Now, here’s a Democrat who makes sense
I like Joe Donnelly’s style.
Who’s Joe Donnelly? A very freshman US Congressman from Indiana, one of the Blue Dog Democrats (in fact, being a freshman, Donnelly might better be called a “blue pup”–and no, I didn’t make the term up, as you’ll see if you follow the link).
Donnelly isn’t all that pleased with Nancy Pelosi. Nor is he–despite his “pup” status–all that awed by Ms. Speaker:
If Pelosi “goes too far one way or another, we’re not coming back,” Donnelly says. He sees his party’s victory in the November elections as less an endorsement of its agenda than a rejection of Republican rule: “People just got real tired of this bunch, and they fired them.”
It turns out that there are thirty Blue Dogs in the House right now. And it also turns out that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans there by a margin of thirty-one. So you don’t need to be a math wizard to see that those Blue Dogs are the key to the whole thing for the Democrats.
In recent decades it seems that, more and more, each party’s leaders tend to come from the more extreme wings of their respective parties. And it’s the nature of such politicians to look on any victory as a mandate for their point of view. But–as I’ve said before–ignore the law of thirds at your peril.
Pelosi may be in the act of making the Newt Gingrich error. Coming on so strong against whatever plan Bush announces for Iraq might not only be counterproductive in terms of the war itself, and the world’s perception of our will and our ability to keep our word–but it may even be counterproductive in terms of what Pelosi really seems to care about, victory for the Democrats in ’08.
I’ll let Donnelly, no Bush sycophant (Donnelly refers to the war in Iraq as a “disaster”), have the last word on this one:
[Donnelly] doesn’t support the fixed timetable for withdrawal proposed by Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha that Pelosi, 66, has endorsed. Instead, like Bush, he opposes any withdrawal until Iraq is “stabilized.”
“My goal is to help the president,” he said in an interview. “I am not going to rip him to shreds. If he does a better job, then our soldiers can be more successful, Iraq can be stabilized and our troops can come home.”
Works for me.
HSVL: The Democrats (and a growing number of Republicans) don’t oppose Bush’s leadership on Iraq out of spite. They oppose it because he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing!
But:
1) A growing number of Democrats don’t oppose Bush’s leadership, period, as neo’s post makes clear.
2) Those who do, oppose it out of:
a) partisanship and lust for power;
b) frightened, addled defeatism;
c) spite.
3) While Bush has certainly made mistakes, he at least does have a clue what he’s doing, while the Democrats clearly haven’t a clue what they want to do (other than cut-and-run).
Wow. A Democrat who doesn’t sound like he’s pulling for the Islamofascists and rooting for us to lose. I salute thee, sir.
Just take a look at:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Cafferty-Iraq-Surge.mov
Enough said.
—
Hey, Rodney: still masturbating to the Daniel Pearl beheading video?
I’ll second holmes’s reaction. At least he sounds like he wants us to win.
As you say, neo, “Works for me.”
Ellswoth won in my district here in Indiana and he said the same kind of thing when he was running. I wonder how these guys will vote if Kennedy calls for surrender and retreat?
But he is right about not being back. Indiana is a conservative state. These folks did not vote for Pelosi. That is just not who they are.
How heartening to hear about Donnelly and his stance with Bush on Iraq. Thanks for calling attention to him, as I will keep an eye out for his name in the news going forward.
Guys like him give me heart: There are principled politicians.
Whether Republican, Democrat, or some third-party: We need more people of principle in the government.
Could it be said that this Joe Donnelly is a Democratic veneer for the annihilation of the Democrats? Just a thought.
Just because he calls the war a disaster doesnt mean he isn’t a syncophant. He can just blame it on those crummy generals and dumb ex- Sec. of Defense and their losing strategy, like Bush did.He is obviously terrified of being called a surrender monkey but fools like that will turn with the tide,and believe me , it is turning.Next week he will be calling for impeachment.Neo will be grasping for some new straw.
I hope these new Democrats are actually what they appear to be. Of course, any newly-elected member of either Party needs to be something of a centrist to survive…
trout: He is obviously terrified of being called a surrender monkey but fools like that will turn with the tide,and believe me , it is turning.
The fish ain’t fraid a no “surrender monkey” label, though, is he? Because the fish has had a long time to get used to it. In fact, for tired old lefties like fish, still clinging for all they’re worth to a left-over, refried Marxism, the surrender of America and of the evil, capitalist West is all he’s got to hope for. Kind of sad to see him pleading for someone else to “believe”.
good on Donnely. He seems to be one of the few Democrats who makes sense and is mature.
He’s also a strategic genious compared to Pelosi, et. al. “W f’d it up, but we’ll fix it up the best we can” will get them wayyyy more votes than “retreat!” Especially from the military.
It would be an interesting political trend if it turns out that the mandate of the last mid-term election was a radical move to the center, rather than towards the far left. The re-election of now independent Senator Joe Liebermann was heartening in this respect. Perhaps we need to start talking about a new movement called “radical centerism” and add purple to the political map along with red and blue. Hats off to “blue dog” Rep. Donnelly for refusing to be a Pelosi “lap dog”.
Sally is so cute when she’s mad.Did you ever see Robert Mc Namara in The Fog of War?Did you notice that look in his eyes? Thats from having so many sacrifices on your soul.He didn’t blame Walter Conkrite. By the way, have you all located Jamil Hussein yet?
It’s funny when someone like Troutsky tries to analyze a conflict by merely ripping on one side of it. If he could post any analysis which shows he actually knows anything about the Jihadist, or the situation in Iraq itself (as opposed to the political situation regarding Iraq in Washington, or the clichéd regurgitations of other ‘net pundits), I’d be curious to see it. There might be some glimmer of original thought there, instead of the mere hyperventilation he chooses to engage in here.
Then again, if it doesn’t involve the names Bush, Cheaney, Rumsfeld, or the term “neocon”, do we really think he bothered to research it?
So, essentially, he has no plans and no ideas.
I don’t suppose the fact that most of(that is, all, or perhaps 98%) our military experts and officials say the ‘surge’ won’t do any good, and the fact that it’s been done twice and failed, has any impact on your thinking? I merely ask for information.
Thats from having so many sacrifices on your soul.
Isn’t it funny hearing a surrender monkey talking about “sacrifices on your soul”? If the fish had a soul, he would know what that feels like.
Speaking about new members of Congress, do not miss yesrerday post in Augean Stables on Keith Ellison’s swearing in on Jefferson’s copy of the Quran. It shows what exactly Jeffersonian approach to external policy was and have a striking semblance with the cuurent siuation.
Troutsky, m’boy, you’ve been munching too much refried Marxism—it’s starting to give you brainburn.
(“Refried Marxism”—I love it! Sally, with your permission, I’m stealing that!)
Why are you still here, anyway? Why aren’t you off fighting with your Jihadi brothers?
” So, essentially, he has no plans and no ideas.”
Whether or not that’s true – and personally, in all due respect, I think that statement is an unkind snark based on the tiny snippet quoted here and not on any real knowledge of what he does or doesn’t know – the point is that he’s not trying to score cheap political points by simply appealing to the zeitgeist of failure. And he says he’s willing to analyze the results of the upcoming efforts by the effect on Iraq itself e.g. stabilization.
In short, he’s publicly stating that he wants to work in a positive manner, rather than a negative one. The fact that this is a Democrat saying that in regards to a Republican is, in my mind, a net positive. And it’s something to be encouraged in our elected representatives.
It’s not simply that he has a ‘positive’ atittude who is willing to ‘work with’ the president, whatever those things mean. Rather, he has publicly allied himself with a failing and dangerous policy.
The Democrats (and a growing number of Republicans) don’t oppose Bush’s leadership on Iraq out of spite. They oppose it because he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing! Up until January 3, Bush had an almost entirely free hand with Congress to do in Iraq as he wished. The fact is, he managed to fail at almost all times when it was possible to fail. If Rep. Donnelly wants to keep that up, he should say so, and not try to act as if poor Mr. Bush was going to put everything right if it weren’t for those meddling kids.
HLVS:
Now what kind of initials are the above? stands for Haven’t Lived Very Smartly?
Also, remember that going from a very low number to a low number can be a huge percentage gain…and the names of those Republicans are?
I rather like those commentators, left, right, and center who are functionally innumerate…but man, do they know the present and future.
They oppose it because he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing! Up until January 3,
That would mean the Democrats and their allies on the Left would first have to oppose themselves.
“and the names of those Republicans are?”
Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Richard Lugar etc. etc.
“Also, remember that going from a very low number to a low number can be a huge percentage gain…”
“That would mean the Democrats and their allies on the Left would first have to oppose themselves”
What on earth are you two talking about?
HLVS:
In my case, I mean that you are functionally illiterate when talking numerical matters.
Clear enough?
I understand that, but I still don’t see your factual point.
In my case, the Democrats are obviously incompetent and without a clue on COIN operations, so they to be honest to their stated principles, must hit themselves first.