About dusty1215


Gender:
female
Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
December 11, 2007
Profile Views:
21277
Blog Views:
74745
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Bond's record-setting baseball will go into the HOF with an asterisk.
"distract, delude, amuse and insulate us."
People trust the Democrats more than they trust Republicans.
Are you smarter than the average American? Test your knowledge of the news..
Neo-Nazi's go after the Jena 6
Feds investigating Blackwater USA for weapons smuggling
The death of the History of Civilization…
The good General couldn't accomplish his first job in Iraq, why should we expect anything better out of his second stint there?
Support Debra Bowen's decision regarding Diebold voting machines
Coast Guard's Deepwater project price skyrockets
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
Places on the Web for your Progressive enjoyment.
Its My Right to be Left of the Center
Bring it On!
Sirens Chronicles
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


dusty1215 - > Dusty's View of Life -> Iraq..who has the plan man?
Iraq..who has the plan man?

Since the mid-term elections, we…the universal we, have been waiting with baited breath, and sometimes the occasional cocktail, for a plan to get out of Iraq. The Iraq Study Group is going to release their findings, hopefully, in the very near future. What could they possibly “find” that hasn’t been in front of everyone’s noses before now?

The answer is nothing. They will dress it up, put some lipstick on this pig and perhaps try to convince the current resident of the Oval Office, and his cadre of chickenhawks, that talking to Iraq’s neighbors is a start to getting our collective ass out of Iraq. This of course, will mean talking to Iran. It will mean talking to the homegrown militia’s running rampant in and around Baghdad and Sadr City. The ISG won’t be providing anything new, just common sense that has long been ignored by the Decider-in-Chief.

As we wait for this guaranteed best seller to spring forth from the loins of James Baker and his buddies, we can digest some of the other ideas that have been bandied about by various people in current or former positions of authority, and just plain ol’ nimrods that think they know it all.

Kissinger, who has cough* experience * cough at ending unpopular wars, has already been priming the President with verbiage such as a “Military victory is no longer possible”. If this is news to the Shrub, I will kiss Dick Cheney’s little black pacemaker-powered heart…provided he is nowhere near a gun at the time. Former White House counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke urges initiating a 18-month-long pull-out right away. Neocon cheerleader Robert Kagan wants to throw more American troops into Iraq, as does John McCain. The latter idea doesn’t take into account that we don’t have any more troops to ship over to Iraq unless the “D” word is going to get a workout in the halls of Congress, ala Rangel’s initiative, real soon. Even the Pentagon has given us their ideas on Iraq: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials. These are otherwise known as “Go Big, Go Long or Go Home”. Remember “Mission Accomplished”? Jeez, do these guys love slogans or what?

Those are the “plans” from the right side of the aisle. Now, for the Democratic folks and their ideas. What, you say..the Dem’s have ideas? Yes, Virginia, the Dem’s have ideas. They don’t differ from many of the ones already making the rounds, since victory isn’t what it was touted to be when the war first started.

The incoming chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-MI), has already called for a phased reduction of U.S. troops from Iraq in four to six months (PBS). Joe Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wants Iraq divided up into three sections, relying on a central government only for matters of border control and allocation of oil resources. Wesley Clarke, the retired four-star general and former NATO commander, recently called for sustained shuttle diplomacy in the region and increased cooperation among the White House, Pentagon and State Department. Senators Carl Levin, D-MI, and Jack Reed, D-RI offered up an amendment in June of this year, urging the President to press the Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their own security and future. The amendment called for the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 39-60 that same month. The Levin-Reed amendment declared that U.S. Armed Forces "are stretched thin" and that "sectarian violence has surpassed the insurgency and terrorism as the main security threat in Iraq." It said, "The current open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises and personnel and resource commitments that are needed for the stability and security of Iraq."

Then there is the concept, dubbed "strategic redeployment," which is outlined in a thin, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007. This plan begins with a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries. The Democrats, including Howard Dean, rallied around this plan the beginning of this year.

Not to be out done, Barack Obama has recently released his ideas for getting out of Iraq. His voice is loud and clear about ending the “coddling” of the current government leaders of Iraq. To quote from his latest speech: “Our best hope for success is to use the tools we have – military, financial, diplomatic – to pressure the Iraqi leadership to finally come to a political agreement between the warring factions that can create some sense of stability in the country and bring this conflict under control. The first part of this strategy begins by exerting the greatest leverage we have on the Iraqi government – a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.”

Now my dear reader..the two things all these plans need in order to succeed are: The Shrub and his minions must buy into one of them. The second, and most important, is the cooperation of the Iraqi government. I use the term “Iraqi government” loosely because the government is rife with sectarian horseshit and at times, basically resembles the plot from one of the Godfather movies where the warring factions “go to the mattresses”.

The Maliki-led government is a sham. It’s all about the Shia’s destroying the Sunni’s six ways from Sunday. Think of the Baltimore Ravens defense going after the Houston Texans QB David Carr..with rocket launchers and car bombs.

Over 55% of the population is Sunni. Only 33% are Shiites, yet Maliki thinks the Shia’s can run roughshod over Iraq. Maliki needs to see Alex Trebek and buy a damn clue. When the U.S. leaves, all hell is going to break loose if the government of Iraq hasn’t reached a truce with all factions and commenced leading the country as a united front . Maliki refuses to set timetables, or keep to benchmarks. He demands that our troops abandon a search and checkpoints in Sadr City. The reason Maliki won’t agree with any of our government’s plans is because they don’t fit into his. Maliki refuses to call off his dogs, the Shia militia’s, who are terrorizing the citizens of Baghdad. The counter strikes by the Sunni’s have seen the sectarian violence rise to level’s that signal a beginning of a civil war that will destroy the nation, if not the tenuous balance of the Middle East. The Sunni’s have controlled Iraq for a thousand years; they will not go quietly into that good night.

The pandering and baby sitting by this administration of Maliki and his buddies has to stop if we are to achieve any sense of “victory” in Iraq. The Shiite clerics, who own Maliki’s soul, are now threatening to withdraw from the government if Maliki meets with the President. Bush and his advisors need to rent a HUGE set of balls when they meet with Maliki in the Middle East next week. They need to lay down the plan for Iraq, or plan for Maliki’s removal. If you think there aren’t already ideas making the rounds to remove Maliki from power...think again. If Bush and his cadre go the latter route boys and girls…we will start this horrible, crazy nightmare all over again and spend more years counting broken bodies and coffins returning from Iraq, not to mention thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi’s. Bush talks like he has a set of big brass ones, lets see him use those suckers for a change and shake Maliki like a wet rag.

I don’t know about you, my dear reader, but I am just not up to doing this god-forsaken dance of death and destruction for another 3 friggin’ years. Over 60% of the American population agrees. It’s high time for the federal farkwits at the helm to get onboard and shift this bitch of an Edsel, known as the War in Iraq, into over-drive and head on home. For our sake and for those of the Iraqi people… this dog and pony show must to come to an end.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: Politics, war on terror, Iraq
posted by dusty1215 on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 539 times
57 comments from 12 users

1 2

posted by anglo1 on Nov 26, 2006 at 08:45 PM
Dusty, would you please answer just one question for me and really try to remember when it happened and what you honestly thought.  When you saw Pres. Bush fly the jet on the aircraft carrier and the "Mission Accomplished" banner was unfurled. Did you really think the war was over?  I thought Saddam was taken out of power. That was "That" mission.  There are many missions in wars and you win some and lose some.  The liberal press that doesn't exist took that banner and has ran with it ever since. I never thought it meant the end of the conflict.  This conflict didn't start on 9-11-01 and it won't end if the democrats pull every piece of military around the world and bring it home.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 08:56 PM
The liberal press only exists in your mind, get over it..find another scapegoat. What mission have we won so far in Iraq? Just name two, other than the one you latched on to, overthrowing Saddam, ok? In three years, what else has been accomplished so far? Iraq is worse now than at any time since we entered their country.

Whats the plan? What will a win in Iraq look like? I have now asked that question twice tonight on these blogs and only got individuals bitching about me personally.

Did you take the time to read all the plans..which one is your favorite?
posted by anglo1 on Nov 26, 2006 at 09:28 PM

I haven't personally bitched about you I just ask a real question that I would have ask you if were out in public.  I think the way things have gone to shit in Iraq leaves us with Rons [allRed] definition of victory.  Re read his blog and that is what I think will be  victory. If I lose it and attack you personally you feel free to email and rip me a new one.

posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 09:48 PM
Dale, my comment wasn't aimed at you. You are usually very cordial. I read Ron's post. His line-"All we have to do to win is not lose"..was not a plan to win a war nor is it a definition of victory. It doesn't say what a win will be. Its a slogan and nothing more. Sorta like the other slogan " Stay the course"..sounds great..what does it mean?

I have a 23 year old niece that is going to Afganistan Dec 6th as an Intel and Interrogation officer. She is all of 5ft, 98 lbs..her M16 probably weighs half what she does. We must be desperate to send a small young woman into the fray..when we haven't even taught her their language!

Its all so screwed up Dale..
posted by anglo1 on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:03 PM
It is screwed up and I am very secure in my belief that No politician has the correct answer.  I have a buddy ,50, that just got back from a tour. He's been in the reserves forever. But he so proud of the job he did over there but I'm thinking "50 " to use one of yours WTF.  My son tried to join a few years ago and he was a little heavy and had to many tattoos.  Go figure.  Give me a 6'3" 260 lb. tattooed guy that is ready to go any day.  Off on a tangent I know, but I have a lot of questions also. Good night.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:06 PM
At least we agree its a screwed up mess, but politicians are the ones that must figure it all out. As Kissinger said...A military victory is not viable..only a political one...G'nite Dale :)
posted by ki6amd on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Dusty, When we pushed toward Bagdad it was estimated that we would lose 5,000-10,000 troops. Well we've now gained control over the area (more so than we control what happens in our own country), and we still aren't near the casualty numbers we estimated. Take that as an example of a "win" in the region. I've said it before and I guess I have to say it again, but a win in Iraq is defined by the Iraqis taking control of the country themselves. So far they have a greater boarder control than we do, which could be defined as a "win" but there are still people entering Iraq illegally and causing havoc when they take "pot-shots" at our troops and the local population.

The liberal media isn't a figment of anyone's imagination. It does exist and is VERY open about it in most cases. Let's take for example people like Rosie O'Donnell. Sure, you can say it isn't a news show, but I would say fans of that show and shows like it, get their news/information/world updates/etc. from shows like it. They are not seeking both points of "view". They are seeking entertainment but instead are getting liberal views of current news. My hatred for Rosie has NOTHING to do with her being gay. It has EVERYTHING to do with the way she "reports" on her opinions, of current "news".

Dusty...
THERE IS NO "SILVER BULLET"!
There is no easy way to end a war nor is there a guarantee of victory. Perhaps you've never heard the phase "all's far in love in war"? You can't protect your heart from being hurt and love someone at the same time, and you can't fight a war without expecting some measurable loss. There is no way to win without having tragedy. It's called the life dilemma. Sure you can have a life that you'll never have your heart broken, or have to see a family member suffer, or any number of problems, but to do so you'd have to sacrifice living a life. Similarly in war, you could argue that we shouldn't fight them, but you'd be giving up your security at home. If you want to argue that Iraq/Saddam was never a threatto us, I'll point that Clinton said it/he was as did Kerry.

So what ticks me off about liberals? Their lack of understanding of the paradoxical commandments for starters. (look it up)
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:17 PM
We control what Skyler? The 3day and counting lockdown of Baghdad says otherwise. I have posted various plans by both sides of the aisle..which one do you like? Take your pick..I will wait. Its all the troops have to work with Skyler..one of the plans above. Get a grip on your media bias..you see and read what you want to..as does everyone. Every plan I culled was from the MSM's reporting. I have laid out ideas from the repubes and dems.

Saying we have less dead soldiers is not a win..its a blessing. What will the final win look and smell like Skyler?
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:24 PM
The post points out many things you fail to address in your comment Skyler. The Iraqi government is not in control, the hometown militias are. Do you deny that fact? Sadr City and Baghdad are not controlled by the government..by any stretch of the imagination.

Rosie O'Donnel is the media? LMAO..um..I do not go to Rosie for my Middle East news..do you?
posted by robbwillis on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:53 PM

Does anybody know what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite? After explaining it to me, tell me why I should care whether they have a civil war of attrition.

Thanks in advance,

Robb

  

posted by ki6amd on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:55 PM
"The 3day and counting lockdown of Baghdad says otherwise."

You are blind. Perhaps in your little mind "lockdown" = lack of control. But to me it means ULTIMATE CONTROL. If we didn't have control a lockdown would mean that people still freely roamed the streets. You have said we should retreat or send more troops, but as we know neither will make anything any better. Adding more troops might work temporarily... until Pelosi tells the world that we're pulling out on date Month/Day/Year. Pulling out immediately will cause Iraq to be flooded with Iranian terrorists.

 "Get a grip on your media bias..you see and read what you want to..as does everyone."

You're right Rosie isn't biased, I was being unfair. I shouldn't be so unfair. I'm, gonna go take my dog flying now. After that I'll go cash that billion dollar check I got for Christmas from my 3rd aunt, who I've never met. And when I get home I'll return the message Steven Hawking left on my answering machine.

"What will the final win look and smell like Skyler?"

How many god damned times do I have to answer that question.?!?! I've said it now probably close to 10 times in direct response to YOUR questioning. When Iraq's military says they no long need us to help them and train them, then we can say we are done. When our troops are no longer needed to respond, and the Iraqis take control is the "look and smell" of it.

Dusty, you and I are different than the majority of the US, we actually follow the daily news. The rest of the world gets it from Rosie, Letterman, Leno, etc. The majority of people don't care, they'd rather watch Survivor, CSI, The View, Today, etc.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 10:56 PM
Robb, the difference is in how they translate the Koran I believe. ..and I personally do not care one whit about their civil war, which apparently our government didn't plan for. This civil war is over religious differences.
posted by ki6amd on Nov 26, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Robb, I once had explained to me by an Iraqi who moved to the US after the Gulf war, but the only thing I remember was something about the Shi'a that I will not say here. It's got to do with their treatment of their wives. But for a more DIRECT approach I'll refer you to a Wikipedia article.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 11:04 PM
Skyler, the lockdown of Baghdad is the ONLY way the government and our military can get control. Thats not a good thing is it?  The Iraq military is a farce. Rosie O'Donnell voices her opinoins..she isn't a news source..quit stretching on this point, for the love of pete. Rosie is no more a media maven than I am here in Bako. Your boys on the Republican front are also calling for redeployment and withdrawal..not just the left side of the aisle.get a grip. Your idea of a win is when the Iraqi government is in control. That is out of OUR control. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say. I included both Repub and Dem ideas..but your still stuck on your anti-liberal diatribes.

If you want to cope an attitude..go watch Boston Legal. Be civil or go away Skyler. I have a mind..and its far from little.
posted by robbwillis on Nov 26, 2006 at 11:05 PM
I figured that would be as definitive as it would get. Even murkier than the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. A lot of violence over nothing. So what's all the hand-wringing regarding a civil war? Let them get to it and the winner meets Iran for the Islamic championship. 
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 26, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Robb..thats not a bad idea! Thanks for clearing up the murky water..seriously. We need to stand back and watch from a safe distance.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 27, 2006 at 07:08 AM

If I were using Skyler's Wikipedia citation to guide my foreign policy (and I don't imply anything denigrating it), my answer would be simple and cheap:

1.  Pull out NOW.  "About face!  Forward march!"

2.  Let the intractable, intransigent bastards annihilate each other.

3.  We annihilate the victor -- if and only if they try to do something to us.

 

posted by tonyh on Nov 27, 2006 at 07:17 AM
General Abizaid has the plan..............................
posted by randomfactor on Nov 27, 2006 at 07:35 AM

So do I, Tony.

.

By the way, guys, ixnay on the "Mission Accomplished."  Turns out we imagined that banner, it wasn't really there.  So says the Ministry of Truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...=

By the way, it looks like chocolate rations are about to be decreased again...

posted by tonyh on Nov 27, 2006 at 08:30 AM
That's great. Maybe you and the General can compare notes and come up with a way to get the rest of the Countries around the world to pay for it.
posted by randomfactor on Nov 27, 2006 at 08:39 AM
Actually, that's a very large part of my plan, though it'll be certainly difficult to get other nations to pay for our failure.  I'm pleased that Bush has already accepted step one of my multipart scheme, although I admit it was the easiest part to accomplish.
posted by mattloch on Nov 27, 2006 at 09:42 AM
"Mission Accomplished" was declared on May 1, 2003. Saddam wasn't captured until December 13th of that year. Elections weren't held until January 30, 2005. The pictures of purple fingers were from the December 15, 2005 election. We are further away from Iraq's army and security forces "standing up" than ever before. Some in the Administration don't want to train and equip the security forces because they're afraid (rightly so) that they'll just be setting them up to be used in the looming civil war in the country. So we're short-changing the training, not giving them weapons (or ammo), not giving them the lightly armored vehicles they need for patrols; in short, we're not giving them a chance in hell of "standing up". So even by the weakest of definitions of "victory", we're further away than ever, and we're the ones making it so. (That isn't even addressing the instability created by Paul Bremer and his "100 Orders".)
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 27, 2006 at 09:43 AM

Here's some unbelievable conservative* hypocrisy:

http://articles.news.aol.co...

I say "conservative"* because it's generally the "conservative" view that the Iraq war is a good thing and that a peace sign is a bad thing.

I say "unbelievable hypocrisy" because it's "conservatives" who (pretend to) champion property rights.

(But, I knew they never really did believe in property rights.)  (Watch how they come down hard on you -- as they came down hard on this woman -- the moment you start doing something on/with your property that they don't like.)

* "Conservative" -- not the traditional, limited government definition a la Barry Goldwater or John Sununu, but today's neo-fascist impostor that has co-opted the word and turned it inside out.)

posted by ProgressivePete2 on Nov 27, 2006 at 09:48 AM
Interesting that 90% of the votes sided with the peace wreath lady and 70% viewed prop. associations negatively. I don't really know if you can enjoy the same property rights if you are in a homeowners assn. which is why I would never live in one. I would never live somewhere that I had to ask whether it was OK to paint my house a different color or whether it was OK if I had a visitor for longer than a few days.
posted by mattloch on Nov 27, 2006 at 09:49 AM
Oh yea, I almost forgot to mention, on the same day we declared "Mission Accomplished", we pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia, just like Osama bin Laden demanded. So in that way, I guess it was mission accomplished, just not mentioning who's mission we were accomplishing. Does that mean that Bush was correct, and that we should stop mentioning the banner?
posted by randomfactor on Nov 27, 2006 at 09:50 AM

Y'know, Hardliner, there are moments when I feel sorry for old-time "conservatives" who will be saddled with the Bush Administration's failure for decades as a failure of "conservatism."

.

But then I think what they deliberately did to the word "liberal," and I reach for a creme soda* and enjoy the schadenfreude.

.

(*Well, actually I was reaching for a diet cola and grabbed the wrong can from the fridge.  Who drinks this stuff, anyway?)

posted by NancyII on Nov 27, 2006 at 09:58 AM

Cream soda??  I do !!!  It's my favorite soda as long as the brand is right.

 

The thing about a homeowner assn. is that when you buy in one, you sign and agree to go by the rules.  When you break those rules, you should expect to be made accountable for them.  No one forced anyone to buy there..it was a choice.  One thing that always has irritated me is people who move into an area and decide they want it changed. (airport, race tracks, homeowners assns). 

 

HOA's have committes and people who disagree with the rules can go before the committee (or board) and request change.  But to blatently disregard those rules is not the right way to handle it.

 

H4F..for someone who proclaims no leaning to the left, you jumped right on the assumption that this was a conservative's decision.  Sounds to me like most of the subdivision complained.

posted by Perezoso on Nov 27, 2006 at 10:03 AM
Give War a chance.  It's entertaining as hell.  Plus good for local bidness, and, like, chicks dig soldiers too.
posted by randomfactor on Nov 27, 2006 at 10:04 AM

Nancy, all too often the HA rules are applied unfairly to further vendettas.  It's happening to a friend of mine.

.

But if the rules ban all Christmas decorations, I guess the guy has a case

 

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Nov 27, 2006 at 10:18 AM

I don't know, Nancy; who else hates peace signs enough to want to eliminate them?  It think it's a common-sense deduction.

One doesn't have to "lean to the left" to hate what "conservative" has been distorted and upended and redefined to imply nowadays.  I'm not going to let "left wing" be redefined to mean anyone who disagrees with the freedom-hating movement that has turned "conservative" inside out.  (Hence the asterisk.)

Overton Window, Random...   Overton Window.

 

posted by dusty1215 on Nov 27, 2006 at 10:26 AM
HOA's have so much power that some states have sought to clip their wings by legislating them. I think its too bad that a state government has to provide that type of protection for homeowners.

I love Cream Soda as well..is that bad Random? :)
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 27, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Perezoso, not all soldiers are men. Over 155,000 woman have served in Afganistan and Iraq. My niece is going to be shipped over to Afgan Dec 6th. Her college degree in criminology will see her in the Intelligence and Interrogation department. This makes me very sad as she is only 23 and a mere 5ft, 98 lbs. But she is spunky and as,by her own words, a "liberal Democrat" she will tell anyone who asks how much she hates George W.
posted by Perezoso on Nov 27, 2006 at 10:55 AM

Perezoso, not all soldiers are men.

Tis True, Mizz Dusty, and that adds a certain exotic flavor to my initial assertion. Nonetheless, we are living in Gruntopolis. The media, indeed, promotes a som ewhat  sentimental depiction of the Soldier, and democrats themselves seem to share that view.

That said, yes, the men and women serving in the US Military deserve our respect. Of course the irony of democrats calling for a draft should not be lost on anyone; that is a tried and true conservative Dem strategy--LBJism, shall we say.  Personally I think that progressives--or say moderates--should oppose a draft--but then they should oppose the Pelosicrats as well as BushCo (hard to say which is more dangerous, though Pelosi-Rangel looks pretty f-n dangerous). 

 In reality, soldiers have little to do with the modern military.  Aircraft carriers and F-18s , GPS guided Abram Tanks,  do, for better or worse.   Stare at a pic of a Nimitz-class carrier--the US Abraham Lincoln cost, what, $4 billion plus, carries far more nuke power than what was used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and has over 10,000 women and men on it--- for a few minutes and you might find yourself reaching for a Noam Chomsky book.

posted by dusty1215 on Nov 27, 2006 at 11:17 AM
I am not sure Pelosicrats are a bad thing. Its her job to run the show and keep the party in the hunt for the 08 elections. I am quite sure being a fan of the Shrub is a bad thing. I think Rangel's move on the draft was more to get a dialogue going than anything, plus he was recently quoted as saying if the draft was in force before the Iraq occupation..Bush never would of gone into Iraq.
posted by Perezoso on Nov 27, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Harry Reid I can understand and support--or even say John Edwards or Doc Dean to some extent ; Pelosi on the other hand represents a new  breed--the "SF school" of Dems, as they say. I don't think the SF school are particularly bright or creative or ethical, though they are very clever and  cunning.
posted by randomfactor on Nov 27, 2006 at 11:27 AM
So, Pereoso, is she a linguist as well?
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 27, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Perezoso..I can't stomach the old school dems like Reid. His backroom ranglings and borderline shenanigans aren't something I take a liking to. Democrats can not be put into one box. There are so many hues to the party..it makes me happy to be honest with you.
posted by Perezoso on Nov 27, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Not sure about that, Doc RF; but I wager if Miss Pelosi were a linguist, she'd probably be fairly cunning.  Hopefully that didn't set off your PC-o-meter. And if this is about political tactics, I think the DNC are doing the wrong thing, politically, by allowing someone like Pelosi to sort of set the party agenda. Like say a Kennedy or Kerry, Pelosi doesn't seem to have any appeal to the  Heartland, whether moderates or conservatives.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 27, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Pelosi's name recognition runs hand in hand with where she is from. People make assumptions based on the tag of San Fran liberal. She isn't even in the hot seat yet. Lets wait and see what happens after the 20th of Jan.
posted by randomfactor on Nov 27, 2006 at 11:53 AM

And remember, she had opposition in the 2006 election which felt she wasn't liberal enough to represent San Francisco.

.

 

posted by Perezoso on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:02 PM
When the new-school Dems start discussing say a repeal of the 2002 Bush-Billy Thomas tax slashes for the very wealthy (which I believe Pelosi's pal DiFi signed off on)  , then maybe some will take them seriously. Like Di-Fi or a Kennedy, say,  Miss Pelosi does appear to be one of these  Tory-like Corporate Democrats who are, except for a few token liberal gestures, more or less moderate republicans.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:03 PM
I much prefer the image of the stylish Pelosi in her Armani power suit over the image of obese Dennis Hastert in his plain old blue suit. Whether she is totally representative of middle America, who really cares. That is the least populated part of the country, and we all know where conservative politics got us, don't we.

Hey, I heard Congress might just throw in the towel and go home since the republicans can't agree on anything anymore. I guess they'll just punt.
posted by TomW on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Can anyone tell me what crazy liberal values Pelosi has?  As far as I can tell, she represents the majority of public opinion in everything but her support of impeachment.  She's in the minority by saying it's off the table even if Bush is found to have committed crimes.
posted by TomW on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Perezoso, I don't think they need to repeal the tax cuts, they just need to advance the plan to where it will be in 2011.  That's probably why Thomas got out (unless he was afraid of getting snagged in some investigation).  In a few years, it will be clear that Bush's tax cut wasn't a tax cut at all, it actually raises taxes across the board and gave the rich an advance.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Tom, I too, would like to hear what is so "liberal" about Pelosi, considering most of Cali is fairly liberal according to most standards. This of course doesn't include Bako..where red is the favorite color.
posted by Perezoso on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:09 PM

Pelosi voted in favor of banning internet gambling: enough for some of us to dislike the broad. Her voting record is moderate liberal, I'd say. She also supported the Patriot Act, as did DiFi.

She also opposed a more secure border with Mexico.

 

posted by TomW on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:09 PM
No kidding.  Take a look at this election map from a few weeks ago:

http://img47.imageshack.us/...


posted by TomW on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Perezoso, the problem is that these guys are running the country based on ideas taken from the 100 series of courses.
posted by dusty1215 on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:12 PM
My goodness Tom, thats a beautiful quilt isn't it? :P The colors run the gamut don't they?
posted by TomW on Nov 27, 2006 at 12:15 PM
Dusty, to amend what I said above, I think Bakersfield is Republican only because they haven't been courted by strong Democrats.  Bakersfield values for the most part line up with Democratic values.  There are just a lot of people who are Republicans because of a single issue, and most of the time, it's a misperception about Democrats.
1 2

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: