Blogosphere fury at Dems on Iraq vote
How big of a problem will this be for Democrats in 08 who supported the bill?
THE HILL-Furious that congressional Democratic leaders did not fight harder to pass a supplemental spending bill with a timeline to end the war in Iraq and tougher benchmarks, liberal online activists have ripped party leaders and threatened to halt contributions to Democratic lawmakers.
The power of the so-called netroots — liberal activists who rally likeminded supporters on the Internet — is not clear. They have a loud voice and they have the capacity to raise money quickly for a candidate they favor, but they so far have been unable to push House and Senate Democratic leaders on a range of issues, including ending the war in Iraq.
“They let us down this time,” Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of the site DailyKos, wrote. “But the opportunities for them to make amends still exist. And if they don’t? Well, no one, not even the most rabid partisans, have an endless supply of patience.”
Liberal bloggers even criticized House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who helped recapture the House last year as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), for saying that the deal was “the beginning of the end of the president’s policy in Iraq.”
Failed actor turned incessant activist Ben Affleck called dems “F’n pussies” on Bill Maher. He went into an f-bomb tirade when describing his disgust for the D party over this issue.
D’s are in big trouble next year.
Naw, it’ll all be forgotten by the time the 2008 election rolls around. After all, sitting home or voting for a Republican is giving W. a third term.
caroline,
A vote for Hillary ensures a minimum of 32 years with a Bush or Clinton on the executive team. I think voters will be more apt to consider this unfortunate monopoly over a Republican continuing Bush43 policies.
bb,
Surely the GOP isn’t going to use that one! LOL! You guys thought that Bush was a great candidate. Nope, even Hillary with all her problems is preferable to a Republican to most of the electorate. Do you realize that only 1/3 or less of the country supports your agenda?
bb Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
caroline,
A vote for Hillary ensures a minimum of 32 years with a Bush or Clinton on the executive team. I think voters will be more apt to consider this unfortunate monopoly over a Republican continuing Bush43 policies.
=====================
When Fred Thompson throws it hat in the ring in July, that would be a good campaign tactic. Just keep asking voters if they want more of them, or some new direction for the nation.
However, no President can do much with a split Congress where both parties are more concerned about re-election than reforming the programs that are bankrupting us.
The legislation has to be passed before President can sign them and implement them.
“Do you realize that only 1/3 or less of the country supports your agenda?”
My agenda: tax reform, full implementation of the Contract with America, less spending, strong defense, kill terrorists.
I think there are quite a bit more than 33% who support that agenda…we’ll see.
Bart
Even Newt said NECONS like you got 28% of the vote!
We are not falling for the ROVE talking points anymore!
What is a NECON and when did they get 28% of some vote?
Bush represents the Neocon agenda and the Neocon agenda and the GOP are one in the same. Bush is the torchbearer for that agenda and has an approval rating of 28%.
Rove? Well his success in 2004 is looking to be the long term demise of the party. It’s not a national party anymore-it’s the southern fundamentalist party. And you can thank Karl Rove for that!
Jan Paul,
What kind of credibility is the GOP going to have on that issue? After all, the GOP didn’t see anything wrong with putting Bush JR in office twice. Fred Thompson a new direction? Only if you consider “stay the course” a new direction.
Bart
In fairness to Bart he is not a fundamentalist. Yet all the big Government, policing the world, slave trade deals and open borders is what Bart does support!
John,
Just because the party is controlled by fundamentalists does not mean that everyone in the party is a fundie.
caroline
Hillary has big problems and Rudy or Thompson could beat her!
BTW Rudy and Hillary are very close on issues!
caroline
I was just being fair!
John,
Do you think that Bush deserves a second term? That’s what voting for either of those would bring. They both support “stay the course”. Support for the GOP is collapsing nationwide. Do tell how do you win with 36% of the vote? Even Newt says that “I’m not Hillary” won’t win the next election.
I told you I am not a Rudy or Hillary fan. But I do think Hillary is the same as Bush!
caroline
On the GOP side I like Paul and Hunter best.
On the Democrat side I like Biden best.
Hillary is not the same as Bush. She’s not a fundie. She’s also not so wedded to a failing neoconservative ideology. She’s flexible where Bush is stiff. I think that she would be willing to do what works even if you guys consider that “flip flopping”.
If you like Biden best then you are being dishonest about your stances. All those bills you complain about, Biden voted for.
Since neither party is leading the nation away from its economic, social and immigration problems, do you really expect and President from either party to really help much?
caroline
I said best of the Democrats. And It is because he is the best on the war from the Democrat side.
I think we need a LOU DOBBS type third party candidate!
You bring up a point that is important. Of all the candidates, I have yet to see one in either party the fuels the emotions of voters like Reagan did. That isn’t a comment on his Presidency as much as his ability to get votes.
He was trained in how to use tone, inflection, facial expression, and body language to communicate “emotions” while presenting his views.
While in Toastmasters, I learned that there are many things that you can do and use to make people feel comfortable.
I was at a meeting and talked with Tom Tancredo and what a great guy. Then he got up and spoke and answered questions. Not a bit of trouble with his command of the facts but, he seemed “uncomfortable” in body language with public speaking. It was like his gestures were rehearsed rather than natural.
I saw that in other speakers and I saw some of that in the debates.
Unfortunately, voters are for the most part, emotion driven. Many will stay home even when they like a candidate if they haven’t been “fired up,” on an issue.
That is why I believe that a 3rd party or the GOP could move to power with good leadership using the immigration issue. Add, not only the border security, but the 100 million they plan to bring here in addition. Include taxes for 1/3 more schools, prisons, roads, bridges, hospitals, government services, power plants, cars and things that consume energy and raise the prices.
I absolutely don’t understand why this “emotional” issue that has voters so fired up isn’t being used more to build a 3rd party or unite the GOP.
Well that isn’t true. I think I know why the GOP isn’t. It has bought into the North American Union, mass legal immigration, one world agenda.
John,
I’m willing to bet you get a “lou dobbs” type candidate. Since the GOP is splitting up, I imagine that one of the candidates will splinter his own party off from the GOP.
I hope someone stands up for America!
I would vote for Jan Paul!
Do you believe that we are being “invaded”?
caroline
No I think politicians like Hillary, Bush, Saxby, Price, Kennedy …. are bought and paid for by special interest. And they manipulate the public into thinking the immigration issue about human rights or labor shortage when all it is about is exploiting people.