Here's a couple links in follow-up to this post on the rage of the netroots in the wake of Democrats in Congress bowing to reality on the Iraq spending bill:
Will at Horse's Ass has some thoughts. He's not happy. Nor is the liberal Girl Next Door.
Jonathan Alter - who for my money is one of the more reliably anti-conservative shills in the pundit class - also weighs in with a critique of the netroots similar to my original post:
The first thing to understand is that Democrats may have won the midterms but they lack the votes to end the war in Iraq. Some liberals don't seem to get this elemental fact.
Darn civics.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 28, 2007 07:20 PM | Email This"That people on the political Left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the Left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred. Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the Left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life. How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all? The source of the anger of liberals, 'progressives,' or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice, but they are hated like the devil incarnate. There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the Left... If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the Left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude. Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the Left, the political melodrama starring the Left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on. It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders." --Thomas Sowell
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/28/12530/1525
Rosie is expected to try out for her position (just kidding)
Posted by: GS on May 28, 2007 08:20 PMThe Dems said up front this is what they were going to do, because they don't want to cut off funding, and never did.
Frankly, the Dems were pretty disappointed they won the Senate at all, because they knew this is what would happen: they would be held responsible by the anti-Bush left and center for not getting done what they want done. They had to have known it, because I knew it, and they understand these things a lot better than I do.
I think Karl Rove intentionally threw 2006 just so that the Democrats would win the Senate and lose support going into 2008! OK, not really, but I bet I could convince a lot of the left that it's true.
So much to supporting our troops.
Let's see when I came home from Nam I was called a baby killer. How before the dems & left start calling our soldiers the same thing too. )-:
Party of the sick.
Yesterday news.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 29, 2007 06:53 AMYou guys may not know it (and the lefties also), but the Ds did a bangup job on this issue (from their standpoint).
There is no election this year, so they practices strategery- Bush style. They knew they wouldn't get anywhere on this supplemental, but they sure laid the groundwork for the big budget this fall.
The "surge" better show some signs this fall, or it is all over.
Posted by: swatter on May 29, 2007 08:18 AMSeems to me it's the Dem's strategy to use the war spending bills to push through populist items of their agenda (one time doesn't make a trend, we'll see what happens in September). The Dem's definitely seem to be getting stuff done.
I didn't hear a whole lot of protest on minimum wage as it passed the legislature; yet, it didn't get signed by Bush. Why not? Get my drift?
Posted by: swatter on May 29, 2007 10:25 AMCheck out Anbar and Kharmah, via Instapundit:
...A month ago in this post I wrote about how the Anbar Awakening was moving downstream along the west bank of the Euphrates.
In Khalidiyah, the SAA had taken control of security for their own villages under the supervision of the Habbaniyah police and under the watchful eye of the Marines.
The awakening started in Ramadi and has now spread to Hit, Haditha and points west to the West bank of the Euphrates just north of Fallujah and then to the south near Amariyah/Ferris.
The tribes along the west bank are all tied into each other and some of the sub-tribes who have not joined the awakening are finding themselves in armed intra-tribal conflict.
The awakening has now spontaneously leapt the Euphrates and taken hold in an unlikely area--al Kharmah....
Posted by: sandy P on May 29, 2007 10:30 AMUm, was this comment supposed to make sense?
And Sandy,
The people who are "taking control of security" in the areas that you list are some of the biggest opponents of the elected Iraqi government. The fact that they have their own security forces set up is not an indication that the surge is working, it's an indication that we only have the manpower to deal with the insurgents within Baghdad.
thehim, here's a hint- why didn't Bush sign off on the minimum wage till now?
And no, it doesn't mean throwing a rope around you.
Posted by: swatter on May 29, 2007 03:51 PMLook like it was politics as usual on Capitol Hill. I fail to see how anyone got played. Bush got his war funding w/ no strings attached and the Dem's got a minor token on which to claim victory. That's the way politics is played.
I don't think Bush would have needed to worry about increasing the minimum wage had a GOP Congress been in power. Meanwhile the Dem's play populist while pissing off business owners across the country.
I agree...but Bush was against it without tax cuts. The GOP compromised on that one.
Even when you factor the legitimate argument of these being entry level jobs at MickeyDs and Costco
I think you mean WalMart. Starting wage at Costco is pretty good for the industry. A lot of restaurant workers tend to make min. wage + tips. They should tie Min Wage to inflation like they do in Washington State but that's never going to happen.
Seeing that Bush is below the political Mendoza line popularity-wise, Democrats had nothing to lose by fighting to fund the troops and bring them home.
Posted by: Will from HA on May 31, 2007 12:49 AM