A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wow! More dead in a mere month than all the US troops KIA in Iraq in 3 years. I blame Bush and his environmental policies. What a clusterfuck!!!

You really think that the rate of Iraqi deaths, sectarian violence (even if not lethal) and general chaos are not relevant to whether Iraq is a clusterfuck?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Enter the "pure" party, again, stage left:

You either have a very short memory or an awful lot of gall to complain that the Senate leadership wasn't prepared to strengthen earmark rules as much as the House was, given the crap that went on the last several years.

And then in the same breath, you tweak the Senate leadership for bringing to a vote a motion that it didn't have the votes for -- in other words, for failing to avoid a vote with majority support.

Which is to say, whatever support you and Glenn Reynolds have for the spirit of reform lasts exactly as long as you can beat up Democrats with it.

(And since we're talking about moral purity, I don't see a suggestion here that most Democrats were on the anti-reform side of things here. You're just imputing the leaders' views to the rest of the party.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
How is it an ad hominem to believe that your summary of the "facts" is inaccurate?

There was no call to suggest that he's color-blind, notwithstanding all of Penske and Hank's crap a couple of days ago.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought you were lamenting that public opinion might have an effect on Iraq policy. If all you mean is that you disagree with the public, and you're afraid that the public will persuade the government to do the wrong thing here, the interesting conversation is not about whether public accountability/involvement is a good thing in general, but rather what is the right policy choice right now. If so, let's turn to discussing what Spencer Ackerman said.

No.

If my first post was somehow unclear, I think my last post pretty clearly set out what I am lamenting -- that views held by certain segments of the population, with which I disagree, are also being pushed by prominent Democrats and that I fear that is based on their popularity rather than merit.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But I thought you were defending elitism per se. If so, I would suggest that governmental decisionmaking is worse when hidden and insulated from public scrutiny.

No. Of course.


S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
...views held by certain segments of the population, with which I disagree, are also being pushed by prominent Democrats and that I fear that is based on their popularity rather than merit.

I see Democrats who are soft-pedaling their opposition of the war for fear of political consequences. I don't see them opposing a war they actually support, simply for political gain. Who are you thinking of? Why do you think this?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wow! More dead in a mere month than all the US troops KIA in Iraq in 3 years. I blame Bush and his environmental policies. What a clusterfuck!!!

What are you complaining about? This is the greatest foreign policy success of his administration since 2002.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You either have a very short memory or an awful lot of gall to complain that the Senate leadership wasn't prepared to strengthen earmark rules as much as the House was, given the crap that went on the last several years.

The GOP's spending behavior in the past few years was utterly disgusting.

Is the Dems behavior not treated the same, because it's a given their spending behavior is utterly disgusting?

It was the GOP that brought "porkbuster" legislation to light. It was primarily Democrat Senators - although that fuck from Alaska deserves specific disdain as well - that tried to kill it.

And then in the same breath, you tweak the Senate leadership for bringing to a vote a motion that it didn't have the votes for -- in other words, for failing to avoid a vote with majority support.

The Dem House proposed a serious bill. Within hours, the Dem Senate tried to eviscerate it.

Which is to say, whatever support you and Glenn Reynolds have for the spirit of reform lasts exactly as long as you can beat up Democrats with it.

Glenn - and others, including TPM Muckraker I might add - were taking Reid, et al to the woodshed for embarrassing their party.
Somehow, you missed this.

(And since we're talking about moral purity, I don't see a suggestion here that most Democrats were on the anti-reform side of things here. You're just imputing the leaders' views to the rest of the party.)

Gee, how dare I impute the leader's views to the rest of the party. Maybe we have different understandings of what "leader" means?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The GOP's spending behavior in the past few years was utterly disgusting.

Is the Dems behavior not treated the same, because it's a given their spending behavior is utterly disgusting?

They haven't actually spent anything yet. They're reforming the rules, and you're complaining that they haven't made things better enough.

It was the GOP that brought "porkbuster" legislation to light. It was primarily Democrat Senators - although that fuck from Alaska deserves specific disdain as well - that tried to kill it.

My recollection was that Coburn (R.) and Obama (D.) sponsored it.

Gee, how dare I impute the leader's views to the rest of the party. Maybe we have different understandings of what "leader" means?

You appear to have a Republican view, where everyone has to follow the leadership, whereas I can imagine that the Democratic leadership might want something that most Democrats would vote against.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You appear to have a Republican view, where everyone has to follow the leadership, whereas I can imagine that the Democratic leadership might want something that most Democrats would vote against.

This is evident every time you and others try to suggest - laughably - that Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC and general lunatic, is not a "leader" of the party.

Question - why would the Democrats want - let alone tolerate - "leaders" that vote for something most of the party rank and file would vote against?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is evident every time you and others try to suggest - laughably - that Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC and general lunatic, is not a "leader" of the party.

Question - why would the Democrats want - let alone tolerate - "leaders" that vote for something most of the party rank and file would vote against?

Howard Dean is a leader of the party. But many, many Democrats think he's a dope, and wouldn't go anywhere just because he's leading. It takes a true authoritarian to be confused by this.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Howard Dean is a leader of the party. But many, many Democrats think he's a dope, and wouldn't go anywhere just because he's leading. It takes a true authoritarian to be confused by this.

So, you call our "leader" a dope, but you quietly all think your "leader" is a dope. Got it.

And with that, I leave for another week and bid you all adieu. Off to AVN.

[insert "Vegas, Baby! .wav]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So, you call our "leader" a dope, but you quietly all think your "leader" is a dope. Got it.

We Democrats don't all think alike, odd as that will seem to you. I said that "many, many" Democrats think he's a dope, but I didn't realize that I also needed to explain to you that many, many Democrats don't think he's a dope.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Question - why would the Democrats want - let alone tolerate - "leaders" that vote for something most of the party rank and file would vote against?

Because the Democratic Party really is, and always has been, a ideologically diverse crowd (insert Will Rogers joke here). And the diversity then and now ranges from economic issues to social issues -- Cleveland and Bryan arguing gold versus silver, FDR and Al Smith arguing about Social Security -- so there is much more of a history in the party of tolerance of differing views.

Of course, this diversity leads to the perpetual and somewhat accurate jibe that the Democratic Party doesn't really stand for anything. But I think that there has usually been a pretty broad range of consensus in the middle of the party, although there never has been and probably never will be lockstep control in Congress. Heck, even Sam Rayburn and LBJ couldn't gain that, so I doubt that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Gee, how dare I impute the leader's views to the rest of the party. Maybe we have different understandings of what "leader" means?

So you all agree with Ken Mehlman about the GOP's Southern strategy? Or doesn't he count anymore?

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oil is down to what - $55? Most of Iraq, other than Bagdad and a few other Sunni strongholds in the Sunni triangle, is absolutely thriving. The Iraq economy is booming. And attacks are down.

In 3 years, we've lost less American troops then we did during WWII on a few islands in the South Pacific in a week.

But it's a clusterfuck.

PS - at least you didn't trot out the word "quagmire".

Please, God, let the Rs take this position -- things are going just swimmingly in Iraq.

Yes, American soldiers are not dying as quickly as they did when fighting two world powers in a completely different kind of war. But I wasn't aware that the goal of Bush's Iraq policy was to have a war with a lower casualty rate than WWII, rather than, say, to create a stable and democratic Iraq.