Dems Choice - Accomplish Something Or Continue War On Bush

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Apr 8, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The Democrats' Choice
    Do they want to get something done, or just wage war on the president?

    Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

    Next week the Democrats will mark their 100th day running Congress, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared herself "enormously proud" of their record.

    We think it's too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish: Do they want to get something done, which will require the signature of a Republican President who still has 21 months in office? Or is their goal to delegitimize the Bush Presidency with a purely partisan goal of regaining the White House in 2008?

    If their plan is to govern, Democrats have several opportunities to work with President Bush to achieve goals they claim to share. Trade deals on Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea await a Congressional vote, and their defeat would harm those nations and the U.S. national interest. On immigration reform, Mr. Bush is closer to most Democrats than to many in his own party. The No Child Left Behind Act is up for reauthorization, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (a k a Mandatory Maximum Tax) needs another patch to avoid hitting 15 million more taxpayers this year.





    We have nothing against partisanship, and Democrats have every right to reward their supporters and pursue their policy goals. Some of these are part of the "Six for '06" bills that House Democrats passed easily in their first days, though they still have to run the gantlet of the Senate. But our guess is that Democrats would help themselves more, and have a better chance of gaining seats in 2008, if they show they are open to compromise and can point to priorities that became law.
    The alternative is to frame a largely partisan agenda that may pass the House but will either die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. These include the largely political payoff to unions of abolishing secret organizing ballots, or cutting off funds for the Iraq war. These are crowd pleasers on the left, which has overinterpreted last year's victory as a mandate for their policies rather than a rejection of GOP failure.

    But this is a risky strategy that would give the lie to the claim that House Democrats made last year that they could govern better than the Tom DeLay Republicans. Their freshmen from swing districts would have few accomplishments to tout. And neither Mr. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be on the ballot again--a reality that Democrats will sooner or later have to acknowledge, hard as it will be to give up the anger.

    If Democrats are smart, they'll realize that Republicans in Congress don't fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.
    http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009911
     
  2. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Actually, Congress isn't "waging war" on the Bush administration. This Congress is simply doing something the previous six Congresses failed to do...It's called 'oversight', a responsibility which the previous six GOP controlled Congresses abdicated entirely, placing loyalty to party and president over their loyalty to their constituents and their oaths of office.

    While not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, Congressional oversight is implied given the various other functions of Congress, including the appropriation of funds, enacting of laws, raising and supporting armies, providing for a Navy, declaring war, and impeaching and removing from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress to not responsibly carry out these functions absent knowledge of what the Executive branch was doing, how and by whom it was administering its programs and policies, the costs in blood and treasure and whether or not those officials were complying with the law regarding their administrative duties.

    Sorry, old son...Your cut-and-paste shit is, was and shall ever be...weak.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Dems are trying to take over the duties of the CIC - clearly unconstitutional
     
  4. Rosotar
    Offline

    Rosotar Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +45
    :clap2:
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    are you happy to see Dems lied about raising taxes?

    The lowest wage earners will see a 33% increase in their tax rates

    Liberal compassion?
     
  6. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Changing the subject since you can't debate the issue you raised? Tch...Tch...Tch, old son When are you going to grow up and think for yourself?
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    From your response I guess you approve the 33% rate increase on the lowest wage earners

    The increase on the marriage penalty

    The decrease on the child tax credit

    Not only are Dems waging war on Pres Bush but also on the middle class they claim to care about
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    That's a discussion for another thread...Ya wanna stay on topic? Or do you have a big, red "<b><font color= red>L</font></b>" tattooed to your forehead?
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Libs are showing the voters want the stand for:

    Losing in Iraq

    Screwing the taxpayers

    So far so good if you want the Dems out in 08
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    I noticed how you did not post your support for the $400 billion tax increase

    I was hoping the libs on this board would show their support and explain to the stupid masses how Dems can spend their money more efficiently and on more important things then they can

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48005
     

Share This Page