rooddood743
(148 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 07:24 AM
Original message |
Are the Democrats wussies? |
|
Nope. I just figured it out. Remember how we all criticized the democrats in the Senate and the Congress for not standing up to Bush? And how they seem to be doing so now. Now after 9/11, the nation was traumitized, and everybody was pulling behind the president. Well, this is normal "cycle of grief" type stuff. Let's be honest, if the democrats would have come out strong against the prez in the immediate aftermath, they would have been hung. Keep in mind, politics is the art of the possible. It would have been nice had they stood up to Bush, but perhaps this was tactically impossible. But now, after the mourning is over, it's natural for people to start asking, "How did all this happen?" Which is why, I believe, you have Kennedy and all the rest going on the attack.
Maybe these guys were'nt wusses after all, maybe they were just a bit smarter than we gave them credit for.
|
Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 07:28 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Who besides Kennedy and Byrd... |
|
...are going on the 'attack'?
- You've come up with a nice rationalization...nothing more.
|
ShaneGR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Hmmmm, let me see here |
|
9 of the ten Presidential candidates.
Ever watcht the 'Iraqi Watch' in the House on Tuesday nights?
Joe Biden.
Tom Daschle
Nancy Pellossi
Terry McCaullife
Durbin from Illinois
I can go on, want me to? Oh nm, you'll just ignore it.
|
ShaneGR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. And while I'm at it.... |
|
Who in your beloved Green Party is busy criticizing Bush???
|
Skittles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 07:28 AM
Response to Original message |
2. except for Hillary of course |
|
she may seem - *cough* - ABRASIVE if she attempts any sort of "attack". x(
|
cspiguy
(679 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 07:29 AM
Response to Original message |
|
other 10 (including General Wussie) are.
|
displacedtexan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 07:32 AM
Response to Original message |
|
politics is, indeed, the art of the possible! just like the father in 'my big fat greek wedding,' most people have to come to realizations in their own way and on their own terms. until an issue affects them personally, they can't face the truth staring at them. it's the old 'elephant on the table' metaphor. it may be right there in front of you, but until you comment on it, it goes virtually ignored. if you comment on it, you have to deal with it.
|
Brucey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-24-03 07:57 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Does it mean a coward? What's wrong with being a coward, if the opposite means invading other countries, denying people their constitutional rights, and pushing people around? I prefer cowards to bullies. When did "coward" become the biggest possible insult? It reminds me of how children call someone a "sissy," or adult idiots say something is "gay" to insult it. I would speculate that these are remnants of archaic male chauvinism; a world in which the biggest insult is to be called a woman. Why, you, you girlie!! What exactly is wrong with being a woman? Of course, someone needs to stand up to Chimpy and company. The Dems, in my opinion, took too too too long to do it (waiting for someone to take the lead). I give the credit to Michael Moore, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, and Howard Dean for being the instigators. When others saw it was safe, they jumped in.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 17th 2024, 03:07 PM
Response to Original message |