Reid to Iraqis: do as I say, not as I do
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has presided over a legislature that so far has done very little that the Democrats set out to do when they won the 2006 election, except to further political squabbling. The country remains bitterly divided on most issues, and Congress’s approval rating reflects the extreme dissatisfaction most Americans feel for that body.
With that background, you’d think Reid would cut the fledgling Iraqi government a bit of slack. But no. In his haste to deplore the surge before it has a chance to truly get underway, Reid made the following extraordinary statement:
The surge (in troops) was supposed to provide Iraq political leaders the space to make the compromises necessary to unite this nation. It hasn’t happened, despite the bravery of our troops.
I can’t resist pointing out the irony of Reid’s expectations for the Iraqis. In an atmosphere of internecine violence there (much of it perpetrated by outsiders), the country’s lack of a democratic tradition of compromise, and the legacy of decades of torture and a police state, Reid faults that government for its failure to accomplish in just a few weeks of “surge” exactly what he and most other politicians in Washington—under far less pressure and strife—have also failed to do: make the compromises necessary to unite the nation.
Physician Reid, heal thyself.
*laugh* Nice one, Neo!
I’m reminded, a bit, of the minor brouhaha we had two months’ back, when Iraqi parliament announced that it intended to take two months off during the summer, and U.S. lawmakers were outraged. (As if U.S. lawmakers were known for not taking vacations, or something.)
So far, our 110th Congress has shown mostly that it can get shriller and shriller, not that it can get anything of substance done. I wish ’em luck in their 2008 campaigns; they’ll have a hard time persuading the American people that they’ve accomplished anything.
(On the other hand, as a citizen of the state that keeps sending John Kerry and Ted Kennedy back to the U.S. Senate, perhaps I should shut up.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Wow,
The Senate Republicans block any meaningful legislation passing, then accuse the Democrats of do nothingism.
The only people fooled by this stunt are the ones who want to be fooled.
Congress’ approval rating 14%? I’m surprised it is that high. Where do they find these corrupt cretins?
They say people get the government they deserve, but I would truly hate to believe that, in the case of the US Congress. Who is so terrible as to deserve them?
Yes, Neo, the democrat party–leaders of the most poorly-rated Congress in history–elected to “end the culture of corruption” and “reform the earmark process” has failed miserably in its nearly seven months of “work”.
The PorkBusters website lists the “honorable” Mr. Reid as scoring a miserable 16.6 on their Pork Index, meaning he’s voted for reform exactly twice in the last 3 years. Only two democrats scored above 50. Of course, Republicans are not blameless either, but at least their average is 16 points better.
If only our Congress performed like our troops…
Who is so terrible as to deserve them?
The people that believed the Iraqis deserved Saddam cause they wouldn’t “rise up”.
Reid understands exactly the problem of Iraqi politics, because he has done everything he could personally to break the political process here in the US. He knows and expects failure and delay in Iraq, because he knows just what a little bit of subversion could do here in the US without execution squads and intimidation. HIs allies in Iraq can certainly provide more successes faster than Reid could expect of his fellow Democrats, in the field of obstruction, sabotage, and deception.
People like A know exactly that it is the Democrat method to block progress and then blame the victim. This has been a staple of Leftist techniques for ages.
Neo writes:
“Reid faults that government for its failure to accomplish in just a few weeks of “surge” exactly what he and most other politicians in Washington–under far less pressure and strife–have also failed to do: make the compromises necessary to unite the nation.”
Whenever I read stuff like this I always think back to Dick Cheney’s comment after the Supreme Court decided the 200 election:
“From the very day we walked in the building, a notion of sort of a restrained presidency because it was such a close election, that lasted maybe thirty seconds. It was not contemplated for any length of time. We had an agenda, we ran on that agenda, we won the election – full speed ahead.”
If the country is not united, shouldn’t the administration and party who wielded virtually unchecked power for 6 years bear a significant share of the responsibility for that?
“Full speed ahead”
I think what Unknown Baby meant to say is the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the State Supreme Court of Florida couldn’t decide the 2000(not 200) election.
Unknown and alphie…
That’s just it, isn’t it? What I heard after the 2000 election wasn’t that Bush should try to find the middle. What I heard is that he ought to do what the Democrats wanted him to do.
That’s sort of a betrayal of the people who did vote for him, isn’t it? And it’s not *compromise* it’s capitulation.
Not the same, those two things.
And if Republicans are obstructionist now, weren’t the Democrats supposed to be attempting to work with them before rather than be obstructionist? I could have missed it, but it seems a bit like it’s “Hey, we won. We get *our* way now.” Which isn’t compromise either. But I suppose when your side is being obstructionist, that’s okay.
And Neo’s point remains.
If this is what happens in *our* government. What sort of hubris does it take Reid to make demands of the Iraqi government that he can’t manage in his own?
It’s not reasonable to demand that people without a tradition of compromise and democratic process suddenly pull political unity out of their a**es or else.
And it’s hypocritical to make that unreasonable demand when Democrats have spent the last six years building credibility with their base by opposing anything and everything the administration has tried to do. Even if they are now whining about Republicans not automatically deferring to them as though they shouldn’t have to work to get a majority on anything whatsoever.
But Reid can still stand up with a straight face and demand that Iraqis be perfect.
Or else.
I distinctly remember a State of the Union address in which the President apologized to the country for not being able to reform Social Security, and then seeing the entire democrat side of the Congress stand to applaud themselves for being obstructionist.
And they have the utter gall to criticize Iraqis. It’s no wonder their approval rating is so low.
I wouldn’t call handing trillions of Social Secuirty dollars over to his pals on Wall Street to “manage” reforming it, stumbley.
I’d call it looting it.
kuna.net.kwJapan extends Iraq air support mission until July 2008
http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1761339&Language=en
Guess Japan doesn’t buy into all that “we’ve already lost” crap coming from Alpo, Unknown Baby, Buffalo Bob, and Dingy Harry.
Whoops. Buffalo Tom. Not that there’s much difference between Tom and Howdy’s sidekick.
What are you saying, Lee?
Looks like Japan pulled their ground troops out of Iraq and redeployed them to Kuwait.
They did indeed listen to the Dems and 77% of Americans.
Actually, Alpo, if you read the article(which you obviously didn’t), they have been stationed at Ali Al-Salem airport in western Kuwait since January, 2004, when they first deployed.
prospect.org***
Synova, I’m not sure what you were hearing back then, but Cheney clearly said “Full speed ahead.” That hardly sounds like an invitation for consensus building to me.
In fact, this Administration has been so demonstrably uninterested in any form of coalition-building whatsoever, and so famously ignores and demonizes those with differing views (your potential compromisers) it hardly bears repeating here.
And make no mistake, far from being a sign of a leader of conviction, immune to politics, this behavior has been very deliberate political strategy.
Ezra Klein puts it quite nicely:
“Hastert and DeLay’s insight,” wrote Schmitt, “seems to be that a bill that gets 218 votes in the House is just as much the law as one that gets 430. And for every vote they add on to the necessary minimum majority, they might have to compromise in some unnecessary way, whether with Democrats or their own fiscal conservatives. In other words, they see every vote over a bare majority as the equivalent of leaving money on the table or overbidding in an auction.”
This was a radical shift. It used to be that the parties sought consensus, seeking safety in popularity. If the opposition had bought into your bill, they couldn’t campaign against it. What the Republican Party, under the leadership of Bush and Rove, realized, was that they didn’t have to campaign on their legislation. They could campaign on the perfidy of the opposition.
And if that was to be your strategy, there was no sense in letting the other party sign onto your legislation — that would actually undermine your electoral appeal. So bills that could have garnered Democratic votes were twisted until no Democrat could, in good conscience, say “aye.” Perhaps the best example of this strategy was the Department of Homeland Security, a Democratic idea that the White House first opposed, and then inserted a union-busting provision into, so Democrats had to fight against a broadly popular idea that they, at base, supported. That bill could have passed with overwhelming support. It was a conscious decision to make it a partisan issue so it could be used as a cudgel in the 2002 elections.
The point, alphie, you insignificant little fraction of a man, was that the democrat party did not even attempt to reform an entitlement that even they admit is in trouble. Instead, they applauded themselves for doing nothing at all, and did nothing simply for political advantage–ignoring those who had elected them to address issues of importance to the country, and also ignoring one of their main constituencies, the African-American community. For instance, one needs to be 67 to be fully vested in Social Security these days. The average African-American male dies before age 67–and SS benefits don’t go to survivors. How’s that for fair?
But since, like Pooh, you are a creature of very little brain, these points elude you.
UB, I doubt anything that claims a “used to be.” Parties sought consensus? Wanna back that up? In what reality?
What I recall was that Bush ran as a moderate and in nearly any qualitative way was a moderate.
The extreme anti-Bush hysteria began before he’d done a single solitary thing in office. It *began* before he even took office.
It began when Gore didn’t manage to recount himself to victory. All the time and suspense waiting for a final outcome added up to a build up of tension and stress. And when it broke we had reports in the media about people having to get therapy to deal with the trauma.
It started before homeland security. Before 9-11 and any prospect whatsoever of war or armed conflict of any kind. It started before Bush even took office.
People’s long term memory problems astound me.
And stumbly is right.
From the get-go it was political suicide for any Democrat to even appear to be cooperating with Bush. For a short time after 9-11 they put that aside but it didn’t last.
It was going on *before* 9-11 and any war and it was returned to in short order.
The Democrats, for 6 years, (with the exception of directly post 9-11), have had a political *mandate* from their base to maintain a strict, what my mother would term “pouty” attitude of adolescent resistance.
They couldn’t get the majority and *appearing* to cooperate with Bush was a political death knell. What was left was deliberately doing nothing at all about anything at all. The plan was sitting on their hands and claiming nothing was their fault.
Criticism couldn’t even be *constructive* because it would imply support, for example, for the war. Suggest how to win? No way. Explain how we’ve already lost (starting late in 2003) and how it’s all Bush’s fault. Oh, that works fine.
And Reid is still doing it. Claiming failure. Claiming defeat. Because he *still* can’t do anything that can be twisted in a way that is interpreted as support without pissing off his “base” which has been a single note chorus since before Bush took office.
UB: Do you see how even the story of Klein’s you cite undermines your own post:
“a Democratic idea that the White House first opposed, and then inserted a union-busting provision into, so Democrats had to fight against a broadly popular idea that they, at base, supported. That bill could have passed with overwhelming support. It was a conscious decision to make it a partisan issue so it could be used as a cudgel in the 2002 elections.”
So, an idea that the democrat party “supported,” that “could have passed with overwhelming support” was tabled because the dems couldn’t bear alienating their base? And this was a Republican “partisan issue?” Let me get this straight: something that would have been good for the country, that enjoyed wide popular support had to be “fought” because of political reasons?
Contrast that with the Presiden’t support of the immigration “reform” bill, which cost him plenty with the Republican base. Because of principle–something the dems sorely lack–he was willing to alienate his base for something he believed in. I personally am glad that the immigration bill failed; it was flawed and amounted to granting amnesty to criminals…but at least the President did what he thought was right.
And you ask why we call the dems obstructionist.
Stumbley,
The only people who said Social Security wass in trouble were the Wall Street firms that bankrolled the propaganda effort and their pet politicians who barked out the message for them.
Bush was crushed when he tried to loot Social Security, a very popular, well-run and solvent government program, remember?
Completely shut down.
It’s never too early for you guys to begin the revision of history, eh?
senate.govAlpo,
Only the Wall Street firms, huh?
Both Democrats and Republicans recognize the problem and the need to fix the program. In 1999, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said “Fixing Social Security is an urgent priority. It ought to be at the top of both parties’ agendas.” Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), the ranking Democrat member on the Senate Budget Committee, recently reiterated Senator Dorgan’s comments and said “It is time to address this problem. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened.”
http://www.senate.gov/~chambliss/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=098290aa-802a-23ad-4859-ab154e69e1bf&CFID=26232063&CFTOKEN=47310546
Who’s engaged in “revisionist history”, Alpo?
Not all political pets are Republican, Lee.
From the shocking link on the Social Security “crisis:”
“Furthermore, the Social Security Administration’s trustees project that by 2041, Social Security’s trust funds will be depleted, and the program will not be able to pay all its promised benefits. ”
Ooh, 2041!
That number is now up to around 2048 now, btw.
I can’t even imagine the rule set people use to come to the conclusions that Social Security is in trouble, and Iraq is going great.
Other than one that tries to maximize corporate welfare, of course.
According to the 2005 Social Security Trustees’ Report, beginning in 2017, there will not be enough money coming into the system to pay full benefits..
The first half of the sentence you cherry-picked out, loser.
So, it’s not a problem because by 2041 you’ll be, what, dead? It’s not a problem if it doesn’t affect you, huh?
Haha, Lee,
“Cherry-picked?”
What happens in 2017?
The Social Security admin starts cashing in the trillions of dollars in bonds they’ve been setting aside for the day that revenues fall short of benefits paid out.
And as I’m well versed in Wall Street’s propaganda, let me move our discussion along several steps:
1. The bonds are worthless!
2. They are as good as the bonds Bush and his corporate pals are funding the Iraq fiasco with($150 billion worth this year alone).
3. But future generations won’t honor them!
4. So what, beginning in 2017, there is no fiscal cliff, benefit recipients will still get 99.9% of their benefits that year, and they will slowly decline in the years following until the year 2075, where they will bottom out at around 75% of promised benefits.
And because SS benefits rise faster than inflation, 75% of promised benefits then will still be larger, in constant dollars, than current benefits.
5. But, but…we need Wall Street to set up over 100 million private retirement accounts so they can charge a fee for investing our SS money in…government bonds!
6. *sigh*
Sources, Alpo?
No “trust fund”, no “bonds”, it’s a pay-as-you-go system. Meaning the ss taxes you and I pay in today go directly to beneficiaries today.
As you know, the major source of funding for Social Security is the payroll tax paid by today’s workers, including federal employees and members of Congress. In 1950, almost a decade after the Social Security program was created, 16 workers paid into Social Security to support one beneficiary. Today, there are about three workers for every retiree, and when workers entering the work force today retire, there will be only two.
So, which two workers will have to pay enough inflation adjusted taxes for you to receive your comfortable 75% ss benefit? Your son and daughter?
All social security payments go into and are paid from the general fund,for any one to think its in Al Gores lock box will believe any thing.G.W. wanted to allow the single payee to invest (if they so choosed) with their own money that would not be paid in,but could withhold for this purpose.How then is this G.W. raiding social security.One would think that this Ponzi scheme is in its death throws as we speek, yet some here would deny this for political gain sickens me.Lee your assesment is spot on,but falling on deaf ears.
Stumbley – Do you think Bush would have supported the immigration bill if Dems had inserted an amendment linking its passage to funding of stem-cell research?
Synova, please. I’ll quote Dick once more:
“From the very day we walked in the building, a notion of sort of a restrained presidency because it was such a close election, that lasted maybe thirty seconds. It was not contemplated for any length of time. We had an agenda, we ran on that agenda, we won the election – full speed ahead.”
Cheney is declaring unequivocally that despite losing the popular vote, they took an “unrestrained” “full speed ahead” approach with their agenda, which can only be counted as among the most conservative in history.
They had pliant majorities in both houses of Congress and dominated the Supreme Court as well, so how can you possibly blame Democrats for not hopping on board with that agenda?
Then you write:
“What I recall was that Bush ran as a moderate and in nearly any qualitative way was a moderate.”
I’m curious about your use of the past tense here, “Bush was a moderate.” Where on the political spectrum do you think Bush falls now?
A little personal anecdote for those who still believe in the Ponzi scheme of Social Security:
My grandfather received Social Security benefits for 33 years, from age 66 until his death at 99 1/2, thousands upon thousands of dollars.
He never paid a dime in Social Security tax, because he was of SS age when the program began.
So who paid for him? His children and grandchildren, that’s who…and the deferred payment scheme is still in place, but with fewer payers and more payees. Keep the faith, alphie. Either your benefits will be drastically cut, or you’ll have to pay tax on them just to keep the system solvent when it’s time for you to retire. Hope SS is not your only income.
You sorry fool.
“Stumbley – Do you think Bush would have supported the immigration bill if Dems had inserted an amendment linking its passage to funding of stem-cell research?”
No, because then it’s not an immigration bill, is it?
Do you think the dems would support funding an invasion of Iran if an amendment were inserted linking its passage to funding of stem-cell research, or one that legalized gay marriage?
Putz.
centeroncongress.orgStumbley wrote:
“No, because then it’s not an immigration bill, is it?”
Yes it would definitely still be an immigration bill, with a rider attached.
Don’t say you never learned anything about your government from The Unknown Blogger. 🙂
UB:
Yes, of course it would be an immigration bill with a rider attached–a rider making it impossible for it to pass as submitted. Much like my hypothetical Iran invasion bill. I got yours, did you get mine?
You’re still a putz.
“I’m curious about your use of the past tense here, “Bush was a moderate.” Where on the political spectrum do you think Bush falls now?”
I don’t know. He’s quite moderate in many ways. I don’t think he’s changed his mind about things much.
Even on social issues the things he gets hammered for, such as gay rights, are pretty much identical to what Kerry (for example) was saying when he ran for president in 2004.
Do you think that he’s as uber conservative as he’s portrayed? Objectively I don’t think that can be supported. I think it’s a straw-man boogie-man that no one questions.
And I wasn’t saying that Bush tried to compromise once he was in office. What I was saying was that even before he took office, walked through that door, the BDS was in full swing. If it’s clear that the other side is not willing to work with you even before you walk through that door, what is the point?
In some ways I blame Gore for being the ultimate sore loser. The election was closer than any margin of error. In a sense it was almost chance who won and who lost. Well that sucks, doesn’t it. But by not accepting the count and by repeatedly demanding recounts Gore rather deliberately undermined public confidence in the process… a public confidence that is probably more important than who gets to be president this time around. We don’t believe in *people* we believe in the democratic system.
Or we used to.
Even when people more or less knew that the election process was imperfect, that there were local problems with polls, with intimidation or voting by the dead, we still knew the process was more important, ultimately, than which yahoo got to be the big-wig.
And suddenly it was life and death. And it went on and on. And on. A chad wasn’t popped out but that’s okay. An overseas military ballot wasn’t postmarked… throw it away! And by the time it was over and the “selected not elected” rhetoric began and the news reports about people so depressed and despondent they needed to see a shrink began, we’d worked ourselves into something very strange, hadn’t we.
Before he walked through that door.
The only thing Unk cares about is Cheney. I didn’t know Cheney motivated Unk that much, but I suppose the Dark Lord’s powers are unknown to many.
So who paid for him? His children and grandchildren, that’s who…and the deferred payment scheme is still in place, but with fewer payers and more payees.
It’s one of those regular pyramid schemes. It is setup in a way that the future generation pays for the current, but given that demographics are going down and politicians raid the SS net, it is more or less a political money machine that the Left doesn’t want to change precisely because it is a source of money they can use against the military faction.
forbes.com“–a rider making it impossible for it to pass as submitted.
…and thus allowing the party who attached the rider to paint the other party as “obstructing” the original bill.
Bravo, Stumbley. This is the gist of Klien’s argument above.
Interestingly, on Monday the Senate compromised on a similar provision to the 9/11 bill, at the behest of none other than – wait for it – Harry Reid. Think he’ll get any props around here for his willingness to compromise?
Senate drops support for unionization of airport screeners
By STEPHEN LOSEY
July 10, 2007
The Senate on July 9 dropped a provision that would have granted airport security screeners collective bargaining rights.
Senate Republicans who objected to the collective bargaining language in a bill enacting the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations were preventing the bill, S.4, from moving to a conference committee.
The White House had also threatened to veto the bill because of the controversial provision. And Transportation Security Administration leaders opposed allowing screeners to unionize.
Senate Republicans lifted their opposition to the bill after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee removed the collective bargaining language. Lawmakers from both the House and Senate will now resolve the differences between their respective bills.
Lieberman “was prepared to go over the cliff for the transportation security officers,” said committee spokeswoman Leslie Phillips. “But when Senator Reid made the decision that the provision giving TSOs collective bargaining rights needed to be dropped for the sake of the 9/11 bill’s survival, Senator Lieberman agreed.”
From Forbes.com:
The legislation has been one of the new Democratic majority’s priorities, but it had stalled because of a presidential veto threat over allowing airport screeners to have collective bargaining rights.
Because of the veto threat, neither the House nor the Senate will consider the legislation if “it contains collective bargaining provisions which I have committed to drop, as has the speaker,” Reid said.
UB:
Collective bargaining for essential public employees has always been a bad idea; you don’t want police or firefighters striking. That’s why the Homeland Security bill with the “union-busting” provision was opposed by any thinking individual–you don’t want your security in the hands of people who think striking for 25 cents an hour more is more important than stopping jets from running into buildings. But the dems–who couldn’t possibly understand that–opposed the bill on purely political grounds; they couldn’t appear to be opposed to unions. A rider attached by the Republicans to ensure that the DHS would be operable 24/7–pretty sensible, don’t you think?–was opposed because the dems felt that that 25 cents was more important than security.
Who’s allowing “partisanship” to trump national security?
PIMF:
“That’s why the Homeland Security bill with the “union-busting” provision was SUPPORTED by any thinking individual…”
Sheesh, what a dummy.
…the “dummy” in this case is ME, by the way…
Stumb- Just like I thought, no props to Reid for the compromise. Why do we bother?
Synova – Buckley once said, Bush is conservative, but he’s not “a” conservative.
I think he’s run most extreme-right wing administration in recent memory. I would love to hear from you how his record as President on any issue can be described as “moderate.”
Alphie, what do you care about Social Security anyway? What does it matter if they can, or can’t pay out, benefits in 2401, or whenever? I thought you were going to leave the country so you could return at the forefront of the glorious peoples’ revolution?
What are you, some sort of chickenhawk rebel?
UB:
It’s great that Harry stopped being a bonehead for once in his life. But I’m supposed to “give him props” for voting correctly, just because he didn’t pander to unions?
Neo accused Reid of being “unwilling to make the compromises necessary to unite the nation.”
I provide evidence to the contrary, and he is called a “bonehead.”
It’s obvious that to this crowd “compromise” means “bend over and take whatever Bush dishes out.”
Immigration.
For one. And it’s something he has had the same opinion on since he was first elected.
Setting aside the war, how do you think he’s extreme right wing?
His views on gay rights are nearly identical to Kerry’s as expressed by Kerry when he was trying to get elected.
Taking that example, explain why Kerry is portrayed as liberal on the issue on Bush extreme right wing?
I know very well how he’s portrayed. Even conservatives have liked to think he was as conservative as they were. I don’t think he tried much to dissuade them. In the 2000 race he was far from the conservative end of the spectrum. What has he changed opinions about other than terrorism and the war?
The domestic spying stuff he’s gotten in trouble for was pretty much all in place in similar forms during Clinton, but no one complained.
There’s the obstructionism he’s getting blasted for now, but how does that behavior (justified or not) translate to “extreme right wing?”
What domestic policy do you think characterizes “extreme right wing”?
Lord knows that none of the Republicans have been fiscally conservative for some time… including Bush. He’s quite “big government” isn’t he.
Abortion? Okay, maybe on abortion he’s firmly conservative.
UB, the bigger point relating to Reid and his demands of the Iraqi government is that *even if* he is the epitome of virtue and resonableness and *even if* the Republicans are rabid obstructionist poopy-heads the fact remains that he’s putting a standard on the Iraqi government that is not met by ours.
No matter who is at fault.
It’s unreasonable to expect a group of people of vastly differing opinions to work out those differences, or else, when the reality of political divide, even here, means it’s nearly impossible to do.
The point remains, even if Republicans are guilty and Democrats innocent of any sort of petty or obstructionist behavior.
Demanding something of the Iraqi government that he can not procure *here* is a fine bit of hypocrisy.
UB:
You’re obviously not from Nevada. Again, voting for a bill that helps the country is pretty much what Reid is theoretically supposed to do, isn’t it? Not to pander to special interests? So rather than opposing the bill to pander to special interests and voting for something that he’s supposed to do in the first place makes him a “uniter” and a “compromiser”? Sorry, that just makes him less stupid than he normally is. But a “uniter”? I don’t buy it.
Synova,
The benchmarks that Reid says the Iraq government has failed to meet were set by…the Bush administration.
He’s not being unreasonable, he’s just trying to hold Bush to an objective standard for a change.
By the way, that the surge was supposed give space for the Iraqi leaders to compromise was not Reid’s idea either.
How else is Bush extreme right wing? Taxes. Judges. Health Care. Education. Environment. Politicization of science. Diplomacy. Attitude toward the press. Role of executive branch. To name a few. Hard for me to imagine a more extreme right-wing take on any of these things.
Stumbley, how are union supporters of Democrats any less a “special interest” than the union-busting supporters of republicans?
You mean Constitutional separation of powers is extreme right-wing?
And these benchmarks were set for the beginning of *July*?
Tell me another one.
Attitude toward the press is right-wing?
Politicization of science is right-wing?
UB, the things you’ve mentioned might be what you don’t like but how are they right-wing? Because you don’t like them?
Heck, Bush even signed on to Global Warming.
How is he right-wing, extreme or otherwise, on taxes?
How is he off to the right hand side on Education?
I swear that at some point these last years anything farther to the right than socialized health care is portrayed as extreme rightness. I’ve heard people claim, with apparent sincerity, that all of the regular News networks such as CBS and CNN are right wing stooges, when at least one study showed that even the closest to center (by counting “expert” references cited during reports) was to the left the same amount that FOX was biased right.
Where do you figure the middle is?
I’m not claiming that Bush is a closet socialist. I’m claiming that his policies are closer to moderate. They aren’t *left* by any stretch but as often as not on things domestic he’s pissing off the *right* as well.
JFK lowered taxes, too. Was he “right-wing”?
Geez, just because W isn’t Stalin, you’re complaining?
Yep. The left’s hero, Uncle Joe.
Anyone notice that when the left brings out their laundry list of “bad dictators we supported” over the years, his name is always conspicuoulsy absent? I wonder why.
Just think of all the problems we wouldn’t have had to face if only we left him to his fate: Berlin Airlift, Israel, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Angola, Cuba,….
#
He’s not being unreasonable, he’s just trying to hold Bush to an objective standard for a change.
# The Unknown Blogger Says:
July 11th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
By the way, that the surge was supposed give space for the Iraqi leaders to compromise was not Reid’s idea either.
They set you up for the fall by their own actions, and then they blame you for falling on their swords and stake traps. You will die the good death for the Left, because it was your own (Bush’s) idea. This sort of question whether the people and allies of the Left have ever respected free will and the ability for individuals to choose their own destinies.
They make it sound as if whatever they are doing, is a humble reaction to your choices and decisions; but in reality their actions shape your course and dominate your path with their preferences.
It is an interesting psychological phenomenon that the aggressors shall always blame the victims for being the one that started the violence in the first place. Quite malleable in a sense.
Because you don’t like them?
This is the objective standard for such volks, Synova. It rather undermines any real chance of a constructive debate, a point Grim often complains about and Jimbo exploits for an argument.
I swear that at some point these last years anything farther to the right than socialized health care is portrayed as extreme rightness.
It reminds me of the doppler effect, Synova. Regardless of the objective speed of an object, the blue or red shift solely depends upon whether it is heading in your direction or not. Pure subjectity is not enough since that often refers to what people like and dislike; this is something which physics has described as an objective yet reference based effect.
JFK lowered taxes, too. Was he “right-wing”?
Pretty much, if you also add in his rhetoric to free the oppressed folks. HIs actions in Cuba may not have been up to snuff, but Bush both walks the walk as well as does the talk, on taxes and foreign liberations.
his name is always conspicuoulsy absent? I wonder why.
Soviet KGB conditioning. Yuri spoke much about it, and he did work as an operator. Propaganda or otherwise.
It is in a sense ironic, but I tend to respect the Soviets more than the Left, since the Soviets at least knew what they were about. They were competent, even if competent thugs and mortal enemies of the US. The Left is… well not so competent so to speak.
pbs.orgreuters.comsourcewatch.orgsourcewatch.org***
Synova wrote:
“Attitude toward the press is right-wing?
Politicization of science is right-wing?
UB, the things you’ve mentioned might be what you don’t like but how are they right-wing? Because you don’t like them?
Heck, Bush even signed on to Global Warming.
How is he right-wing, extreme or otherwise, on taxes?
How is he off to the right hand side on Education?”
Synova, sorry to be so blunt, but how old are you? I can’t believe I am really having this discussion with an adult.
Do I really need to prove to you:
That having a chief of staff who says: “I don’t believe you have a check-and-balance function in the press” is a right wing characteristic?
That extreme tax cuts which demonstrably overwhemingly benefit the wealthiest citizens during a supposedly existential war for western civilization is right-wing?
That using your political appointees to relentlessly restrain your surgeon general from addressing serious public health issues for fear of alienating evangelical extremists is right wing?
That ignoring, ridiculing and denying the scientific evidence of human contributions, even from your own EPA, to global climate change for 6 years and then giving some little speech about it is not “signing on to Global Warming”?
That allowing energy industry lobbyists, including the CEO of Enron to secretly write US energy policy is right wing?
That pursuing environmental policies so harmful to the environment that your own EPA Secretary resigns is right wing?
That nominating Federal judges to the bench who:
-accused senior citizens on social security of “cannibalizing” their grandchildren’s future.
-advised that the President could ignore laws forbidding torture.
-argued a wife should “subordinate herself to her husband.
-ruled that a woman’s right to privacy was not violated by the doctor who invited a drug salesman to sit in on her breast exam
-compared the government’s role in protecting public lands to King George’s “tyrannical” rule over the American colonies
-called a cross-burning a “drunken prank.”
-said the Americans with Disabilities Act “is not needed.”
…is not right-wing?
Do need to do all that?
Synova, sorry to be so blunt, but how old are you? I can’t believe I am really having this discussion with an adult.
As you can see Synova, it all comes down to their innate superiority against your innate inferiority, for their will has always been something they deemed more superior than your your ability to choose. Ideological and physical slavery through dependence and master-slave relationships have always been the milk and human haunch of Leftist diet.
I’m 42. How old are you?
UB. Again you have pointed out (percieved) process rather than policy.
I would not characterize many of those things as right-wing. (And several depend wholly on the willful decision to view an event a particular way.)
Do liberals throw their weight around politically, pressure people, lobby and do the power play stuff? You bet they do! So how about we say that that is one indication that Bush leans left. No?
Do liberals really *not* put political pressure on science, on what is acceptable or not? Oh, what a load of bull pucky. Do you pay attention at all? Or is it just that you don’t notice when they do it in a way you agree?
Is/was Bush “muzzling” science or was he “muzzling” the political views of scientists who aren’t supposed to be political? Do you have any clue how much of the political hype about embryonic stem cell research is a lie? Let’s start with this one… it’s illegal. Nope, it’s not. How about this lie… no new cultures can be developed. Not true either. New cultures are perfectly legal to develop in the US using new embryos by any researcher who wants to do it. The problem is that it’s not promising enough for private funding. Which is another lie… that embryonic stem cell research is uniquely promising.
You’re probably right that not having an unreasoning distrust and hatred of the private sector is “right-wing.” I’ll own that all you like.
But the accusations (or implications) of unethical behavior are not “right-wing” at all. I could just as accurately claim that unethical behavior is uniquely left-wing and proof of left-wing sensibility.
I suppose I’ll own the idea that caring more about what the law actually says rather than what people wish it said or want it to say is “right-wing.”
Telling old people that they are cannibalizing their grandchildren’s future? This implies a “not socialist” mindset but since it’s true, does it just bother you and does it become “right wing” because you perceive it as *mean*?
Bush is a meanie… that means he’s right-wing because right-wing people are meanies?
Wow. That’s an argument isn’t it.
Bush isn’t fiscally conservative enough for the far-right fiscal conservatives. He’s not socially conservative enough for the far-right social conservatives.
He’s not *liberal*. He’s not a closet socialist. He’s not an extreme right-winger. And if you say it over and over, it’s still not going to be true.
Yes, Ymar, it’s a classic.
But people often self-identify in ways that confirm what they want to believe about themselves. Self-image first, belief set second.
It goes like this… I am an intelligent person. Therefore I share the belief system of intelligent people. Therefore anyone who doesn’t share my belief system isn’t intelligent. (Or mature thinking, or rational, or compassionate, or…)
Synova, I apologize to you if I seemed condescending earlier. (I’m 43, by the way).
However, it was a passsing remark, and I did take time to provide a thoughtful (and sourced) response your position, so I guess I was hoping that would ameliorate somewhat.
But really for one to argue that Bush is a moderate leads me to wonder where you think the center is? And who is on the “far left” and who really is “right wing”?
You write:
“Do liberals throw their weight around politically, pressure people, lobby and do the power play stuff? You bet they do! So how about we say that that is one indication that Bush leans left. No?”
Absolutely they do, have I ever argued otherwise?
The point is which way to they lean?
In every instance I painstakingly outlined above, Bush has taken the position favored by the right. You cannot name a single one that isn’t.
Regressive tax cuts, policy dictated by industry lobbyists, “right-to-life” issues, weakening/undermining environmental protections, nominating “strict constructionists” to the judiciary…these are all “moderate” positions?
You can’t possibly believe Bush was forbidding his own Surgeon General to discuss stem cell research because he had doubts about the science involved, and that move just *happens” to coincide with the right-wing position.
You write:
“Bush isn’t fiscally conservative enough for the far-right fiscal conservatives. He’s not socially conservative enough for the far-right social conservatives.
I will heartily agree with you on the first point. On the second, this may be so, but he most certainly is “socially conservative,” and not “moderate,” wouldn’t you agree?
Even so, I would like to see your list of the grievances far-right social conservative have with Bush. Seems to me that they should be praising the Lord over the additions of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Sorry, I just read this part more closely:
“Telling old people that they are cannibalizing their grandchildren’s future? This implies a “not socialist” mindset but since it’s true, does it just bother you and does it become “right wing” because you perceive it as *mean*?”
Synova, the “truth” or even tactfulness of such a statement regarding Social Security has nothing to do with it.
The question is, would a person of “moderate” political views tend to agree with it?
I submit that they would not. Am I being unreasonable?
About social security… I think that in order to believe that Social Security is not cannibalizing our future a person would have to be *far* to the left and into socialist la-la-land.
So would I expect that moderates (in either party) would agree that we’re stealing from our grandchildren’s future.
What to do about it is a different question.
Trusting people with some of their own money is “right-wing.” I accept that. Do you?
And maybe looking at the issue and refusing to simply pretend that it’s not a problem that can be wished away, maybe that’s right-wing, too.
But that’s pretty insulting toward the “left” who by that definition don’t trust people to manage their own lives and do think that we can simply pretend that social security isn’t a problem that requires more than wishful thinking fixes.
Synova, the “truth” or even tactfulness of such a statement regarding Social Security has nothing to do with it.
The question is, would a person of “moderate” political views tend to agree with it?
Truth has never mattered to the Left, Synova. Only ideological purity and so called “moderation”. As in reporters and journalists labeling themselves as moderate.
I tend to think for moderation to mean something of a virtue, it must rely upon truth, not deception.
I think that in order to believe that Social Security is not cannibalizing our future a person would have to be *far* to the left and into socialist la-la-land.
A viewpoint that priorities truth in order to define moderation, in my view. Of course, others might differ.
But people often self-identify in ways that confirm what they want to believe about themselves. Self-image first, belief set second.
It’s good to have different identities then to draw upon. A person that can identity with multiple viewpoints and cultures, is then at a distinct advantage concerning self-image, no?
I suppose a rational person can say that “the truth doesn’t matter because I believe only in moderation”. Although I prefer meta-golden hierarchies rather than arbitrary limitations and classes.
I love socialist lalaland Synova. Where else would I learn the tools of manipulation, deception, and reality construction now that the Master Soviets have left for the beyond?
“About social security… I think that in order to believe that Social Security is not cannibalizing our future a person would have to be *far* to the left and into socialist la-la-land.”
Oooo-k, it’s starting to become clear to me now…never mind! 🙂
I’m not sure what you think is clear, but is there anyone who seriously *doesn’t* look at the numbers and see that the way social security is collected and paid out that it relies on taking increasing amounts from ever fewer future taxpayers?
The promise to pay social security at retirement is in exchange for paying someone else’s retirement now. We’re making those promises in the name of people not yet born.
Is this disputed?
In order for someone to *not* think so, wouldn’t they have to be firmly convinced that socialist redistribution is a bottomless money pit?
As I said, what do *do* about it is a different issue.
*sigh*
OK Synova, sure. And Bush’s solution was a “moderate” solution?
It wasn’t a moderate liberal solution.
It wasn’t a *far* right-wing solution either.
Does anyone else have a solution they are offering? It has to be radical enough to actually work, whatever it is. What is the liberal solution so I can compare?
As I said, trusting people with their own money does seem to be a right-wing thing.
The question is, would a person of “moderate” political views tend to agree with it?
I submit that they would not. Am I being unreasonable?
Well, not unreasonable, necessarily. You’re just asking the wrong question.
See, the problem is that most Americans who won’t be 67 for a long long time (that is, young’uns such as myself who won’t be able to collect Social Security even by alphie’s projected failure date of 2048) would agree that old people are “cannibalizing” their future. The young raging liberals are mad that mostly it’s just conservatives in Congress who are acknowledging this, and they certainly have different ideas about what to do about it than young raging conservatives, who may have different opinions than young moderates, but across the board I have been hard pressed to find anyone under the age of 30 anywhere along the political spectrum who wouldn’t agree that Social Security is broken and that we will never see the mounds of money we’re so diligently paying in again.
So maybe “moderate people” of a certain age wouldn’t agree with stumbley, and you are being reasonable. And we all disagree on how to solve the problem; that’s clear. But saying the problem doesn’t exist–don’t expect us to thank you for that.
This is not about Social Security for christ’s sake. The point is that synova is arguing george bush is a moderate. I gave a whole list of arguments arguing my case that he is not a moderate. Synova picked one comment from a list of several judges he nominated and began to riff on that. Bush’s policies have very little to do with the center of the political spectrum.
UB: Bush’s policies have very little to do with the center of the political spectrum.
First, you gotta give UB some credit for at least trying to pursue a rational argument here, instead of resorting to his old trollish ways of two-bit snark and insult. But, on that level, he’s just chased him from the field by Synova, on a field of his own choosing (see this comment), and maybe he should consider it a hint that his general position, as quoted above, is untenable. Maybe, in fact, it’s UB and his lib-left allies that have “very little to do with the center of political spectrum”, hm? They can (and do) take what comfort they can from Bush’s poll numbers now, and the outcome of the 2006 mid-term elections, but the longer term impression that the political center may be shifting appears to leave them deeply unsettled — perhaps going a long way toward explaining where all the vitriol on the left is coming from.
nytimes.comSally, sorry but you must have me confused with someone else: I rarely insult, and then usually only if insulted.
Anyone so in favor of pre-emptive wars should have to truck with that policy, right? For those who advocate for total war and the merciless killing of Iraqi children you have awfully thin skins.
As it stands, I’ve spent way too much of my own time already listing sourced examples of Bush’s right-wing policies and have yet to see anyone argue that any of those policies are moderate, or even provide any counter-examples. Quite the contrary, there has been nothing but insult and digression directed towards me.
For example, Synova focused on the comment of a judge about Social Security. But Bush’s plan was to privatize Social Security. What, short of abolishing it altogether, is to the right of that?
Even having this conversation makes me feel like I’ve gone through the looking glass.
As for your “longer term impression that the political center may be shifting appears to leave them deeply unsettled,” until I see evidence to the contrary I’ll have to asssume that is yet another example of your own magical thinking.
Is Unknown Baby crying? Again? As usual? Because he lost the arguement? As Usual?
How typical.
If you look at the comments, UB, you’ll see that you were the one to focus on social security. Neither Synova nor anyone else is arguing that Bush isn’t right of center — she simply but clearly refuted your allegation that he’s extreme. As for your hope that the center isn’t shifting away from the left-lib elites, well, I’d say that Bush’s own re-election provides your “evidence to the contrary”. Not that you can see it, of course — after all, you and your whole belief system are on the other side of the looking glass, as you say.
“you were the one to focus on social security…she simply but clearly refuted your allegation that he’s extreme.”
This simply did not happen. I basically got taken for a session in “The Argument Clinic.”
But one thing is very clear: there is no longer any point in discussing it.
“This simply did not happen.”
Yes, it did.
Pingback:Computer Security Tips