so much out there. Smear them with their lies publicly every single day. Shame them into voting for an end to this damn mess. Make them fear for their jobs. Pound them over and over with legislation. Hold the budget vote and call their bluff. Compromise at this point is dead and a waste of precious time. There is too much at stake. They are shipping wounded soldiers back to Iraq for christs sake. No more compromise, no more enabling. Oh, and fuck lieberman, get him the hell out of the way, put him on ignore, he is political dead weight. If they can't do it then pool funds and hire a public relations firm to develop an attack ad plan. Go for the jugular. Am I wrong?

[demrabble]

15. Exactly Right!

We voted to END THE WAR!

So why are DEMOCRATS sponsoring bills to increase the funding of the war?

And why do they call those of us who say that that is WRONG "Idiots"?

[ends_dont_justify]

27. The majority isn't the only thing on their side, so is the constitution

It's about time they start getting back to their congressional roots and start abiding by the laws which are in their favor. No more of this pretending they have no power, I agree 100%