[Macrobat]

. . . admits the Democrats have no plan other than "Vulture Politics."

washingtonpost.com

The money shot is that Democrats intend to basically do nothing but show opposition and therefore "change," while proposing nothing of their own.

Simply to regain their party's personal power. Be damned the consequences to the country or world.

[Dork.]

That's funny, the article I read said nothing of the sort.

A key trend was what he calls "suburban populism." Middle-class voters are angry because they feel that their standard of living -- from education to health care to retirement -- is under assault. For a generation, GOP strategists encouraged these suburban voters to focus their anxiety and resentment on urban minorities, but Emanuel argues that isn't working anymore. "Today, the new welfare queen is corporate America," he says.

The Democratic leadership is fashioning a legislative program that tries to respond to this public anger quickly and decisively. Pelosi's agenda for the first 100 hours is a set of tight, doable proposals .... For the rest of the year, Emanuel says, the leadership hopes to stress energy independence (with fuel-saving efficiency standards for appliances and cars) and a move toward better health care for children.

And here's what Emanuel doesn't want to do: fall into the political trap of chasing overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health care, and he shakes his head. Four smart presidents -- Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton -- tried and failed. That one can wait. Reform of Social Security and other entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky. If the president wants to propose big changes to entitlements, he can lead the charge.

The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.

Seems to me like they want to avoid the trap of trying to solve all the big problems at once, and want to start by solving manageable ones. That's fine by me, although I do expect them to take a stab at the big problems eventually. Just because they're big, hard problems doesn't mean that there's not a solution hiding somewhere....

[Macrobat]

Funny, it's right there in the quote you posted, stating at "The secret for Democrats. . ."

There isn't a single proposal there, just remain the party of "reform and change" without ever having to state what you are reforming, or what changes you wish to make.

... the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.

"Waiting" means inaction, just hovering above, like a vulture.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Funny, it's right there in the quote you posted, stating at "The secret for Democrats. . ."

There isn't a single proposal there, just remain the party of "reform and change" without ever having to state what you are reforming, or what changes you wish to make.

... the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.

"Waiting" means inaction, just hovering above, like a vulture.

Ummmm. They were elected as a reforming party. They're doing the job they were elected for.

You know, despite your implications, it's not like the Democrats were waiting in a closet and suddenly sprung out and took up a bunch of seats in Congress. They were elected. They aren't vultures. The American people just got tired of the Republican party.

[Macrobat]

They never specified ANY reforms they had in mind.

And it is PRECISELY what I am implicating it is - case in point, troop increases.

Last year Clinton, Silvestre, Bagh, and craploads of other Dems were ALL OVER the media whining about how "we need more troops on the ground in order to affect any meaningful change in Iraq." Just as soon as the President says it, they are suddenly - TO A PERSON - deadset against troop increases.

It's change for change's sake - whatever the President is for they're against (JUST because the pPresident is now for it) - no matter if they were the most vociferous advocate for what the President is now proposing less than 6 months ago.

They could care LESS what the consequences are, as long as they are seen as the "Party of Change."

[shifuimam]

...

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

They never specified ANY reforms they had in mind.

And it is PRECISELY what I am implicating it is - case in point, troop increases.

Last year Clinton, Silvestre, Bagh, and craploads of other Dems were ALL OVER the media whining about how "we need more troops on the ground in order to affect any meaningful change in Iraq." Just as soon as the President says it, they are suddenly - TO A PERSON - deadset against troop increases.

It's change for change's sake - whatever the President is for they're against (JUST because the pPresident is now for it) - no matter if they were the most vociferous advocate for what the President is now proposing less than 6 months ago.

They could care LESS what the consequences are, as long as they are seen as the "Party of Change."

I selected what I quoted very carefully, because it not only indicated the types of reforms the Democrats plan on passing right away, but detailed where Emanuel feels this mandate comes from -- the "suburban populists" that feel the GOP has abandoned them.

But I gather from your responses that you're only really concerned with the Democrats' plan for Iraq. I understand where you're coming from, because it really does seem like certain Democrats' position will always be exactly the opposite of the President's as a knee-jerk reaction. But I think it's interesting how Emanuel views this, also from the article:

Rather than try to restrict funds for the troops (which he sees as a political blunder that would delight Republicans), Emanuel instead favors a proposal by Rep. John Murtha to set strict standards for readiness -- which would make it hard to finance the troop surge in Iraq without beefing up the military as a whole. The idea is to position the Democrats as friends of the military, even as they denounce Bush's Iraq policy.

As insane as it might sound given how much money we're spending on this war, I think Bush thinks we can win in Iraq "on the cheap", in terms of the number of troops we've sent over and how they are supplied. After all, atthe start of this whole thing, we got estimates that we'd only be there for a few months, and that the war would only cost a few hundred million dollars (all paid for by Iraqi oil revenues!) We vastly overspent and overcommitted there, and the readiness of the armed forces is suffering as a result. I think it's reasonable to want to finance the entire military, not just the portion going to Iraq.

[Macrobat]

Too bad you are missing the entire purpose of Murtha's proposal, though. It precisely defunds the war by setting deliberately impossibly high standards for the entire military.

In short, it's the weasel's way out. They get the defunding they want, but the look good doing it. So they don't repeat the debacle they created in Viet Nam by directly defunding the operation.

And no, it's not just on Iraq, it's on every single issue, the war is simply the best example at this time.

There was Social Security reform, "earmark" reform, ethics reform, etc., etc., etc.

If the President or the Republicans are for something, the Democrats are against it - regardless of consequences. What Emmanuel has done in this interview is finally admit that it is a Democrat strategy.

[Dork.]

You could be right, but this conversation reminds me of the bit on the Daily Show the other night when Jon Stewart played the sound bites of Dick Cheney and Tony Snow basically saying "This is the President's idea (about how to win in Iraq). If someone else has a better idea, we'd be glad to hear it", and then wondered aloud why nobody has proffered a better idea while a picture of the Iraq Study Group's report appears beside him. The Democrats may or may not have their own solution, but it's not at all clear that Bush would let anyone else act even if they did have a solution.

For completeness, let's see what that report has to say about increasing troop levels:

Originally Posted by Iraq Study Group Report P.30

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in
Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that
adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However,
past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are
moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not
make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile,
America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a
substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also
necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or
respond to crises around the world.

[Macrobat]

See my signature for the response to anything involving the ISG.

Remember, these are the geniuses who also want us to get the very two countries (Iran and Syria) who are fomenting much of the "insurgency" to help with the peace. Not to mention, both countries have already said "NO!" Since everything in the Surrender Group's report is contigent on all the rest of their "recommendations" being followed, as well - it is rendered moot (more so than it already was). Duh.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The money shot is that Democrats intend to basically do nothing but show opposition and therefore "change," while proposing nothing of their own.

Simply to regain their party's personal power. Be damned the consequences to the country or world.

It's exactly the platform the Democrats ran on in 2006, and they won the election because of it. Why should it be shocking, then, that this is what they are going to do? It's not like they kept it secret or anything.

[Macrobat]

Never said they did - it's just amazing to me how people still defend them and think they will do a better job when their stated strategy is to simply wait to see what someone else proposes, then come out against it. All for the sake of "reform and change."

What - exactly - is going to get accomplished?

Never said I was shocked by it, btw. Just pointed out that now they have actually admitted it's what they're doing.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Never said they did - it's just amazing to me how people still defend them and think they will do a better job when their stated strategy is to simply wait to see what someone else proposes, then come out against it. All for the sake of "reform and change."

The problem is, a disturbing number of people think that currently, that would be doing a better job.

What - exactly - is going to get accomplished?

Probably very little, and whatever destructive consequences do come from it all will be blamed on Bush.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It's change for change's sake

Not quite.

More likely that politicians don't really say what they mean.

At this point, the Democrats don't want to be in the war at all, but this is a politically difficult position to take, especially for the ones who voted for it.

At varying points, they have taken the most expeditious route to their goal without engaging in the political suicide required to directly attain it.

Six months ago, this was the (accurate) criticism that there were not enough troops on the ground. Now, it's the criticism of deploying more troops. An accurate criticism of this would point out that this isn't nearly enough, but the Democrats feel they can get more traction by claiming more troops is in defiance of the '06 "mandate". Considering their goal, they are correct in this assumption, if not consistent with their criticism.

The goal has never changed, but the political realities of the situation have encouraged the Democrats to use mutually exclusive arguments.

Loathsome? Sure. Contrary for contrariness' sake? No dice. Try self-preservation.

I never got this Democrats will do anything to take down Bush claim. These are Democrats we're talking about. Taking someone else out at a cost to themselves is just not in the profile.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And it is PRECISELY what I am implicating it is - case in point, troop increases.

Last year Clinton, Silvestre, Bagh, and craploads of other Dems were ALL OVER the media whining about how "we need more troops on the ground in order to affect any meaningful change in Iraq." Just as soon as the President says it, they are suddenly - TO A PERSON - deadset against troop increases.

It's change for change's sake - whatever the President is for they're against (JUST because the pPresident is now for it) - no matter if they were the most vociferous advocate for what the President is now proposing less than 6 months ago.

And every Republican on this board was dead-set against troop increases and wanted to "stay the course" as we dug a hole deeper and deeper. They claimed that there were only two choices: stay the course, or cut and run.

A lot of Republicans have realized that the Democrats were right, and Bush was dead wrong. But does that mean we should escalate the war today? Remarkably, timing matters in warfare, and yes the correct strategy one, two or three or four years ago may not be the correct strategy today. Plus, leadership matters. More troops without a strategy is useless. And we don't have a strategy, and the people in charge of coming up with a strategy are provably incompetent.

It is now entirely clear that we will not win in Iraq. A year ago it wasn't as clear, and perhaps the situation was salvageable. Bush is just hoping to draw out the loss.

[tie]

Right now, the Democrats are proving your basic assertion wrong, anyway. Major ethics reform. (The Republican leadership should all be in prison.) Increased investigations which are already bearing fruit (with Bush forced to change his illegal wiretapping program).

I don't think there is much they can do about Iraq. Bush controls the policy, and is determined to set the country on a losing course. That being given, might as well let McCain hang himself too. The conundrum, though, is that they were elected based on Bush's incompetence in Iraq. Hopefully, the small changes they can make -- e.g., Rumsfeld's resignation -- will make some difference. And perhaps they can prevent idiotic policies with respect to Iran, which the corrupt Republican sheep in Congress would have let pass without a murmur.

[Macrobat]

"Every Republican?" Care to even attempt to back that up, tie?

The "major ethics reforms" was pushed through by the Republicans in the Senate despite the Democrats.

Try again, this time with facts.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

America, your democrats offer little hope. They spew evil and helplessness all day, bringing your populace to despair. I read your news via my satellite connection six feet under Jordan, and I am heartened at the weakness of your resolve. If the left-wing appeasers had looked me in the eye, they would have pissed themselves. I was death incarnate. The true enemy of freedom and progress. Now you squabble over the minutiae as rational discourse hurtles beyond your grasp.

[HackManDan]

With Bush in office, the strongest and most meaningful role the Dems can play is as a check on the administration's power.

Bush needs limits and perspective, and a Democratic congress will surely give that to him.

[Macrobat]

You're deluded. Anything the President disagrees with that the slim Democrat majority passes will be vetoed. Just what will that accomplish?

The Dhimmicrats are all about staging hearings and doing things that look good to their nutroots while accomplishing exactly jack and shite - also making sure no one else accomplishes anything, either.

I must revisit my remarks earlier about the "ethics" legislation. I was speaking of the Senate, where Reid himself shut down anything resembling meaningful ethics reforms, as opposed to the House, where Pelosi and company basically forwarded a blank sheet of paper called ethics reform that they will universally ignore, based on their track records.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The Dhimmicrats are all about staging hearings and doing things that look good to their nutroots

Stop the ****ing presses!

Politician does something to make self look good.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

while accomplishing exactly jack and shite - also making sure no one else accomplishes anything, either.

So?

Bush is free to accomplish whatever he wants as long as what he wants to accomplish has the support of the majority party.

That's how it works.

[Macrobat]

Subego, the entire point of that post flew WAY over your head.

HackManDan is under the impression that the Democrats can act as "foil" to the President. They cannot. Their majority is not plural enough to affect the types of changes their "hopefuls" are having wet dreams about.

Please point out anything that is an Executive privilege (such as foreign policy and military command) that the Demos can possibly influence.

The only thing they could possibly do is defund, but Viet Nam taught them how suicidal that little nugget is, so they are avoiding anything actionable in that direction like the third rail of a subway.

also, the things the Dems are doing to make themselves look good are meaningless and lack any substance whatsoever - that would be my point.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Subego, the entire point of that post flew WAY over your head.

No, it didn't.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

HackManDan is under the impression that the Democrats can act as "foil" to the President. They cannot. Their majority is not plural enough to affect the types of changes their "hopefuls" are having wet dreams about.

A foil doesn't affect change, a foil, uh, foils.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

also, the things the Dems are doing to make themselves look good are meaningless and lack any substance whatsoever - that would be my point.

Perhaps they lack substance, but if it gets them reelected, your claim of meaninglessness is pretty meaningless.