They Just Wouldn't Listen
No matter how upset Harry Reid got, no matter how hard he pushed, Democratic presidential hopefuls John Kerry and Russ Feingold just didn't listen to his call for just a single
Democratic cut-and-run proposal.
It's only a difficult decision if you're thinking in terms of "which way should I vote to gain a political advantage and with which voters?" If that's what she meant by a difficult issue, then, yes, that's a difficult issue.
The bottom line is that Democrats didn't know how to vote because the only consideration for most of them was political, not because of national security interests. That's a shame because they're running from their Pat Moynihan/Scoop Jackson/Harry Truman/JFK/FDR history. It isn't a pretty sight.
Posted Saturday, June 24, 2006 9:34 PM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
In the end, the GOP-led Senate defeated the two Democratic plans for pulling out U.S. forces, but only after two weeks of haggling that left the party fractured on Iraq and even caused divisions in the leadership ranks, pitting Reid against his top lieutenant, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. "It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic Party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another potential Democratic presidential nominee, said Friday.Typical of a Clinton, Hillary's putting on all the lipstick on that pig but she won't get away with it because she isn't as good a liar as her HINO (Hubby In Name Only). And he wasn't a particularly good liar himself. This issue isn't difficult or troubling. It's straightforward. All you have to do is honestly answer whether you want to win the GWOT or not. If you do, then vote to keep the troops there until victory is won.
It's only a difficult decision if you're thinking in terms of "which way should I vote to gain a political advantage and with which voters?" If that's what she meant by a difficult issue, then, yes, that's a difficult issue.
With two proposals fueling criticism of a divided party in an election year, Democratic leaders pulled both sides together in a series of meetings to try come up with one position that satisfied all senators. But officials said it quickly became clear that Kerry and Feingold were adamant that any proposal include a deadline, a deal-breaker for Levin and other senators focused on 2006. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who's in charge of the Senate Democrats' campaign efforts, told Democrats that he did not want Kerry's proposal to come up for a vote because it would put moderates running this year in a tough spot. The fate of candidates like Lieberman and Cantwell is never far from Schumer's mind, and he only wanted a vote on Levin's resolution.Who's Schumer thinking is a moderate? He certainly can't think Ms. Cantwell is a moderate. She's a far left moonbat. And Lieberman is closer to conservative than he is to being a moderate. Besides, if Lamont wins the primary, Lieberman will run as an independent and caucus with Republicans in 2007. Then his troubles will be over.
The bottom line is that Democrats didn't know how to vote because the only consideration for most of them was political, not because of national security interests. That's a shame because they're running from their Pat Moynihan/Scoop Jackson/Harry Truman/JFK/FDR history. It isn't a pretty sight.
Indeed, 37 Democrats voted for Levin's resolution. Yet, 12, including Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, broke ranks with Reid to also vote in favor of a deadline. Reid, officials said, was infuriated by Durbin's defection as well as a presentation the Illinois senator made to the caucus Tuesday during Democrats' weekly policy lunch.Reid should know better than to think of Durbin as a trustworthy person. He's a backstabbing lowlife and a political opportunist. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him if I had two broken arms and a bad back.
Posted Saturday, June 24, 2006 9:34 PM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
