October 11, 2007

It's Hard Work, Not Getting Much Done

When the Democrats took the majority this year, they swore to set a new tone of hard work in Congress by demanding a five-day work week while in session. This would allow both chambers to get more accomplished and impress upon everyone the responsible nature and work ethic of the Democrats. Nine months later, while overdue appropriation bills still have not seen the House floor and the 110th Congress acquiring a do-nothing appelation, Democrats have begun to rebel against the schedule:

Rank-and-file members of Congress are grumbling about the five-day workweek instituted this year by House Democratic leaders, complaining that it leaves little time for campaigning and allows few weekdays to deal with business back home.

“We have a long list of meetings that can’t be scheduled because I’m never back in the district,” said freshman Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). “Part of it is related to the campaign, and part is simply doing my job back at home.” ...

With that longer schedule, though, lawmakers often have only the weekend to spend back in their districts. For those with long commutes, it can be even less. And for freshman members, it’s a particularly sensitive issue because the first reelection fight tends to be the most difficult.

Earlier in the year, few Democrats complained about the schedule. They had just won back the majority and were eager to enact their campaign promises to clean up Congress, raise the minimum wage, make student loans more affordable and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

But now that those tasks have been completed, many lawmakers are longing to spend time at home talking to voters and beginning to campaign for reelection.

Before we start analyzing the schedule issue, did you notice a "goal" that Josephine Hearn and Patrick O'Connor failed to include in this report? Just a small little issue that Democrats claimed would help them expand their majorities in 2008? I'll give you a hint: it starts with an 'I' and ends in a 'Q', and it seems to have disappeared from Democratic legislative history like a bad apparatchik in the Stalinist Russia.

Also, the notion that "cleaning up Congress" has been completed is a complete laugh. What are they smoking at The Politico? Not only have they crippled earmark reform over and over again in this session, but William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson remains in office, and Alan Mollohan remains in his Appropriations subcommittee chair, where he has control over the funding for the department investigating him. The Democrats passed some meaningless controls on earmarks that do nothing to slow them down or make them any more transparent than before.

Now, given the fact that the Democrats still have not produced a budget, nor have followed through on most of their election pledges except when they squeezed the minimum-wage increase into the funding package George Bush requested for the Iraq war, why should they reduce their work week? With overdue appropriations, one would expect people with their purported tough work ethic to start working through a few weekends to meet fiscal deadlines. Instead, they're spending their time passing resolutions on genocides in which no current nation took part, which will alienate a strategic ally in a theater of war.

Democratic leadership has apparently come to the same conclusion as the rest of the nation. If they had all the time in the world, they still couldn't meet their responsibilities and pledges in Congress. Taking Fridays off would at least limit the damage they could do.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (89)

Posted by L88SS454 | October 11, 2007 7:03 AM

The kicker is that they can't even blame this one on Bush. That must really be tearing them up inside.

Posted by mer | October 11, 2007 7:07 AM

Boy, I wish I could remember what a 5 day 40 hour felt like. It would be like a vacation for me.

Posted by John F Not Kerry | October 11, 2007 7:09 AM

Heh. Cry me a river.

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 11, 2007 7:25 AM

Maybe they could draw even more attention to their failures by holding a pathetic pretend-impeachment hearing in the shadows of the Capitol building basement?

Oh wait, they already did that. It was never intended to be made public but apparently a staffer, overwhelmed by disgust, and maybe even moved by pity, spilled the beans.

Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about the once-great democrat party? Like the children they are, when reality gets too much for them, they go to a land of puppets and make-believe.

Posted by docjim505 | October 11, 2007 7:48 AM

--- It's all the Republicans' fault because they keep blocking legislation!

--- Oh, oh, like the GOP was any better when THEY controlled Congress!

--- The democrats have too passed a lot of legislation!

--- The democrats are busy Providing Oversight(TM) and holding Bush's feet to the fire on Iraq!

--- It's All Bush's Fault!(TM)

--- WAAAHHHH!!!!!

This list of democrat talking points provided as a public service by the DocJim505 Institute.

Posted by syn | October 11, 2007 7:49 AM

Just for pointing out Democrat failures how soon will it be before we hear 'oh those extremists on the right they're so ugly and the GOP will lose!'

Posted by Colonel_Prop | October 11, 2007 7:54 AM

Does anyone think the democrats can actually run anything? The proof is in the results - this congress has been pathetic. All they want to do is pander to the moveon.org dhimmis. God help the USA if they take the white-house, we may just slide off the cliff.

40 hr work week? I grew up dirt farming for my family - sounds like these people are real disconnected and could use a year or two each ekeing a living out of the earth, maybe, just maybe they will then quit allocating our money to their buddies. Watch your wallets - the euro socialist state is coming!

Posted by Dr. Mercury | October 11, 2007 8:12 AM

"Taking Fridays off would at least limit the damage they could do."

In the old days, we would have called such a statement "cynical." Now, sadly, it's just being realistic.

As far as Congress' "work week" (using the term in its most generous sense) goes, no one's pegged it better than Uncle Jay.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 8:19 AM

Democrat politicians represent the single greatest threat to the security, health and economic well-being of this nation.

By removing themselves from DC, Democrats for once can finally accomplish something positive for America.

So I propose a zero hour workweek for Democrats.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can claim responsibility for doing something great for this country, while Americans will no longer suffer from the corruption, ignorance and incompetence of Congressional Democrats. It's a win-win.

Posted by Jazz | October 11, 2007 8:31 AM

Also from the article if you click through to the second page...

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Republicans have voiced “tremendous frustration” to their own leaders about the House schedule this year.

Just thought I'd add that in as it apparently slipped past Ed when he posted this. ;-)

Posted by TomB | October 11, 2007 8:36 AM

Congress is very effectively putting us on a collision course with Turkey. I wouldn't call it doing nothing, I would call it a very effective anti-Bush and anti military treacherous activity.
Just think about it: our air force fighting Turkish forces in northern Iraq! MSM would LOVE it!

Posted by Pho | October 11, 2007 9:03 AM

The Pelosi/Reid congress reminds me more and more... of a badly run city council, rather than Congress.

They act like they've got nothing much better to do than pass resolutions on street names, make derogatory statements about people keeping them from raising taxes, and redecorate the council's office spaces... while the streets don't get fixed, empty "convention centers" and "arenas" get built even though the bond elections to fund them got turned down, and the street lights are all flashing yellow because they fired all the traffic dept for "holding up traffic" with red lights.

Ok... so my local city council hasn't really fired all the traffic dept. They're trying to cram red light cameras down our throats instead, with the cooperation of the traffic dept.

But otherwise... yeah that's what they remind me of. Only with way more authority than the ability to annoy the heck out of people with red light cameras.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 11, 2007 9:24 AM

Contrast this with the schedule in the Bush White House-Shrub starts the workday at 7:30 AM, and they work straight thru til around 11:30 am (Bush calls this concept working "two hard half-days"). After a 2 hour break, they're at it again.

Posted by ajacksonian | October 11, 2007 9:27 AM

Even worse is that the D party did not even run on Iraq or those things they passed. No, they have failed in reaching their six benchmarks and continue to do so.

I still see no evidence of honest leadership and open government, and, worse, closing off more and more appropriations work from outside scrutiny and using blunt, strongarm tactics against their own members to get compliance on anything.

No move towards 'real security', save what has happened by default in re-upping previous bills that have expired.

It seems that 'energy independence' has been absolutely forgotten by the D party as it is an area where government can only *do* by rescinding its restrictions on drilling, nuclear plants and refineries. Time and again private enterprise has demonstrated capability to research and market new concepts without much help from government. No signs of an 'X-Prize' system for energy research.

When one ties economic prosperity and educational excellence, one would expect that what minimal goals government has would be targeted towards teaching the basics necessary for success in the economy. Instead NCLB was re-upped after proving that 'teaching to the test' doesn't teach much at all.

When looking to a healthcare system that works for everyone, the recognition must be that insurance is the *worst* way to spend for healthcare. You pay for insurance betting you will need it and the insurer takes it and bets you will not. Even worse the administration of insurance healthcare now has turned the system into a records management system that might, as a side-light, get some healthcare out of it.

Along with that is retirement security, which should mean slowly shifting from budget busting social security towards something that is sustained by the individual. The hard and deep demographic trends will now play out for 30 to 50 years and the system was not envisioned to ever cover this hard and stark shift in population change. Americans now entering in the workforce see that social security will not survive to give them payout and make plans accordingly. That should be supported, and deeply so.

No, these benchmarks that the D party set for themselves before the last election remain unmet in any way, shape or form. Failures heading into the last quarter of the year, and unable to recognize their duties handed to them by the Constitution. Perhaps they should read their job description some day... held in that self-same document. It is 'do nothing congress' for the third congress running, now. Two parties unable or unwilling to do their jobs that they run for.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 9:41 AM

Yeah, yeah. Nothing unusual about the grumbling here.

The truth is that the Republicans have been very effective in using the filibuster and the threat of filibuster in order to block Dem legislation in the Senate. There would have been many more bills passed if this wasn't the case. A 1-person lead just isn't enough to get stuff done there. It certainly hasn't been enough to get anything done on the Iraq issue.

There will be just as many Dems who complain about actually having to work all week as there were Republicans. Tough titty for them. If they can't handle the schedule they deserve to get defeated.

Posted by Mike M. | October 11, 2007 9:44 AM

Personally, I wish it were true that Congress was actually doing nothing! The less they're in session, the less damage they can do to the country and the more relaxed I feel.

Posted by Rich D Valle | October 11, 2007 9:51 AM

OK, I give up. What starts with I and ends with Q?

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 9:52 AM


Isn't part of being a politician, persuading people and gaining the votes of people who may at first disagree with you?

After all, if it was just about getting people who agree with you to vote the way you (and they) want, politics would be pretty easy?

Reid and Pelosi are not qualified for their positions. They are partisan hacks. They don't have the skills of persuasion. They lead no one whom they cannot coerce.

Which pretty much sums up the Democrat Party Presidential nominees.

Other than the mediocrities the Democrats attempt to pass off as statesmen, what does the Democrat Party have to offer?

Not much, from what I can see.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 11, 2007 10:20 AM

After all of that energy and investment into the undermining of American policy in Iraq and the bigger War on Terror and all the Democrats have to show for this session (by their mandate no less) is the "Betray Us" fiasco and their failed self-rehabilitation via the "Rush Crush."

Here's hoping the Democrats don't take a break from their strenuous schedule of placing eggs in a single basket... or should I say take a break from laying one for the good of the country.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 10:22 AM

"One leadership aide said that Pelosi schedules meetings to talk about the agenda for the next meeting, leaving no time to get anything done."

So Pelosi is pretty much Dilbert's pointy-haired boss? The Democrat's pointy-headed boss is absolutely a joy to meet with, I'm sure.

Where do the Democrats go to find these people?

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 11, 2007 10:23 AM

Rich Valle,

I-Q. Intelligence, right? The Democrats don't want intelligence. They've fought against it tooth and nail, and only recently threw in the towel.

Maybe there's another I**Q they threw in the towel on, but I can't remember. All their Presidential front runners talk about staying the course, (or even expanding the war, in the case of Obama),

It's amusing, watching them fight against their Clinton-era policy positions. One could almost think the US had never been attacked...

Posted by David M | October 11, 2007 10:32 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/11/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by August J. Pollak | October 11, 2007 10:34 AM

Democratic leadership has apparently come to the same conclusion as the rest of the nation. If they had all the time in the world, they still couldn't meet their responsibilities and pledges in Congress.

Yes, those lazy Democrats, the way they're voting on twice as much legislation than Republicans were last session.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 10:37 AM

It's just not possible to look at this issue without recognizing the fact that the Republican minority has done each and every trick and tactic that they can use in order to stall or block legislation.

I'm not complaining about this; it's the job of the minority to try and block legislation they don't like. I do think the filibustering of each and every bill in the Senate is a little much. It's disingenuous however to call the Dems 'do-nothing.' They haven't been able to overcome the obstructionism, but that isn't for lack of trying - or sitting on their thumbs like the last bunch.

Posted by Zifnab | October 11, 2007 10:37 AM

Fun fact kids:


The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000 votes on the House floor in 2007.

Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison, the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in 1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.

Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a July McClatchy report. “If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes.”"

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 10:40 AM

"twice as much legislation than Republicans were last session."

So what? Most of it ended up in the trash bin, thankfully.

And most of it was crayoned nonsense. Re-naming bridges and other kindergarten stuff.

How about the Democrats vote themselves a one way plane ticket out of the country?

I think we could all support such sensible legislation.

Posted by Zifnab | October 11, 2007 10:41 AM

And most of it was crayoned nonsense. Re-naming bridges and other kindergarten stuff.

Link plz?

Posted by Davebo | October 11, 2007 11:25 AM

So what? Most of it ended up in the trash bin, thankfully.

I don't think it's fair to refer to senate Republicans as "the trash bin".

Ed, this piece is almost comic. Or perhaps caricature.

And the sad thing is, you know that.

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 11, 2007 11:49 AM

So the democrat party talking point is that, while the democrat party was swept into office on an overwhelming national mandate for pulling all troops out of Iraq, the will of the people was easily defeated by parliamentary tactics by mean republicans.

Face it libs, you had no mandate. You had gay sex scandals and now that you have been proven wrong about the war you're standing there wide-stanced & helpless, covered in your own macaca.

Deal with it.

Posted by always right | October 11, 2007 11:50 AM

Can't argue with the fact that this Congress has not accomplished what they promised, can you?

Trying to lay blames on the opposition just shows that we don't have effective leaders and leadership.

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 11, 2007 12:02 PM

That's right, always right.

It seems like the feckless lib leadership is eager to admit defeat at the hands of republicans whom they consider stupid.

How in the world can we expect libs to fight terrorists?

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 12:10 PM

Always Right,

It isn't a matter of Blame. I don't blame the Republicans for doing what they have done; it's their job to obstruct and they are doing it well.

But it's inaccurate to say that the Dems aren't doing anything, or trying to get bills passed. They are. They have been unable to overcome the Republican opposition, which should be recorded as a win for the Republicans in Congress.

Now, this leaves them open to charges of being 'obstrucionist' by the Dems running against them in '08. I don't know how productive this strategy will be; you heard this a lot out of Republicans during the last few Congresses, to little effect with the electorate. It should be recognized that the Dems have evidence on their side; there have been more Cloture and useless roll-call votes already then in the entire last session.

In an uphill challenge of an election year for Republicans, 'obstructionist' may be a more effective label then in the past. Republicans should tread with caution when it comes to effectively stopping the majority from carrying out the business which is approved by the majority of voters in poll after poll.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 11, 2007 12:14 PM

Hasn't the modern age caught up to Congress yet? Why can't the members of Congress who complain about not being able to hold meetings "back in their district" simple use teleconferences? Hasn't Congress heard about the ability to hold meetings without the need to be phyicially in the same room at the same time with others?

There really is no dire need to commute home to hold meetings and perform other "district" work, they can do that over the Internet. This way, they can still get the work done without adding to their carbon footprint by having to fly back to their districts. Al Gore, the self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet, and the rest of the "netroots" should explain the benefit of modern telecommunications and the marvelous technology available for telecommuting.

This has less to do with "a long list of meetings that can’t be scheduled because I’m never back in the district" and more to do with additional time for electioneering.

Posted by patrick neid | October 11, 2007 12:18 PM

I wish Congress would follow the Texas model of meeting every other year and then is limited to only 140 days.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 11, 2007 12:22 PM

"Now, this leaves them open to charges of being 'obstrucionist' by the Dems running against them in '08. I don't know how productive this strategy will be; you heard this a lot out of Republicans during the last few Congresses, to little effect with the electorate."

So, the Republicans are simply using their minority power to stop bills they oppose just as the Democrats did when they were a minority. They are using the Democrats prior strategy against them. Sauce for the Goose.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 12:25 PM

"There really is no dire need to commute home to hold meetings and perform other "district" work, they can do that over the Internet."

If there's a way to collect an envelope full of cash over the Internet, please contact Rep. Murtha. He can be the Democrat point man for this initiative.

And Rep. Jefferson is interested in the "virtual freezer" concept.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 12:26 PM


You are correct; what's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander. There's no disagreement with this.

The only error is in painting the Dems as 'do-nothings.' They aren't doing 'nothing,' they are effectively being blocked by Republicans from doing anything. Nothing wrong with that, unless you are trying to blame the Democrats for not getting anything done.

Poll after poll has shown that while Congress' overall approval ratings are low, the approval ratings for Republicans in Congress are significantly lower then that of the Dems. There is a recognition amongst many that the business they would like to see accomplished is being held up by the Republicans, who know that it would be disastrous for them politically to allow the Dems to move forward on many topics. I think that in '08 you will see quite a few of those roadblocks removed.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 11, 2007 12:31 PM

patrick neid,

That can't happen, although it would be nice. The Constitution states that Congress must meet at least once a year.

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

That's in the 20th Amendment.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 11, 2007 12:34 PM

"f there's a way to collect an envelope full of cash over the Internet, please contact Rep. Murtha. He can be the Democrat point man for this initiative."

I guess Congress never heard of PayPal ether.

Posted by docjim505 | October 11, 2007 12:40 PM

Well, the PSA that I so thoughtfully posted hasn't stopped the lefties. Oh, well... I guess I can take some consolation in the fact that I knew what they'd write even before it was posted.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 12:43 PM

"There is a recognition amongst many that the business they would like to see accomplished is being held up by the Republicans, who know that it would be disastrous for them politically to allow the Dems to move forward on many topics."

Including leaving a successful ally in Iraq, no thanks to the absolutely worthless Democrat Party, who if they were successful, would have thwarted the successful surge.

But the Republicans did what was right, instead of what was popular.

The great accomplishment, therefore, of the 110th Democrat Congress is its failure to defeat the US Military.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 11, 2007 12:47 PM

"The only error is in painting the Dems as 'do-nothings.' They aren't doing 'nothing,' they are effectively being blocked by Republicans from doing anything."

It's not just the Republicans fault, the Democrats have to share the blame. The Democrats need to work on legislation that they know will not be "blocked" by Republicans and they need to compromise on bills that the Republicans oppose. There are plenty of bi-partisan bills that can be, and have been, past.

The whole idea behind Congressional debate is to work out the differences between the different ideologies and to come up with a bill that has support of both parties. The Democrats , like the Republicans in the past, have failed to do this. Part of the reason is that they too do not want to compromise on "issues" that could affect them in the polls. This is why the members of Congress (and I hold both parties responsible) have failed to do their job.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 12:51 PM


I understand that this is your belief; your candidates will lose elections next year because of it, and we will finish the work then.

I have no problem with the Republicans standing up for what they believe is right, but the rest of the country disagrees with you, and you're going to pay the price for doing so. Just think, you'll get to crow for years about how the cowardly Dems ruined Iraq for us! Continuing a long-standing Republican tradition of blaming their military mistakes on the Democrats.

The worst part of this whole thing is that you know it, your candidates know it, and your pundits know it. The sense of gloom pervading the Republican party right now stems from 65-70% of the people having their will stymied on Iraq. This includes large portions of your own party, as well as almost all Dems and all Independents. You couldn't ask for a better formulaa for Dem success next year then to thumb your nose at the people of America for years in a row.

And if Rudy's your nominee, you will managed to have put forward a guy who most of the country disagrees with on the war, and the other part disagrees with on abortion.

I don't agree with many of the Dems' strategies; I think they could have played much tougher with the Republicans, actually forcing them to filibuster instead of just threatening it. But I understand why they chose what they chose; it is a path which gives us a gigantic chance of victory in the long run.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 1:07 PM

"but the rest of the country disagrees with you"

According to rigged polls that favor Democrats and that do not distinguish between "voters" and "likely voters" (e.g. Gallup).

"Just think, you'll get to crow for years about how the cowardly Dems ruined Iraq for us!"

No, I'm increasingly thinking that the Democrats won't succeed in "ruining" Iraq and that the mission will be a complete, shining success. And I'm going to credit the President and the Republican Congress for their success in defeating Al Qaeda along with their absolutely worthless Democrat Party allies.

"You couldn't ask for a better formulaa for Dem success next year then to thumb your nose at the people of America for years in a row."

You of course mean to ignore rigged polls, biased media pundit clowns and our Russian, Iranian and Syrian friends, no?

"And if Rudy's your nominee, you will managed to have put forward a guy who most of the country disagrees with on the war, and the other part disagrees with on abortion."

And when Hillary's your nominee, you'll will have managed to put forth a ridiculously under qualified, unaccomplished sociopath, as your nominee for President. Are you proud of that?

"it is a path which gives us a gigantic chance of victory in the long run."

I sincerely hope you and the Democrats actually believe that. Because it's sure fun watching you people after you've blown election after election, believing your own talking points.

Posted by docjim505 | October 11, 2007 1:20 PM

Hey! We can officially credit the filthy dems in Congress with accomplishing something:

Poisoning relations with one of our allies, Turkey.

According to al-AP (DISCLAIMER: it may not actually be true):

Turkey ordered its ambassador in Washington to return to Turkey for consultations over a U.S. House panel's approval of a bill describing the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Thursday. (1)

Do you feel the love coming from Ankara? Hopefully, the Turks will be more adult about this whole thing than the dems in Congress have been. I mean, honestly: why in the blue f*** did they have to go and dredge up an almost century-old issue? What's next? A resolution condemning England for its crimes against Ireland? The Vatican for the Crusades?

Libs have complained since before the war that Bush's "unilateralism" and "cowboy diplomacy" was "alienating" our allies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any of our allies withdrawing their ambassadors (though I confess that there were some I wanted to see thrown out... literally). Does anybody else?


(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_genocide

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 1:26 PM


I'm sure the polls will show that the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrat's efforts to "dredge up an almost century-old issue"?

That's how they justify all of the other stupid legislation they put forth.

But maybe this one was ordered by a higher power - in other words, Mr. Soros.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 11, 2007 1:30 PM

""You couldn't ask for a better formulaa for Dem success next year then to thumb your nose at the people of America for years in a row.""

Do you mean like how the Democrats consistently refuse to confront the looming SSI debt which the people know is coming? The Democrats insistence that the the federal government be in control of health care (and every other aspect of American's lives) despite the fact that most people do not want the government to run their lives or control their health care decisions? The Democrats continual investigation of the Bush administration that has cost millions of tax dollars but has produced exactly nothing, which is rightfully seen as a huge waste of time and money? This is what you call a winning strategy? Well, we'll find out in 2008 just how unsuccessful that strategy really is. Since predictions are cheap, I predict that America will not only elect a Republican as President but the Democrats are going to find themselves back in the minority in Congress.

Don't put too much faith in public opinion polls as Americans have shown time and time again that they refuse to bend to the will of the pollsters. Dewey Wins! Not!

Posted by patrick neid | October 11, 2007 1:32 PM


"And if Rudy's your nominee, you will managed to have put forward a guy who most of the country disagrees with on the war, and the other part disagrees with on abortion."

You don't believe that for a moment. Rudy is the only candidate that Hillary and the dems fear at this moment. Perhaps in time they will grow to fear Fred. But right now it's only Rudy.

Folks may disagree with the tactics of the war in Iraq but the majority have agreed on the war on terror. Rudy's bona fides in this regard are unmatched. As to abortion the vast majority of repubs and most dems agree on his position.

But I'll leave you with this. Your "steed" (nag) in this race brings with her all kinds of repugnant baggage not including her own. Chief among the luggage is her husband. Among his list of credits is a rape charge. I know, I know it never went to court but then by that logic OJ really was innocent.

But this is not your/dems greatest moral dilemna. That comes when you realize that if, like so many others, you believe Bill did commit rape the dems would still vote for Hillary. Don't you just love situational ethics!

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 1:32 PM

I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that the polls showing Americans are looking for some sort of phased withdrawal from Iraq are 'rigged' in any way. You're basically claiming that every poll on the topic taken in the last two years has been rigged. I find this to be an unpersuasive argument, in the extreme.

The discontent coming from many Republican sources clearly demonstrates that it isn't just the Dems who think things are going their way. As I said; you don't need me to point these things out for you.

Blame it on the media, biased polls, whatever you like; the Dems are winning almost every electoral matchup out there while out-fundraising the Republican candidates 2 to 1. I can't remember a time in my life when this was the case.


You state that you will credit Bush and the Republicans with defeating AQ. How's that working out for us, by the way? I seem to have read a few things showing that AQ is very much alive and strong and still a threat - surprisingly, many of the people saying this are the very Republicans who you claim you will credit for 'defeating' them.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 1:41 PM

"Americans are looking for some sort of phased withdrawal from Iraq"

Um, that's already been planned by the administration. General Petraeus outlined a portion of the plan.

"AQ is very much alive and strong and still a threat"

No kidding. But they've not been able to strike us again in our homeland, despite the best efforts of their buddies, the Democrats to encourage another attack.

Al Qaeda is being defeated in Iraq. It's no longer even sort of a civil war, now the Sunnis are turning against Al Qaeda. Approval for Al Qaeda is drastically dropping throughout the Muslim world, disproving the lefty lie that we're producing more terrorists in Iraq.

Defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq will signal the beginning of the end for the Wahabbi movement. The Democrats are either too stupid or to partisan to recognize that, but they cannot stop it from happening.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 1:45 PM


'You don't believe that for a moment. Rudy is the only candidate that Hillary and the dems fear at this moment. Perhaps in time they will grow to fear Fred. But right now it's only Rudy.'

You couldn't be more incorrect. I honestly hope that you guys nominate Rudy. I really do. He epitomizes so much of what is wrong with your party, a ten year old could run an effective campaign against him.

You should realize that not a single Dem voter from previous elections is going to switch to Republican this cycle. Not one. Rudy's position on abortion isn't enough to switch any of them; his position on the Iraq war is atrocious. His basic foreign policy platform is 'Bush, but more so!' His personal life is a wreck.

Do you honestly believe that the Republicans can afford to lose even 1% of their voting base and still achieve victory next cycle? Rudy will alienate religious voters who are tired of being kicked around. They've come right out and stated this. It is folly for you to take them for granted, yet you and many others seem to be doing exactly that.


Recent polling indicates that the public trusts the Dems more then the Republicans on nearly every issue, including Iraq, SCHIP, health care in general, the economy (even though they know Dems are going to raise taxes!); on Terrorism, the Republicans have a 1-point advantage. I know, I know - these polls are fakes and lies! Right? No. They line up perfectly with polling data which has been taken for the last year or so.

Remember that part of 'doing the right thing' is having the skill and political ability to convince the people of America that what you choose to do is in fact the 'right' thing to do. Bush, and the Republicans in general, have failed completely at this task. You can blame the media all you like but the truth is that the admin. has been given each and every opportunity they possibly could have to make their case, and they have lost the confidence of the country.

If you believe that the Republicans are going to regain that confidence in the next year, by blocking the things that polling shows the country wants done WHILE failing to adequately convince them that you are doing the 'right thing,' you're absolutely nuts.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 2:07 PM

"He epitomizes so much of what is wrong with your party, a ten year old could run an effective campaign against him."

Well, that pretty much eclipses the abilities of the Democrat Congress, so I give us a pretty fair shot.

By the way, what qualities does Queen Hillary exhibit, that displays what's good and judicious about the absolutely worthless Democrat Party?

Because you guys are going to have to get this sham of a candidate, elected President.

For the first time in years, Democrats will have to campaign positively, as in "Hillary should be President because . . ."

Good luck putting lipstick on your pig of a candidate. Butch would be working in the hardware department of a Peoria Wal-Mart (and not doing much of a job of it) if it weren't for hubby.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 11, 2007 2:16 PM

It would be more effective to provide an adequate defense of one's candidate then it would be to simply switch to attacking Hillary.

I'm an Obama guy; I really would rather not put up with all the b*tching I'll have to hear from you guys if Hillary is elected. But it's undeniable that she has more experience and is winning the projected matchups.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 2:28 PM

"It would be more effective to provide an adequate defense of one's candidate then it would be to simply switch to attacking Hillary."

Nice effort at changing the subject. "No, wait, I'm hear to bash Republicans, not to discuss the Democrat candidates (whom I'm saying will be elected overwhelming by Americans, BTW)."

"more experience"

More experience than whom and with what? She's had no real job, unless you count hanging around the White House for eight years and the Governor's Mansion for a bunch more, an actual job.

And according to her testimony before Congress and with regards to her husband's activities, she never really had much of an idea of what was going on in either place.

So what "experience" does she have?

And please don't tell me "the Senate". She got elected on her husband's name, period. Being a Senator is not exactly a difficult job. You have a staff of dozens of people and you cast votes along party lines. A chimpanzee could do the job of a Senator.

"She does her homework", I hear all of the time. So what? Are we electing a validictorian? So she reads the reports her staff researches and puts together for her and can discuss them relatively intelligently. Congratulations. So could tens of millions of other adults in this country.

"Homework" is not experience. Hillary is the person who goes from college directly to grad school, then directly to her doctorate. And then tries to tell everyone else what to do.

That the Democrat Party is putting this completely unqualified woman forth as a serious candidate, deems them an unserious, irresponsible party.

And don't think she can hide from her complete inadequacy. The media may have deemed her "brilliant" and "qualfied" even though she's neither, but the Republican Party can maneuver around the media to inform the American people exactly why this woman is not even slightly fit to occupy the Oval Office.

Posted by Okonkolo | October 11, 2007 3:55 PM

two things I would interject to the mix.
1-I'm not sure that Democrats "most fear" a candidate that, as pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and a pro-gun control candidate (Rudy), would represent the most socially liberal GOP nominee in memory. He's really more like a hawkish Democrat.

2-Hillary is not yet a done deal. If Obama is the nominee, all that anticipated anti-Hillary energy is going to disappear. Sure, Obama doesn't have a lot of experience, but neither will his most likely opponents. And he's got "it."

back to work...

Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 6:52 PM

This blog would function a lot easier if you guys just said you didn't care how good or bad the dems or republicans are, you will still love republicans and hate dems. It would be a whole lot easier.

All we heard about a few years back was how bad the dems were for blocking certain bills. Evidence shows the republicans are now doing this at unprecedented rates. Yet all these comments are about how worthless the dems are? really? couple years ago it was the party that was blocking that was worthless... apparently you guys don't mind being complete hypocrites..

The thing that bothers me is how obvious it is that you guys are merely partisan voters. You aren't thinking clearly or for yourself. You let the party tell you how to think. It's unhealthy

Posted by Keemo | October 11, 2007 7:12 PM


Personally, I haven't seen a bill presented by the Dems that is worthy of becoming law. All bills have had major pork attached; are designed to move the country towards socialism; were written with the knowledge that they wouldn't become law, designed solely for the purpose of pleasing the donors currently in charge of financing the party; written solely for the purpose of defeatism; on & on.

I wanted SS fixed, altered, changed; some sort of solution was worth a try. Tweak it until a permanent solution was reached. The Dems refused to allow for a solution to take place under a Republicans watch. Just an example of what the Pubs were trying to get accomplished while in power.

I do agree with you in part though; this group of politicians (both sides) are so busy hating each other, little (if anything) is getting done for the people.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 11, 2007 7:18 PM

"I do agree with you in part though; this group of politicians (both sides) are so busy hating each other, little (if anything) is getting done for the people."

But that's because there is little, or anything beneficial Congress can do "for the people", besides move money from one pile to another, one group of people to another and to skim off of the top while doing so.

However, there are plenty of things that Congress could undo, such as the last 70 years of boneheaded, counter-productive, socialistic legislation that has nothing to do with the principals upon which this country was founded.

So since the Democrats are not going to undo all of the stupidity and corruption they've passed into law during the past 70 years, perhaps they'll go home and do no further damage to our country.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | October 11, 2007 7:22 PM

This blog would function a lot easier if you guys just said you didn't care how good or bad the dems or republicans are, you will still love republicans and hate dems. It would be a whole lot easier.

Be kind to the Democrats, y'all! It's hard for them to meet the benchmarks al Qaeda laid down for them last November!

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 11, 2007 7:37 PM

NoDonkey says:

"And don't think she can hide from her complete inadequacy. The media may have deemed her "brilliant" and "qualfied" even though she's neither, but the Republican Party can maneuver around the media to inform the American people exactly why this woman is not even slightly fit to occupy the Oval Office."

Afraid not-the MSM learned that eve with their massive efforts, Jean-Claude Kerry still lost in 2004 (and Gore 4 years before). They just barely lost, but in the end they did lose. None of the principles in the DNC and the MSM (which are as we all know one and the same) will let that happen a third time in a row-and certainly not when it's a Clinton running.

And since the MSM was never as much in love with either Gore or Kerry as they've been with the Arkansas Grifters for almost 20 years now, the fix is in.

Be VERY afraid.

Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 7:42 PM

Maybe you don't realize what they have done because of all the spin and naysayers:

H.R. 6, "Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act." passed 264-163, Jan. 18th, 2007

H.R. 5, "College Student Relief Act of 2007." passed 356-71, Jan. 17th, 2007

H.R. 4, "Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act." passed 255-170, Jan. 12th, 2007

H.R. 3, "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act." passed 253-174, Jan. 11th, 2007

H.R. 2, "Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007." passed 315-116, Jan. 10th, 2007

H.R. 1, "Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007." passed 299-128, Jan. 9th, 2007

Democrats Passed Bill to Cut Subsidies to Student Lenders and Provide $17 Billion in Grants and Other Student Aid

Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill Included Additional $1.8 Billion for Veterans’ Health Care.

Democrats Passed Legislation Out of Committee Providing the Largest Increase for Veterans Affairs Funding in History.

Democrats Passed Wounded Warriors Bill to Upgrade Military Health Care and Provide a 3.5% Pay Raise for Our Troops.

And that's through July ---

Meanwhile, they have to deal with a republican minority that is obstructing at an unprecedented rate.

Posted by Rovin | October 11, 2007 8:01 PM

What is the Democrats PLAN to protect this nation? What have you heard from the front-runners of the party that have for the most part already conceded the nomination to HR Clinton? And how does Mrs. Bill Clinton really feel about all the lame brain schemes to buy the votes by offering increased tax entitlements that will bankrupt a robust economy.

We have Hollywood’s "finest" coming out with a string of anti-military / anti-American movies that denigrate our military to the point where it will put our troops in greater harms way. Why don't they just go over there (in Iraq) and go pull the pins from their belts?

Back to the "house" and "senate" (with a 14% approval rate), neither party has clue how to run the peoples business. With the majority leader chasing after a private citizen for his speech, and professing "this war is lost", how can you expect Reid to contribute to an increase in that 14?

Since the General left town there's been a 90% change in the amount of front page stories about ied's and defeat-------lost causes and civil war. This is what's the last of the "best of the mainstream media" (one form of credibility left). Gen. Petraeus must have convinced even the most skeptical that there was hope for a peaceful and stable Iraq. One thing I do heartedly agree with my dear friends on the left is "our troops have been valiant in there resolve”.

So, I ask the party of democrats, "how will you plan to show us how to plan to protect this nation as your predecessor has? This question is repetitive for the lack of response in either writing or speech.

Mrs. Clinton?
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Obama Jr.?

Mr. Reid? (over 300k of our finest will prove you lied, while over 3000 died proving it.)
Ms. Pelosi? (Forsaking God is not the answer) Even Alan Comes wants to know her answer to this one.

How many times has this question come up in your "debates" that had any meaningful answers?

The safety and security of this nation should depend on your answers.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 11, 2007 8:06 PM

Del analyzes the Democrats:

1. Hillary Clinton:

Political experience...

Acted as her husband's subordinate while he was Governor and President. Got into trouble shortly after Bubbah won in 1992 with less than 50% of the popular vote, when she famously said: "We are the President".

Presided over multiple chaos-see "White House Travel Office Firings", "Rose Law Firm Billing Records" and "HillaryCare". Also issued strict orders forbidding "subordinates" from looking at her directly.

Moved to liberal New York State as a carpetbagger, a la Bobby Kennedy, and used US government planes to campaign at taxpayer expense. Won the 2000 Senate race when her opponent pulled out after being diagnosed with cancer.

During said race, she claimed to be a "New York Yankees fan", despite the fact that she had previously said she was a Chicago Cubbies fan as she grew up in Illinois. "The Curse of Hillary" (and yes, you'll find references to it) resulted, as the Yankees have never won much of anything in the playoffs since she took office. See "2004 collapse"

Pretty much undistinguished "career" as Senator. How many previous US Senators have been elected President? John F. Kennedy?

2. Barry Obama (and yes, he called himself that)

Totally unqualified to run for President at this time, due to lack of experience. He's being worshipped because he's multi-ethnic and anti-Bush, and gee! He also grew up in Hawaii. And that's about all.

And that's about all also applies to the rest of the Democrat field. Dennis the Menace?

As for the Repubs?

If Rudy hadn't gotten sick, Hillary would never be where she is now, and as a former Federal Prosecutor Rudy knows how to tear apart a witness-or a debate opponent. He's her worst nightmare.

All of the other Repubs are afraid of her. He's not.

Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 8:12 PM

Him - Barack Obama is unqualified? But George W was?
Mitt Romney is? Rudy Giuliani is? Ron Paul is? What exactly is you qualification requirement?

Rovin - How exactly has this administration protected us? By getting 20,000 some soldiers killed or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or is it by making the number of terror attacks skyrocket worldwide? Or maybe it's the ridiculous debt we are now in because we're spending a million a minute on this war...

Posted by jr565 | October 11, 2007 8:22 PM

ck wrote:
By getting 20,000 some soldiers killed or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan?
20,000? We have yet to break 3,000 dead in Iraq. I sincerely doubt we've lost 17,000 in Afghanistan.

Is this the same lefty math used to determine the number of Iraqi dead? Currently in the billions, by the last estimate.

Posted by richard mcenroe | October 11, 2007 8:30 PM

ck -- Are you seriously suggesting the Democrats can take credit for spending bills to continue a war they supposedly opposed?

August J. Pollak -- And yet strangely, the Democratic Congress still managed to pass fewer bills before their recess than the Iraqi parliament did...

Posted by Neo | October 11, 2007 8:30 PM

it starts with an 'I' and ends in a 'Q'

It disappeared about the same time the long predicted al Qaeda September "surge" failed to materialize.

Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 8:44 PM

Jr - Maybe you want to re-read what I wrote and even the quote you used...
I did not say 20,000 were killed, i said killed OR injured. Yes, losing a leg or arm or getting a severe brain injury can be just as disastrous for a person or family as death. And it's over 20,000...

Richard - The last republican controlled congress was the least accomplished in decades -

As far as the spending bills - I wish they would have cut funding so that we would being the troops back home, but they did pass the bills... And I thought you guys would be happy with that... apparently not?

Posted by jr565 | October 11, 2007 9:03 PM

ck wrote:
Or maybe it's the ridiculous debt we are now in because we're spending a million a minute on this war...
despite this debt we have the dow at historic highs, unemployment at historic lows, record job growth, and the deficit has dropped to 1.2% of GDP (40 year average for deficits is 2.4% of economy) in last 3 years has went down by 250 billion.
The deficit was projected to be 244 billion but is actually 163 billion and is in fact lower than the average of the last 40 years.
Tax revenue grew by 161 billion to reach 2.568 trillion, highest federal revenues ever recorded.


Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 9:13 PM

The dow isn't the only thing that matters... The economy is not stable right now. The middle class are not gaining any ground. The new jobs being created are not long term well paying jobs... We are slowly but surely losing our economic standing...

And it's nice the budget deficit is closing, but the real debt is still going up now isn't it?

Are you going to keep trying to argue my quotes until you can find one that sticks? You correct yourself on your last error yet?

Posted by jr565 | October 11, 2007 9:32 PM

Didn't see the mention of injured, so have no problem correcting my error.

That being said its not just the dow. Most money in the treasury ever, record low unemployment, 5 years of steady growth, projected surplus by 2012 etc etc etc.

All you're doing is quoting talking points and moving goal posts. Well at least you guys have retired the old "more jobs lost than herbert hoover" chestnut the dems used to be using.

Posted by viking01 | October 11, 2007 9:39 PM

To always scream "the sky is falling" is purely dependent upon one's perspective. Those failing in life or envying success usually see only doom ahead. Those finding success in life or seeking it see new opportunities nearly everywhere.

We've all seen how testy Barbra Streisand became when Celine Dion took her market away. We've seen how Franken sank even lower once he realized success in radio actually takes far more than Leftist whines sponsored by lootings from children's foundations. We've seen how Harry Reid flies (make that lies) off the handle the instant his exhibit A's like Macbeth or Beauchamp turn out simply to be more Jayson Blairs. I know of few who've succeeded more at failure than Reid has. He's fortunate his dupes haven't caught on. Probably never will.

I could suggest to some Lefties that true success is possible knowing full well that their professional victimization status and rebellious pastimes might be woefully endangered by my doing so.

Posted by jr565 | October 11, 2007 9:42 PM

and here's a news article from 10/5/07, last week.


Ression wories eased, employers continue to create staeady jobs and Workers wages grew solidly, historically low interest rates

Average hourly earnings rose to $17.57 in September, up 4.1 percent over the past 12 months. It was the highest annual gain since February.

It's not all rosy (downturn in housing market for example), but these are good solid numbers.

Posted by Conrad | October 11, 2007 9:47 PM

I think congress works too irratonal and puts out too much garbage that is costing us dearly. The congress has turned into a "Tower of Babble" mentality.

Literally it seems that each of our so called representatives has their own agenda and their own babble to go with it.

One of the commentors on a previous thread talked about maggots in a trash can. That is strong language in referring to some of our so called representatives in congress - but it sure is thought provoking.

We are at war in Iraq and Afganistan, have a serious breach at our southern border with illigal immigrants flooding in, we have a serious disintegration of our transportation infrastructure, inflation running rampant (no one talks about that), no energy independance policy put in place, the list of things needing serious attention goes on and on.

And what do we have to look at up there in DC? A bunch of stupid nitwits working 40 hour weeks turning out non-binding resolutions, and babbling into the record all sorts of rediculous retoric!

How can any presidential candidate running today stand in front of the people with a smiling face and say all is well with our country?

One thing I can say about President Bush - I give him credit for putting up with these empty shells we call our representatives.

Sometimes I wonder if DC has grown into a lunatic asylum.

I wonder if we would be better off having congress meeting just one month a year. Let's let the States handle their own problems and get off the federal dole.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 11, 2007 10:48 PM

Hay CK,

How many of those bills you cite have actually become law? How many have passed both houses and have been signed by the President? How many are currently in conference committee awaiting resolution? How many were simply attached to other bills? And how many have both the support of a majority of both of Democrats and Republicans. Also, how many bills have been purposed by the Republicans that have been rejected by the Democrats? Have you bothered to investigate that? How much obstruction has the Democrats committed against Republican in this Congress?

It's real easy to state a number of bills that have passed by a Democrat majority in the House and claim that work is being done, but it's another story to actually list the number of Republican purposed bills that the Democrats have allowed to pass. A lot of the bills you cite never passed the Senate, even with the Democrats in the majority there. There has to be a different reason other than to claim that it's all the Republicans fault. The Democrats share the Legislature, they must also share the blame. People keep claiming that the Republicans are the only ones obstructing the work of Congress, but the truth is both parties are doing it, and they always have been.

None of this is unprecedented, this kind of politics has been going on ever since Congress was created. Do any of you believe that the opposing parties calmly and quickly resolved their differences in the past? Think again! Senator Charles Sumner was nearly beaten to death on the floor of the US Senate by Preston Brooks, a fellow Congressman! Talk about obstruction! This may be business as usual for Congress, but how is any of this helping the people? You know, the ones both parties are suppose to represent.

Posted by Rovin | October 11, 2007 11:20 PM

Rovin - How exactly has this administration protected us? By getting 20,000 some soldiers killed or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or is it by making the number of terror attacks skyrocket worldwide? Or maybe it's the ridiculous debt we are now in because we're spending a million a minute on this war...

Is this the same lefty math used to determine the number of Iraqi dead?

Jr, it's the same way they apply the physics that say fire won't melt steel.

CK, let me ask you this…..”How long has it been since we've been attacked? Do you have a different definition of protection?”

Contrary to your popular belief, this is a stronger and more fiscally vibrant nation that has elected a president, (twice) that put our nations security ahead of all the pathetic whims that you call your party. Instead of tellin' me how bad the world is, try tellin' me how you can make it better. Your BDS mantra is boring me with the now rhetoric of "more terrorist than ever"? At what point after kobar towers, 93 bombing, USS Cole, do you have to put 2+2 together? Those "more terrorist than ever" would have developed in shorter time than it took Saddam to git his neck stretched. Does this reality come hard to consume for the left?

While my father roared onto Guadalcanal beach and had his best two buddies perish in the span of two minutes, do you think he thought "boy, this is really gonna piss off these Japanese, and there's going to be more of them to fight"?

Here in lies your dilemma.......and the democratic party’s. What IS your plan to protect me? So far, I have heard nothing. And that doesn't cut it.

Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 11:53 PM

Ray - Did you investigate it?
And how does if the president signs a bill passed by the house matter in this argument? It doesn't except to say that republicans continue to obstruct and then rail on the dems for doing nothing.
My point was that they ARE passing legislation, I don't care if the senate or the president allowed it to go through, that wasn't the argument --- nice try.

What is unprecedented IS the republican obstructionism. We have NEVER seen the level that we are seeing by this congress' minority party.

Rovin - Maybe you don't pay attention... For the THIRD damn time... The 20,000 (actually about 30,000) is the number of killed AND!! injured american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan! Get it?!?!

You ask how long it's been since we've been attacked... I could have said the same thing after the 1993 WTC bombing... We didn't get attacked for a long time after that... But you guys keep trying to cite this time period as some sort of proof...

Let me put it to you this way since you are apparently extremely selfish and only care if America's "homeland" gets attacked..

Worldwide terrorism has SKYROCKETED! 20,000 (at least) U.S. troops have been killed or severely injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. England, Spain etc.. have had major terror attacks. You don't think that's a problem?

I really couldn't care less if I bore you... You are wrong. Your idea of policy is creating more terrorism than ever before. You can't even adjust your thinking when all hell is breaking loose? You would be a horrible football coach.

Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 11:58 PM

Jr - I'll give you that parts of the economy are doing well. I'll also give you that I'm not an economist. I'm worried that the rich keep getting richer and the poor and middle class seem to be stuck. The gap grows...

I'm worried about the debt (something that is just now coming back down to reality... but why are we giving a free pass to this president and the last congress who got us in so deep?) I'm worried that the real value of most of the middle class and poor in this country is stagnant. I'm worried that we are losing manufacturing jobs left and right, and they are being replaced by service sector jobs which are notoriously unreliable and usually lower paying.

There might be some good things happening - and for that I'm relieved, but I want to see more because I know we can do better.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 12, 2007 2:08 AM

Don't look now, but it seems Iraq is disappearing from the Democratic radar.


The majority of those wounded have returned to action.

Recruiting goals are being met and exceeded. The army is now expanding to 75,000 more by 2010.

This war is being won.

Deny it all you wish, it ain't been pretty, but this war is being won.

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 5:55 AM

ck: This blog would function a lot easier if you guys just said you didn't care how good or bad the dems or republicans are, you will still love republicans and hate dems. It would be a whole lot easier.

Well, I can't speak for anybody else, of course, but I think I've made my utter disdain for the filthy democrats pretty damned clear on many, many occasions in the past.

O' course, I've also had some harsh words for the GOP, including President Bush when I think he's done something boneheaded (amnesty, anyone?). I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

But, just to ensure that there is no misunderstanding:



Posted by Keemo | October 12, 2007 7:35 AM

“US budget deficit drops to lowest level in 5 years”

And Democrats simply have nothing to say,

The Bush administration reported the deficit had trimmed down to about $163 billion in the recent budget year. That’s the lowest amount of red ink in five years, and the president says it represents a below-average 1.2% of the gross domestic product.

After meeting with his economic team,Bush said low taxes can “grow the economy,” and that by being “fiscally responsible,” the budget can be brought “toward balance.”

This year’s figure sliced more than 34% off the previous year’s deficit, which totaled nearly $250 billion.

Our deficit is at historic lows, and yet Democrats said the Bush tax cuts would make it go up.

Continued proof that liberal ideas are a miserable failure in the real world.

Just a splash of "reality" for you ck...

Posted by Keemo | October 12, 2007 7:39 AM

Another fine example of the great accomplishments the Dems are enjoying with their "mandate"...

Aren’t Democrats the ones always moaning about making more friends in the world and not pointlessly pissing off our allies?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Turkey on Thursday recalled its ambassador to the United States and warned of repercussions in a growing dispute over congressional efforts to label the World War I era killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turkish forces “genocide.”

U.S. commanders “believe clearly that access to airfields and roads and so on, in Turkey, would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and the Turks react as strongly as we believe they will,” Gates said.

Turkey, a NATO member, has been a key U.S. ally in the Middle East and a conduit for sending supplies into Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo sent to U.S. forces in Iraq and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by those forces fly through Turkey.

Bagis said no French planes have flown through Turkish airspace since a French Parliament committee passed a similar resolution last year.

Yet another thing to add to the record of supporting sabotaging the troops. The full house could vote on the resolution today, with 226 co-sponsors it confirms to me no common sense exists in the House. Hopefully the Turks will understand what’s going on here.

Posted by Rovin | October 12, 2007 7:43 AM

Posted by ck | October 11, 2007 11:53 PM

"Worldwide terrorism has SKYROCKETED! 20,000 (at least) U.S. troops have been killed or severely injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. England, Spain etc.. have had major terror attacks. You don't think that's a problem?"

Ck and others seem to imply that we (Americans) are responsible for this propagation of "worldwide terrorism" with out applying the reality that over 3000 people (men women, children) died on 9/11 at the hands of an ideology that does not care if this was a "problem".

Let's put this into historical perspective:
When Germany marched into Poland in 1939---- 66,000 dead---133,700 wounded

(One would wonder if the citizens of Poland thought this was a "problem".)
When Germany marched into France in 1940-----360,000 dead or wounded

(Can we say the French thought this was a "problem"?)

Can we say that the Polish and the French thought this "terrorism was SKYROCKETING"?

Do you think that today's Muslim fanatics in the Middle East (that have claimed their mission in life is to exterminate the west), care how many die to accomplish their goals? There are many Americans here that remember the horrors of WW2 where millions perished because we refused to see the "skyrocketing terrorism" that was created by a similar ideology of worldwide dominance that had no respect for life. Those who ignore these historical facts may very well be damned to the repetition of denial.

Are we (Americans) contributing to this escalation of terrorism? Undoubtedly. When we landed at Normandy and the French fought back, was the American GI escalating terrorism? YOU BET THEY WERE!

The difference here CK, is (I believe) you think that this is somehow our fault that this "escalation of terrorism" has evolved. I DO NOT.

It is the very respect for the sanctity of life that the American soldier is willing to die for against these un-uniformed fanatics whose soul purpose is to end your life and mine. Those who think that the state of this war is proportionate to "skyrocketing terrorism" need only to maintain the posture of appeasement and defeatism that has engulfed the mindless children who listen to their professors and some of our "leaders" that believe this is the "evil American's" fault, have not properly studied and continue to ignore our history. While many that remember the horrors of the past do not plan to see it repeated.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 12, 2007 7:45 AM

RE: docjim505 (October 12, 2007 5:55 AM)

WRT your clarification for ck, I couldn't agree more. The Democrats couldn't possibly get my support at this point and would need years of rehab for me to consider it a viable option. The Republicans could get my support but it isn't guaranteed.

Posted by Keemo | October 12, 2007 7:55 AM

One more article for you ck...


A quick peak...

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Here's how the Democrats “drained the swamp” and ended the Republicans’ “culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill: Roll Call recently reported that three top Democrats on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee got more than $100 million in earmarks for clients of the PMA Group, an Arlington-based lobbying shop run by their former chiefs of staff.

The earmark recipients coincidentally (we are supposed to believe) donated $542,350 during the first half of this year to the ethically challenged trio — Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind. This cozy arrangement is apparently OK under the House’s new ethics rules. “Unless you can demonstrate a quid pro quo, it’s hard to prove campaign contributions were made to yield an earmark,” Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told The Examiner.

Democrats "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION" mandate.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 12, 2007 8:14 AM

Well Keemo, sounds like the Democrat Congress is getting something done . . . as in stealing bucket full of money from the taxpayers.

Coupling Feinstein steering defense dollars to her husband's company, it's laughable how the absolutely worthless Democrat Party whines about how much the war is costing.

It'd probably cost us half as much, if the Democrats would just return the money they've stolen from us.

Posted by chaos | October 12, 2007 8:41 AM

In twelve months cycloptichorn and his deluded comrades will be lamenting the choice of yet another horrible candidate, a horribly-run campaign, and desperately spewing excuse after excuse for why they lost again until they find one that manages to soothe their egos enough.

In a year the President will have stolen Iraq out from under the Democrats as an issue just as he did in 2004, the inability of the Democratic Congress to acknowledge reality on any number of issues and consequently compromise with the GOP will begin to tell, and finally the Democrats will find themselves saddled yet again with an eminently unelectable candidate. Every Democrat should cringe at the thought of Hillary Clinton standing opposite any of the Republican front-runners at a debate. Even John McCain would mop the floor with her.

If the Democrats were interested in being intelligent for once, they'd nominate Barack Obama. But you can't be a victim when you win. That's why the Democratic congress has failed. You can't be the victim when you're in charge. Victimization is the entire philosophical underpinning of the modern Democratic party. You (the American people) are being victimized by X and we must use the State to rectify it! We too are being victimized by the nasty GOP who is also ultimately responsible for your victimization!

And so Democrats won in 2006 and have accomplished nothing, because victims who wallow in their victimization aren't going to provide leadership. You can't be a leader and a victim at the same time. The Dems haven't figured it out, and they won't, and it will doom them. Just read cycloptichorn's hilarious fantasies about someday - I thought it was supposed to be 2006, not it's 2008, when "America will be taken back" (an ominously authoritarian phrase, typical of the soft fascism that pervades modern Leftism).

Why don't you just admit that what you really mean is "never," cycloptichorn, because you can't be a victim and be in charge at the same time. Leftards are so emotionally dependent on their self-image as repressed fighters for all that is good that when they get the opportunity to show that they can get the job done, they'd rather do nothing and remain with their security blanket of calling themselves the victim and arbitrarily claiming the mantle of representing all victims everywhere of the evils of whatever MoveOn.org told them to condemn today.

Posted by jr565 | October 12, 2007 1:58 PM

ck wrote:
"Worldwide terrorism has SKYROCKETED! 20,000 (at least) U.S. troops have been killed or severely injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. England, Spain etc.. have had major terror attacks. You don't think that's a problem?"

One problem that you and your ilk have is assigning one causus belli to the increase in terrorism, namely our invasion of IRaq. But lets go back to when Osama waged jihad against the US. What was the reason? It was becuase we had troops in SA because we needed to contain Iraq, which of course was done by Clinton/Gore. Now, if you want to blame Al Qaeda's actions on single policies, then our containment of Iraq was what led to 9/11. And wasn't it the left saying we have to continue containing Iraq, as opposed to invading Iraq. Wouldnt you say then, based on your logic, that our desire to avoid war, led to an increase in terrorism and which caused 9/11? Containment caused 9/11 and led to an increase in terrorism.

Of course, in the real world things aren't nearly so simple. Yes Osama bin Laden used that as his justification to wage war with the US, and yes 9/11 did occur, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have contained Iraq, merely that OBL and his jihadis could use our containment as one of the grievances they would use to wage the war against us.

are you willing to suggest that every terrorist action is traced directly to iraq and only iraq? What about our invasion of afghanistan, "The good war". Not a single jihadist anywhere, even in Afghanistan, is using afghanistan as a rallying cry. No jihadi is using Israel as a rallying cry, no jihadi is uing say the latest outrage of the day (ie flushing of korans, cartoons depicting the prophet in a bad light)as a rallying cry. Its pretty damn simplistic of you, merely because you have a problem with the Iraq war, to suggest that all terrorist attacks around the world are atrribuatble to only one event. I mean, OBL had enough grievances against us to wage an attack against the WTC prior to us invading Iraq, did all those other grievances suddenly go by the wayside for all jihadis around the world are simply attacking because of our invasion of Iraq. Seems to me if all those jihadis are on the same page and are making attacks worldwide at different target over a single event,namely Iraq, that your side can't really call it a diversion on the war on terror. But I digress.

However, there has been an uptick in terror due to our invasion of Iraq, but its not because our invasion is wrong or right, its because when you wage a war, the other side fights back. If this were a tug of war and we are pulling very hard on our side, the other side has to pull very hard back or gets knocked out. So, by us waging a war against AL Qaeda, they will similarly wage a war against us using whatever tools they have on hand. This is what happens in wars. One side is not completely complacent and lets the other side walk all over them. If there is an action there will be a reaction.
What you're really arguing is we should never have waged war against Al Qaeda in the first place, either in IRaq OR afghanistan. OTherwise, you'd have to accept that whatever front we fight them on they will fight us back, thus increasing terrorist attacks. It's not rocket science.
Of course, as already stated, when we werne't on the ground in afghanistan and Iraq, and there was peace and containment, we still had 9/11 and khobar towers etc.. Meaning Al Qaeda was still fighting us and waging war against us, thus increasing terrorism.

So tell us how you would plan to fight al qaeda in the "real war on terror" without them fighting back, thus increasing terorrism, and explain also how us not fighting al qaeda will someone decrease Al Qaeda's strength, or desire to attack us?

Posted by jr565 | October 12, 2007 2:34 PM

Also what might increase terrorism is successful terrorist attacks. For example, do you think after 9/11 was carried out more or less jihadists decided to fight the great satan. I'd be willing to bet that if you checked the NIE it would say that by carrying out a successful attack Al Qaeda increased its numbers a hundred fold, and galvanized thousands of jihadis around the world and in the ME (hundreds of thousands, millions?)Because nothing succeeds like success.
Likewise, when Al Qaeda targets Spain and actually impacts on the election and gets them to change leaders, do you think that would then increase or terrorism or decrease terrorism going forward. I could be wrong, but i would think that such an attack would only increase the probability of more similar attacks because those are the attacks that succeeded in getting the enemy to change their policies, and what was successful once would be successful again.

The thing you dont seem to grasp is that we're in a war against an enemy who's most effective weapon is terrorism, and thus that is what they will use against us. And to engage them in battle will mean they will use that weapon against us whereever they can because they don't want us to defeat them. But by the same token if we disenage they, being terrorists, will still use those same weapons against us, even if we pretend there is no war, because they are trying to cause effects and outcomes that will be beneficial to their cause.

If it were a boxing match and your opponent got in a few shots in the opening round, would your argument be you shouldn't hit back? if you decided to not hit back, would that mean that your opponent would cease to hit you, or would he, wanting to win, simply hit you harder trying to get the knockout. Similarly suppose you did hit back, and get in some powerhouse shots and sent him back against the ropes. if out of desperation your oppponent tries to punch back, would you argue that you are to blame for being hit hard by your opponent, and the best course of action is to withdraw, because by engaging the enemy you caused him to throw more punches?

Post a comment