What's Wrong With Democrats
I read a
couple of
articles this morning that typify all that's wrong with the Democratic Party. Here's a glimpse into the first article:
If he tried arguing that to the Supreme Court, he'd be laughed out in 10 minutes. I watched him read his prepared statement this afternoon on C-SPAN2 and found it to be totally uninspiring to the point of being boring and inconsequential.
Here's something from the second article:
The first article proves that: (a) Democrats hate everything that President Bush does and stands for and (b) Democrats are willing to scrap an important tool in detecting attacks against the U.S. for purely partisan reasons. That's both disgusting and intolerable.
The second article proves that Democrats think that Saddam's Iraq wasn't an important cog in the global reach of various terrorist groups. In fact, based on what they've said in the past, it's safe to say that they think the GWOT is only about law enforcement and capturing UBL. That's insane and incoherent at minimum, dangerous and scary at most. Remember that Arlen Specter said Feingold's resolution has no merit.
Here's more of what Feingold said during the 'hearing':
As a Minnesota native, I've always said the worst thing to come out of Wisconsin was the Packers but I think they're a picture of dignity compared with this idiot. In a way, I'd love seeing the Supremes take this issue up so they could publicly humiliate Feingold, AKA Sen. Whiney Britches.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, March 31, 2006 6:02 PM
No comments.
"To me, this is not really and should not be a partisan question," Dean told the panel. "I think it's a question of institutional pride of this body, of the Congress of the United States." He added in prepared testimony that if Congress doesn't have the stomach for Feingold's resolution as drafted, it should pass some measure serving Bush a warning. "The resolution should be amended, not defeated, because the president needs to be reminded that separation of powers does not mean an isolation of powers," Dean said in prepared remarks.It's amazing that Democrats are so desperate to prove Bush broke the law that they're calling on a convicted felon with a notorious axe to grind against conservatives to verify their beliefs. Mr. Dean's assertions weren't based in fact but rather on general platitudes that might be summed up as saying 'Congress should have a say in this'.
If he tried arguing that to the Supreme Court, he'd be laughed out in 10 minutes. I watched him read his prepared statement this afternoon on C-SPAN2 and found it to be totally uninspiring to the point of being boring and inconsequential.
Here's something from the second article:
Sen. Joe Lieberman's strong stand on national security has so rankled some fellow Democrats that they actually booed him at a political dinner on Thursday night. The rude response to his speech came even as he was being endorsed by popular Sen. Barack Obama. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner in Hartford.The Connecticut Democratic Party is so hate-filled that it's willing to dump one of the best and most honorable senators in the last quarter century. What's worse is that this is further evidence that Democrats aren't serious about winning the GWOT.
The first article proves that: (a) Democrats hate everything that President Bush does and stands for and (b) Democrats are willing to scrap an important tool in detecting attacks against the U.S. for purely partisan reasons. That's both disgusting and intolerable.
The second article proves that Democrats think that Saddam's Iraq wasn't an important cog in the global reach of various terrorist groups. In fact, based on what they've said in the past, it's safe to say that they think the GWOT is only about law enforcement and capturing UBL. That's insane and incoherent at minimum, dangerous and scary at most. Remember that Arlen Specter said Feingold's resolution has no merit.
Here's more of what Feingold said during the 'hearing':
Where is the attorney general and Mr. Comey, who, according to reports, have indicated their discomfort with this program? Why are they not before this committee talking plainly about their objections? You know what word comes to mind, Mr. Chairman? It's a word that first came into my consciousness in 1974, cover-up. It's a cover-up. Now -- before I ask my question, I want to get to this question. You didn't help me draft this thing. But if you want the words bad faith in there, let's put 'em right in because that's exactly what we have here. The whole record here makes me believe with regret that the president has acted in bad faith both with regard to not revealing this program to the appropriate members of Congress, the full committees that were entitled to it, but more importantly by making misleading statements throughout America suggesting that this program did not exist.At this point, Feingold storms out of the room. He's still just a little hothead that won't debate substance with anyone who isn't a lightweight reporter. All that's missing from his diatribe is Sen. Feingold crying.
As a Minnesota native, I've always said the worst thing to come out of Wisconsin was the Packers but I think they're a picture of dignity compared with this idiot. In a way, I'd love seeing the Supremes take this issue up so they could publicly humiliate Feingold, AKA Sen. Whiney Britches.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, March 31, 2006 6:02 PM
No comments.
