home

Clinton "Supports" Reid-Feingold

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue May 15, 2007 at 05:48:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Like Senator Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton does not get it. While ostensibly supporting Reid-Feingold, Senator Clinton seems not to understand the imperative for it. She seems not to accept or understand that President Bush will not be affected by "ratcheting up the pressure" nor will Republicans provide a "veto-proof" majority. Instead Senator Clinton sees Reid-Feingold as:

Senator Clinton will vote for cloture on both the Feingold-Reid and Reed-Levin Amendments, to send the President a clear message that it is time to change course, redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and end this war as soon as possible.

Reid-Feingold is not about sending messages. It is about understanding that President Bush is oblivious to messages. It is about telling the American People that the Democratic Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle past a date certain. And that it is then incumbent on President Bush to NOT abandon the troops in the middle of the civil war raging in Iraq.

< Comey, Ashcroft and the Hospital Wiretap Visit | House Passes Student Loan Forgiveness Bill >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton "Supports" Reid-Feingold | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    She and Obama (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue May 15, 2007 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    are trying to make Reid-Feingold useless. Most people don't even understand what it does or why it's important; they bank on this.

    Sad. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:02:10 PM EST


    At Least (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:09:53 PM EST
    We have her vote even if her rhetoric is flawed.

    They both appear to think that (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:10:17 PM EST
    they can get away with treating people with the same insulting and disrespectful assumption that they are too stupid to see through it that the rethugs and neocons and Bush do.

    Hopefully most people aren't. Hopefully enough pay attention and look beyond the pretty faces and sound bites.

    Bah (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:10:54 PM EST
    Humbug.

    Anyone want to revisit Reid's or Feingold's statements about Reid/Feingold and what they said it's purpose is and what they expect it will accomplish?

    One might find words like "send message" and "ratchet up pressure."

    Could it be the authors themselves don't even understand the whole point of their own legislation?

    Maybe so.  Maybe so.

    Here's Reid in March:


    "Just as with Vietnam, there was never a time when funds were cut off from Vietnam. And I don't think anyone can find a war that this country was engaged in where the funds were cut off. No one is talking about cutting off the funds." --"The Charlie Rose Show," March 5, 2007

    Here is Feingold on the last Veto:


    The next step to ending the war isn't to give in, but to step up the pressure on the President. I'm pleased to be working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a bill to end our open-ended military commitment in Iraq. Now that the President has rejected the will of the American people with this veto, our bill, or some other proposal to end funding for a failed policy, should be the next step to end the war.

    But we can bash Obama and Clinton.  Lets make up a good reason to do so.

    Maybe I should go back to not posting here, again.

    I just couldn't resist on this one.

    You do have one good idea. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:15:20 PM EST


    Parent
    In a Diary on DailyKos (none / 0) (#15)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:19:24 PM EST
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/5/101613/4896

    Feingold calls it "ratcheting up pressure."

    Doesn't he realize Bush doesn't respond to pressure?

    Parent

    A bad title (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:37:13 PM EST
    But given the context, not entirely illogical.

    Consider the WORDS of the diary:

    . . . If the President vetoes the emergency supplemental bill, it will only show more Americans and more members of Congress how detached his administration is from the reality of the situation in Iraq - and from the reality here at home, too.  We will not be deterred by a veto or by the self-deluding rhetoric coming from die-hard supporters of the President's misguided Iraq policy.  We already have strong support for this latest effort from Senators Leahy, Boxer, Kerry, and Dodd.  We will only work harder to act on the ever-growing consensus that ending our military involvement in Iraq is the right thing to do for our troops, our national security, and our ongoing fight against the global terrorist networks that threaten the safety of all Americans.

    As Senators and Representatives meet to draft the final version of the supplemental bill, Harry Reid and I are already working on the next step --using Congress's power of the purse to bring an end to our current open-ended involvement in Iraq.

    . . . Update II:  Thanks everyone for your great support and enthusiasm.  A lot of you have asked about what happens once the President vetoes the supplemental.  Before getting that far, we should wait to see if the President actually vetoes funds for the troops.  Both the Senate and the House have passed bills that give the troops the funding they need while also giving the American people what they are demanding - a change of course in Iraq.  It's incredible to me that this President would veto funds for the troops because Congress chose to acknowledge the will of the American people.  It just doesn't make sense.

    . . .  Thanks again everyone for your kind words and your hard work in getting out the message that we need to change in course in Iraq and if the President vetoes the funding for the troops, he does so simply because he doesn't want to acknowledge the will of the American people.

    Feingold, perhaps in an effort to garner more support at the time, couched his efforts on contingent on Bush vetoing the supplemental.

    The next step, as Feingold described it, was to usew the power of the purse, not "ratchet up the pressure."

    Context is everything. I think this would have been easy for you to understand if you had done your homework. Reid promised to bring Reid-Feingold up for a vote IF Bush vetoed the Iraq supplemental. Which he did.

    Do you get it yet?

    Parent

    But he's a smart guy (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:40:33 PM EST
    Why choose that title?

    good question, i think.  i guess we'll never know the answer unless we ask the man himself.


    Parent

    Someone familiar with Feingold's (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:44:46 PM EST
    words for the past few months would know the answer.

    Since I am familair with those wrods, I know the answer.

    You appear not to be and thus do not know the answer.

    It is a question of having put in the work on the subject.

    I have. You have not.

    Parent

    Dishonest (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    On March 5, 2007, Reid had not agreed to co-sponsor the then Feingold proposal.

    Second, please read more carefully.
    Feingold as you quote him said:

    Now that the President has rejected the will of the American people with this veto, our bill, or some other proposal to end funding for a failed policy, should be the next step to end the war.

    What part of Feingold's statement did you NOt understand? All of it clearly.

    But, by all means, make up nonsense UNCONNECTED to the ACTUAL words you quote.

    You prove my point exactly.

    Parent

    But why would he talk about (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    Stepping up the pressure?

    Doesn't he know Bush won't respond to that pressure?

    Parent

    Why don;t you link to the statements of Feingold (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    from January to April?

    Did Feingold misspeak in your misleading excerpt? Of course. But you choose to ignore Feingold's clear and consistent statements for FOUR MONTHS rejecting the notion of "ratcheting up the pressure."

    Look, I don't begrudge you your attempt to be cute on this. But you should know that I have worked on this in nauseatingly excurciating detail for 4 months now.

    I daresay there is little that Feingold knows about this that I have not looked at.

    Respect my efforts on this, even if you disagree with what I am saying.

    Parent

    that doesn't answer the question (none / 0) (#22)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:26:16 PM EST
    does feingold think stepping up the pressure will work?

    you're the expert.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:27:18 PM EST
    Based on his statements for the past 4 months, he does not.

    Indeed, in the statement you cite, his reference to pressure is illogical.

    Parent

    He Titled an entire diary (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    on dailykos "Ratcheting up the pressure."

    maybe it's not a choice one has to make.

    but if clinton says "send a message" and "end the war", that means something completely different, of course.

    Parent

    See my other comment (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    if you have a genune interest in what Feingold might have been thinking.

    But let me be clear, I think Feingold's language choice there ill advised, even given the pendency of Bush's veto.

    Parent

    You :had: one good idea. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:24:46 PM EST
    Here's another.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:25:25 PM EST
    talkleft's a hoot.

    Parent
    It's free entertainment sometimes. :-) (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:31:41 PM EST


    Parent
    I could not resist calling you out your ignorance (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    On April 2, 2007, Reid announces support for Feingold proposal.

    You ignorantly cite a Reid statement of March 5, 2007, a month PRIOR.

    I could not resist exposing you.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:23:21 PM EST
    Reid changed his mind.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    I am urging OBAMA and Clinton change their minds.

    I am surprised you do not understand that.

    You may want to consider what I said about Reid PRIOR to his "changing" his mind.

    Parent

    you're talking about a choice of words (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:27:06 PM EST
    not a position on an issue.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:31:00 PM EST
    I think you are talking about yourself there Chief.

    Parent
    hardly (none / 0) (#32)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    issue:  Reid/Feingold

    position:  support it or not.

    YOU look at the choice of words and then put support in quotes.

    so.  no.  i'm focussing on the issue and who supports the issue and who does not.  you are focussing on the choice of words.

    here's a good question.  you say you've read every last word on the topic.  maybe you've seen it.  i have not.

    i'd like to see where reid describes the legislation as you do, like this:


    It is about telling the American People that the Democratic Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle past a date certain.

    does reid know what his own legislation is about?

    Parent

    This is a result of your not understanding (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    the issue - the NOT funding after a date certain issue.

    Let me put it to you clearly, if Reid does not understand that to be the issue, then he also does not get it.

    But I think he gets it just fine.

    I think you and Clinton and Obama are trying to play games here.

    You picked the wrong thread for it.

    I have spent too much time on this matter to be fooled by the silly game playing you wish to provide here.

    Other web sites might be more fertile ground for you.

    This web site is not the place for it.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    i was looking for the quote from reid saying something along these lines:


    It is about telling the American People that the Democratic Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle past a date certain.

    we all have opinions.  my opinion is that reid "gets it" too, but that if i went and culled together everything he said on the topic, the sum thereof would look more like "ratchet up pressure" and "send message" and "change course" and "redeploy" and "end the war" (the same message americans sent in '06, the same words used by hillary above), than the words you specify above.  i believe REID BELIEVES CLINTON AND OBAMA GETS IT.

    now.  if you have a set of quotes from reid that shows that he understands the purpose of the legislation substantively different than clinton or obama, then by all means, lets see 'em.

    without that, all we have is opinions.

    and i just wrote mine is.


    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    You could not resist offering your OPINION that flies in the face of the statements of the prime sponsor of the legislation.

    Why not admit the obvious, you were just spewing and werennot familiar with the trajectory of the issue since January.


    Parent

    what about (none / 0) (#43)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    reid?

    Parent
    Reid has never been the most artful of speakers (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    But I would note two things - he is a co-sponsor of the legislation and he has said NOTHING like the quote you have from March 5 since becoming a co-sponsor.

    This speaks volumes don't you think?

     

    Parent

    what i think is (if you're asking) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:18:04 PM EST
    it will be interesting to see how webb votes tomorrow.  he is someone who has also (prior to this proposal) stated he doesn't support the defunding option.

    of course that was in the context of a question like this:  do you support kucinich's efforts to defund the war?  which is a lot different than saying he supports reid's and feingold's efforts to end the war!

    i think these aren't men who change their mind lightly.  if they have done so, i'd want to know why.  i think it's a valid question, why?

    i also think that they are more than willing to keep ratcheting up pressure, because, -- and please consider this, ok? -- while bush might not respond to such pressure, OTHER REPUBLICAN SENATORS MIGHT.

    and i think they're sincere about wanting to cut off funding for the deployed troops in baghdad, which effectively ends that war.

    you see.  no choice involved.

    and i believe obama and clinton understand this, but they may choose different words than you do to describe their support.

    this is a bummer for some.  but i can ask you if you and i supported the same thing, but we used different words to describe our support, so i then went around saying you "support" that thing, you'd probably have something to say about that.

    they support the legislation.

    it's as simple as that.


    Parent

    I like this comment (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    because I think we are actually now talking to each other. You might want to ask me why I reacted so strongly to the words chosen by Obama and Clinton.

    Let me pretend that you did.

    Because the words they chose UNDERMINE the TRUE purpose of Reid-Feingold. It is not as legislation. It is as creating a consensus in a Democratic Congress for what I believe is the only true way to end the Debacle.

    Let me be clearer though, Obama's words were worse really.

    In some way, I do think I was to harsh on Hilary, but not becauseI am wrong in saying she misunderstands the purpose of the bill, but because she did less harm than Obama in my view.

    For the record, I really liked your comment. It was thought provoking and, truth be told, exposes that even I pull my punches, the fellow named Webb has gotten mostly a free pass from me.

    Parent

    well then fine (none / 0) (#70)
    by Stewieeeee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:47:40 AM EST
    then one should fully expect, every time feingold or reid point out that the proposal ratchet's up pressure -- which as you point out UNDERMINES the TRUE pupose of the legislation -- that you take them to task for it front and center on a blog where consistency of purpose is valued.

    of course that wouldn't make sense, but i know the point has been made at this point.

    i have herein pointed out that obama and clinton have chosen to focus on the "send message" and "ratchet up pressure on the white house" component of this legislation.

    i have also pointed out that reid and feingold, the authors of this legislation, have also highlighted this component (reid moreso than feingold, feingold focusses more on the defunding component BUT HE DOES acknowledge the "ratchet up pressure" component as well.  he is CLEARLY, HIMSELF, OK with that description of his proposal).

    and i have pointed out that when clinton or obama focus on the "ratchet up pressure" component of this proposal, they are treated differently than reid and feingold.  they are UNDERMINING the TRUE purpose of Reid-Feingold.

    this is just to summarize my contribution here.
     

    Parent

    and i will add (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:02:50 PM EST
    you have stated above that you have done the research and I have not.

    that is why i am prevailing upon you to provide statements from reid as requested.

    you are the expert.


    Parent

    That is a different issue (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:04:54 PM EST
    What I think E and I are driving at is that Obama and Hillary are ducking in harmful ways the only way, in our views, to end the Debacle.

    I think that does not take away the validity of your point. But I think our perspectives are about something different.

    I have learned a lot being in this place (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    I'm in.  I have learned that we all have our opinions and opinions can change when they need to.  I have also learned that loss backed by injustice fuels the soul to action in astounding ways.  Any politician who really believes they can fudge on Iraq and never suffer the consequences of their actions probably should never be our President because they don't understand the art of living or people in general, they are only good actors.  I see all of this forming before my eyes.  Soldiers are coming home physically and mentally broken, things will not get better where Iraq is concerned and how sheltered Americans experience it.  How sheltered Americans experience Iraq will only get worse and along with that will also be asked why didn't someone do something to stop it.  People will begin to seek accountability, a larger accountability toward not only who started this but who didn't end this!  Wake up Clinton and Obama, WAKE UP!

    et al (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:06:32 PM EST
    Maybe Congress is starting to get the message:

    According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month,

    while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%.

    Having overplayed its hand, the last act is always a desperate bluff...

    You need to better understand polls (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    The slippage is laqrgely due to Democratic dissatisfaction with Demsnot doing enough to end the Iraq Debacle.

    Luckily, the Dems seem better at understanding this than you seem to be.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:18:32 PM EST
    Nice spin move.

    Got a jump shot??

    Parent

    Do you deny the facts I state? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:37:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I deny (none / 0) (#50)
    by Patrick on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    your "facts."

    Parent
    Would help you If (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:42:17 PM EST
    you cited actual polls form the actual time that this Congress was seated.

    For example, ther period between January 2007 to the present.

    I suggest you look at Gallup's polling for that period and see the drop in Dem approval of the Congress in that period.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#54)
    by Patrick on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:34:45 PM EST
    Still doesn't show the slip you're referring to....Just steady drop and pretty low at that...Kinda like the 2006 Congress

    Parent
    Even being an older poll (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    the "facts" you link to contradict your denial and support BTD's statements:
    The poll also asked Americans to name, in their own words, the "most important problem facing this country today." The war in Iraq continues to rank at the top of the list
    ...
    The war in Iraq is the top-named issue among Republicans, independents, and Democrats, but Democrats (39%) mention it much more frequently than do Republicans (22%).
    There was up and down dissatisfaction with the job the republican controlled congress was doing through most of the year, and a steady upward trend since the midterms corresponding with people becoming more and more impatient with the democratic controlled congress being slow to move to ending the debacle.

    Parent
    ...upward trend in 'dissatisfaction'... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:00:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Exatcly... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Patrick on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    Perhaps it's all in how you look at it.  Steady, as you put it, is not a sudden change related to a specific instance as BTD claims.  

    Parent
    It does depend on how you read it too. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:38:23 PM EST
    He didn't claim any such thing.

    Parent
    However, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Patrick on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:45:40 PM EST
    I doubt the overal dissapproval is tied to one specific issue.   personally, Congress has been doing little to better this country for a long time.  They are more interested in obtaining power for power's sake IMO and playing partisan politics.  Both sides.  I will submit that the latest trend could be dissatisfaction of Dems who were hoping for significant progress on their platform related to the Iraq conflict and are not seeing it.  But that only accounts for 6 points looking at the mid-term numbers.  Not enough to blame their low numbers solely on that issue.  

    Parent
    I know. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:54:30 PM EST
    But there is correspondence.

    Parent
    Actually, I misread his post.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Patrick on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:39:09 PM EST
    So disregard my last.  I'll seek treatment for rectal cranial inversion and take reading lessons.  

    Parent
    You get that too sometimes, hmm? ;-) (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:42:05 PM EST


    Parent
    all too often (none / 0) (#60)
    by Patrick on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:46:02 PM EST


    Parent
    I can out do you (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:47:48 PM EST
    on that, some days.

    Parent
    Ha ha (none / 0) (#39)
    by manys on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    Really, next time just hit "cancel" instead of avoiding the issue.

    Parent
    Polls (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Al on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:36:07 PM EST
    Here are some more statistics from AP-Ipsos: 64 to 33 disapprove of the way George Bush is handling the war in Iraq; 65 to 34 oppose the war in Iraq; 54 to 44 disapprove of Bush's recent veto of the war funding bill that would have set a date for withdrawal; 57 to 41 approve of providing additional funds and setting a date for withdrawal.

    Parent
    Bush is steady allright. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    Steadily is on a roll.

    Newsweek:

    It's hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every '08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public's approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent,...This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP's chances for victory in '08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

    Bush should have been a liberal. He's done more to bury himself and the rethugs and the neocons than any number of liberals ever could.

    Keep backing him, Jim. You're doing a great job.

    Parent

    The funny part (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by manys on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    The exact same people who turned "liberal" into a bad word are now doing the same to "Republican."

    Parent
    Well. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:46:37 PM EST
    Heh. It's what they do. To everything they touch.

    Parent
    Gee Armando (none / 0) (#7)
    by talex on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:22:02 PM EST
    maybe she said 'send a message' because she knows that even if it passes cloture it will not pass in the final vote.

    It about telling the American People that the Democratic Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle past a date certain.

    Seems to me that her bill to de-authorize the war is a big step toward not funding the war as we now know it.

    Of course that never crossed your mind when posting what you did.

    To spell it out for you if the war was de-authorized and we later appropriated funds solely for the purpose of training and rooting out al Queda then yeah the war as we now know it would be defunded just as you wish.

    Details details. Oh how they matter.

    I guess their insulting assumption (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    does work on some people.

    Parent
    um (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by manys on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:03:56 PM EST
    To spell it out for you if the war was de-authorized and we later appropriated funds solely for the purpose of training and rooting out al Queda then yeah the war as we now know it would be defunded just as you wish.

    Hey, if you're going to spell it out for us numbskulls here, could you at least spell it out in English? If it can't be spelled in English, could we at least get some punctuation? That both of these are missing really takes the edge off of your snark.

    Parent

    It's called (none / 0) (#72)
    by talex on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    a run-on sentence to be exact. add your own punctuation.

    This is a blog not an English class. But if you insist...

    manys? You should talk!

    Parent

    Triangle-A-Dope (none / 0) (#34)
    by seabos84 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:41:04 PM EST
    ali had rope-a-dope when he was getting old, and dick morris had triangulation ... ooops, I mean Clinton, Bill had triangulation.

    she is just incapable of coming out and doing something.  In the mid 90's I used to stew about their poltical incompetence, their ability to stay in charge of losing and ... not much else.

    others would tell me that they were corrupt, not much worse than the thugs.

    well, they aren't near as bad as the thugs, but

    if they ain't incompetent, they sure as hell are corrupt.

    rmm.

    Re: wasting time. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:09:08 PM EST
    I don't think that at all.

    I also think people aren't that stupid. I just hope enough do the little bit of work it takes them to pay attention.

    Good luck on people paying attention (none / 0) (#64)
    by TexDem on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:01:36 PM EST
    We're paying attention to these issues but the rest of the country will be going through Falwell Fallout for the next several days. Good luck in breaking through this for a while.

    Parent
    I have more ::faith:: in people (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:24:50 PM EST
    The ones who will have falwell fallout range anywhere from only about 11 to about 26 percent of the population. (source)

    ;-)

    Parent

    Quality (none / 0) (#66)
    by chemoelectric on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:53:47 PM EST
    I think that basically these are politicians of a lower quality, and in particular Obama appeals to susceptible people, including himself, by playing clever word games (for example, suggesting that intolerant, sectarian people should restrict themselves to tolerant, universally accessible arguments).

    My guess is that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will ever deliver a truly great speech or perform any truly great act. We just shouldn't expect it of them; they will deliver overrated speeches and perform relatively good acts. It should be enough to try to convince Obama and Clinton that not 'supporting' Reid-Feingold would be harmful to them politically.

    Before I sent HC's senate website an (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:55:30 AM EST
    e mail last night asking her to vote for Reid-Feingold, I saw her statement on honey bees.  Awwk.  The response to my e mail was that I must realize she is swamped with e mails from bona fide New York residents so I should contact my very own senators.

    Parent
    The message sent by House Democrats (none / 0) (#67)
    by fairleft on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:49:37 PM EST
    is "short-leash" funding that may get us out of Iraq in 2007.

    I think the House bill has changed the game, and Reid-Feingold is the old game. Instead, the Senate needs to back the House bill, or a very similar bill.

    If the President vetoes it, he is defunding the troops. Very simple; of course it will be spun, but united framing from major Dems (are you listening Sen. Obama? don't talk about President and the Congress playing chicken with the troops) can win the P.R. battle and end the war quickly.

    i don't get it (none / 0) (#69)
    by tps12 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:44:11 AM EST
    Obama and Clinton both sound like they'll vote for Reid-Feingold. As you say, it's not about sending messages, so who cares how they describe it to the media...if they vote to end the war, they vote to end the war.

    Clinton "Supports" Reid-Feingold | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment