Bush bad, Congress worse

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is absolutely amazing to hear Congressmen who speak against pork projects and lobbying in Washington, while in the same speech promise to bring MORE money home to ___. What do people think this money that will be brought home actually IS?

And you can hear this from just about every Congressmen out there and just about every campaign speech they make.

People dislike pork unless it is their pork.

You know, it reminds me of the chieftans of Easter Island. As times got worse, they responded by building ever larger giant stone heads to increase their prestige and combat the growing unhappiness... naturally, bigger stone heads accelerated their decline by wasting resources, forcing them to build even bigger stone heads. Then it all collapsed.

edit: As for the illegal immigration problem, I have a simple solution that will fix everything: Annex Mexico. Then our southern border would be short and easily securable. (Wouldn't want those illegal Guatemalans, now would we?!)

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Neddie, Bush's base isn't abandoning him . . . yet. It's the people outside his base that supported him previously that he's lost.

Abandon and disapprove are two different things. His base is pissed with him on a number of issues.

[Ned]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Iraq has clearly become the battleground for internal tribal-level grievances. The rule of religion no longer has the force of law, and we're hanging around as a convenient punching bag. A lot of these bombings aren't even directed at US troops directly, and guess what -- it doesn't matter. Every day, we provide further proof that enforced "democracy" is ineffective. It steels the Muslim world against us, gives credibility to the hate mongers, and has no benefits back here in the US. Meanwhile, we keep our troops undersupplied while pumping off-the-budget billions into an oil-rich economy that doesn't want us.

This war is a political and foreign policy disaster, plain and simple. Like Vietnam (that noted democratic republic), the biggest surprise is how long it's taken for it to be reflected in the polls.

I guess gas prices trump everything.

There is no such thing as "enforced democracy." There is, however, such a thing as "enforced socialism." That was Saddam's regime.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is absolutely amazing to hear Congressmen who speak against pork projects and lobbying in Washington, while in the same speech promise to bring MORE money home to ___. What do people think this money that will be brought home actually IS?

And you can hear this from just about every Congressmen out there and just about every campaign speech they make.

People dislike pork unless it is their pork.

Well the fact that Bush will not veto any bill no matter how fat it is with pork is another thing that is pissing off his base.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Wrong. His approval rate on Iraq is even lower than his overall approval rate; so if the base disapproves generally, even more disapprove or Iraq in particular.

That's not surprising. Bush's "base" is actually a coalition, comprised of two groups: neo-conservative foreign-policy hawks and Red state "values" voters. Political analysts, including conservative ones, have been pointing out for years that this is a coalition with a built-in fault line, since the latter group tends to be isolationist on foreign policy. Bush kept the coalition together by promising the war would be quick; now that it's turned into a quagmire, he's losing his isolationist flank -- especially since he's done absolutely nothing else for them in 6 years as president.

I agree with this, somewhat. The neocons are in fact yesterday's liberals. Many traditional Republicans are isolationists.

But to the extent the right and left are dissatisfied with Iraq, their reasons are different. The right wants us to win and may be dissappointed that Bush seemed to have screwed up the post-invasion occuppation by having too few troops and/or dissmissing the Iraqi Army. The left wants us to lose and withdraw, humiliated, so that Bush and the Republicans will be tarnished for a generation.

[Arrian]

But to the extent the right and left are dissatisfied with Iraq, their reasons are different. The right wants us to win and may be dissappointed that Bush seemed to have screwed up the post-invasion occuppation by having too few troops and/or dissmissing the Iraqi Army. The left wants us to lose and withdraw, humiliated, so that Bush and the Republicans will be tarnished for a generation.

Oy. This old line again. The liberals want us to lose!!!

I fall firmly into the "wants us to win and may be dissappointed that Bush seemed to have screwed up the post-invasion occuppation by having too few troops and/or dissmissing the Iraqi Army" camp. I was against the invasion, but once we did it, I can only hope that we succeed (though I do wonder at times exactly how success is defined). That either means I'm right-wing, or it means you're wrong.

-Arrian

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Arrian


Oy. This old line again. The liberals want us to lose!!!

I fall firmly into the "wants us to win and may be dissappointed that Bush seemed to have screwed up the post-invasion occuppation by having too few troops and/or dissmissing the Iraqi Army" camp. I was against the invasion, but once we did it, I can only hope that we succeed (though I do wonder at times exactly how success is defined). That either means I'm right-wing, or it means you're wrong.

-Arrian

Welcome to the right wing!

[Arrian]

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Arrian

Put down that heavy cross and pick up a whip!

[Arrian]

You think I'd touch a cross? I would burn me.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Come out of the closet you know you want small government.

[Arrian]

Oh, see, I do. Since when has the Republican party actually had any use for small government? Hoover?

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, see, I do. Since when has the Republican party actually had any use for small government? Hoover?

-Arrian

It supposedly was what teh reagan and teh Newt's contract wid Amerika wer bout.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Oy. This old line again. The liberals want us to lose!!!

I fall firmly into the "wants us to win and may be dissappointed that Bush seemed to have screwed up the post-invasion occuppation by having too few troops and/or dissmissing the Iraqi Army" camp. I was against the invasion, but once we did it, I can only hope that we succeed (though I do wonder at times exactly how success is defined). That either means I'm right-wing, or it means you're wrong.

-Arrian

Actually this is to position shared by the so-called "moderate" Democrats who are quick to distinguish themselves from the bulk of the Democratic Party who seem be more in favor of the cut and run "strategy" advocated by Congressman Murtha.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Ned


Actually this is to position shared by the so-called "moderate" Democrats who are quick to distinguish themselves from the bulk of the Democratic Party who seem be more in favor of the cut and run "strategy" advocated by Congressman Murtha.

Yeah, it's funny, but originally I was very opposed to the war, then the occupation, but I feel like if we cut and run with this mess we've created, well that would be far worse than sticking it out. It wasn't our mess before, but now it is