Democrats are supporting Bush? The record shows otherwise. "Bush Success Rating at Historic Low"

[TwilightZone]

I have seen many claims on DU and elsewhere that Congressional Democrats are just rubber-stamping Bush's agenda. According to the following article, this claim couldn't be farther from the truth, at least where the House is concerned.

President Bush’s success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

-snip-

A separate analysis of so-called party unity votes, in which a majority of one party votes against a majority of the other, showed the possibility of another historic first for House Democrats. So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years.

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

House votes are at a 50-year low in terms of supporting the presidential agenda, and Democratic party unity in the House is at a half-century high.

Sounds like the "opposition party" to me.

[Atman]

1. Against Bush when it doesn't matter 76% of the time. It's the 14% that sucks.

It's like a pilot on a coast-to-coast flight who complains he didn't get credit for the 75% of the flight that went perfectly smooth -- before he crashed into the Rockies.

.

[lonestarnot]

4. Waiting for the damn Rockies to save us!

[TwilightZone]

28. 100% - 14% = 86%

But, who's counting?

So, the 86% of the time that House Dems opposed Bush is completely meaningless?

Interesting.

[Atman]

32. DEFLECT! DEFLECT!

I only used the numbers posted in the article. Give it a rest. You know the point doesn't change in the slightest...an airplane making it 86% of the way to its destination is NOT considered a success.

Interesting how you didn't get that.

:eyes:

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. Interesting how you don't get that Congress isn't an airplane.

Nor do you understand that 100% opposition to the President is COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED.

[Atman]

41. I'm not asking for 100% opposition, only you are claiming that everyone is

And your record here is legendary, Vash. And if you think I'm a dumbass for not realizing Congress is not an airplane, what does that make an adult who doesn't know what an analogy is? Some sort of DU political genius, I guess.

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Just because you make an analogy, that doesn't make it smart.

So if you AREN'T asking for 100% opposition, please explain to me what you are complaining about then. I'm obviously some kind of a retard and need my hand held on this one, but what exactly do you want - 90% opposition? 95%? What would make a political master, such as yourself, happy?

And for the record, I'm quite pleased with taking zealots to task on their purist agenda, thank you very much.

[Atman]

55. You could stop fucking with people and be honest, for a start

You know EXACTLY what this discussion is about, yet you'd rather just twist it around and lie and claim that all the down-in-the-DUmpsters are demanding 100%.

You KNOW that is not the case being made, yet you and your little band of cheerleaders keep hammering that point, just like a good little spin doctor. But it's bogus, it's full of shit, and so is your condescension and sarcasm. How's it working out for you, btw? Getting many converts?

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. You could start by not dancing around my question.

I don't think there's anything dishonest about my asking you, after making an idiotic analogy about a plane crash, what exactly you would term as success. You say 86% isn't good enough - okay, well, what is? Stop dancing and answer it. When you do, I won't make the case otherwise.

I think it's rather hypocritical that you call me out for using sarcasm in the same sub-thread where you make a sarcastic and condescending remark about Congressional Democrats. Tell me, are YOU getting many converts?

[Atman]

63. Here's why I won't answer it: because I already have, a hundred times.

And so has everyone else on this thread, directly or indirectly. What IS 100% is the clarity with which you are demonstrating your bullshit deflection tactic. I don't care if the analogy is squirrels hiding 100% of their nuts...I don't care whether you think it's stupid. You are only demanding an explanation from me to allow you to keep deflecting from what everyone else has already said...

Voting against Bush 86% of the time on bills about who is on a commemorative stamp, or what day National Love Crawford Texas Day is, is bullshit because the 14% of the votes they voted WITH him on were the tough votes that required leadership and balls and listening to the will of the people. No one was clamoring for Congress to shoot down the legislation calling for a plaque to historic brush clearers, we wanted them to stop this fucking war. On that, they failed MISERABLY.

How about a clearer analogy...a college course where you miss your grade by 1 point. Are you in there whining to your professor that you should get an A because of all the cool questions you got RIGHT?

Piss off. We all see right through your game.




(Oh, and don't you bother to write back to point out that the legislation I named was all fake. I know it is. It was just a quick way of making my point).

[TwilightZone]

45. The airplane analogy is ridiculous.

Interesting how you don't get that.

[Atman]

52. BWHAHA!

Not interesting at all that YOU would chime in in support of Vash The Apologizer.

:rofl:

.

[TwilightZone]

57. You responded to me, not Vash.

I responded in kind. Taking your silly airplane assertion further, I guess the Bush Administration's plane crashed five years ago, yet it's still flying.

I don't know either you or Vash, so I'm not sure what your point is. I think you're seeing a conspiracy where none exists.

[Atman]

60. No kidding.

I responded to you because I intended to respond to you. You've consistently been Vash's #1 cheerleader, got his back on every post.

So now you're trying to twist this into me seeing CONSPIRACIES? Two people posting on the same topic is a CONSPIRACY? You're loonier than Vash. And I meant that comment for you, too.

.

[TwilightZone]

61. Consistently?

I haven't posted on DU "consistently" in months and couldn't care less about your apparent issue with Vash or anyone else. I'm responding to you about your ridiculous assertions because they're ridiculous, not because Vash is responding to them.

[Atman]

65. Tit

Tat.


Yeah, sure. Whatever.

.

[TwilightZone]

68. How thoughtful.

I'm convinced by the brilliance of your argument.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. Are the people who agree with you YOUR cheerleaders?

Heaven forbid someone take a viewpoint opposing yours. It seems you expect Congressional Democrats to act as childishly as you.

[Atman]

66. No, they're just smarter than you.

Deal with it.

:hi:

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Now THAT'S comedy!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

And since I know how juvenile you are, no, it isn't "funny because it's true."

[Greeby]

2. Ah, but it's what gets through that counts

More money dumped directly into the MIC's coffers, and allowing der Shrubler to do whatever he wants on wiretapping. And so on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Yep. We stop a bridge in Alaska, but let warrentless wiretapping,

torture, the 'surge', and the upcoming attack on Iran slide on through.

[cali]

47. Did most dems vote for the awful 6 month FISA bill?

What torture legislation are you talking about?

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Enough dems voted for the FISA to let it get through.

And as for the torture legislation, THERE ISN'T ANY. Which is exactly the problem. Where is the bill to stop torture, stop extraordinary renditions, shut down Gitmo? We are in charge of congress - so where are those bills?

[cali]

51. there is legislation

about stopping torture. Don't know about rendition or Gitmo. I'm willing to be you don't either. Legislation barring torture and rendition passed in 2005. Asshat made a signing statement, of course.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/06/115222.php

[Generic Other]

3. we criticize our own no less stringently than we do the opposition

as we must. but they seem to be following our lead most of the time. Maybe the 9 % of the time they back Bush represents the BIG issues like Pat Act, Iraq war, etc. These are the ones that make us all so crazy, right?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. If it weren't that 9% that was most important, it'd be another 9%.

If they voted with us on the Patriot Act, Iraq, etc, but not on the environment or education issues, the same people would be bashing them in exactly the same way. The truth is that these DUers aren't Democrats and have no desire to support our party.

[TwilightZone]

21. I think we criticize them more stringently a lot of the time.

The criticism of Democrats often seems even more vehement than that of Republicans.

There are certainly cases where the criticism is fully warranted. I'm mainly trying to point out that the Democrats *are* acting as the opposition party, contrary to many claims.

Could they make improvements? Most definitely. Are some of the issues where they have supported Bush unacceptable? Certainly.

[wyldwolf]

5. that means nothing to a 100% purity mentality

[Exiled in America]

7. 100% purity vs. 0% conviction -- hmm.... if I'm going to err, let me see which side I'll err on....

You can use your cheap phrases all you want. It's old. It's tired. And guess what else? It isn't convincing anymore as you can see by how mainstream honest criticism of a weak and ineffective democratic party has become.

No one who continues to be a Democrat is talking about 100% purity. The only people talking about that are people who left the party or Democratic Apologists such as yourself - people who act like it is a crime to actually be critical of the conduct of the party to which you belong.

Being a Democrat does not mean standing for nothing. And it doesn't mean quietly sitting there while the leaders of your party do (or fail to do) anything they want. It doesn't mean silent consent! It is OKAY to have values. It is OKAY to have convictions.

If we don't stand for anything, then we're good for nothing. People making HONEST criticisms on DU aren't 100% purists. They are people who agree there should be AGREEMENT in the core principles of our party, and FREEDOM in the non-essentials. Right now we feel that congressional democratic leadership is not doing the right job in honoring those CORE PRINCIPLES, along with too many congressional democrats - and we have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to criticize that.

So you can take you're snide, tired, old, cheap-ass horse-shit dismissive sloganism and shove it.

[wyldwolf]

9. your reply is just a lengthy version of what I wrote.

"mainstream honest criticism of a weak and ineffective democratic party."

"Democratic Apologists"

"So you can take you're snide, tired, old, cheap-ass horse-shit dismissive sloganism and shove it."

YAWN!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. That's fucking laughable.

Get off your high horse.

[Exiled in America]

6. Doesn't mean much if they're not there when it matters.

Sorry, but this is just yet another blind apologist argument for something which is indefensible.

It doesn't really matter much if on matters that are most serious to the country congressional democrats and congressional leadership are nowhere to be found. It is the Democratic Congress and leadership that re-authorized and ill-advised and illegal foreign occupation while the death toll climbs into the hundreds of thousands (London source guesses - since we won't keep count - that its pushing 1 million). It is the Democratic Congress and leadership that rubber-stamped Bush's plans to expand surveillance at the expense of rights and freedoms enumerated in the constitution.

This president doesn't have much of an agenda besides fighting illegal wars, murdering our men and women and destroying civil rights - and on those issues the democratic leadership and key democratic members of congress and capitulated every time. Stop fucking excusing and apologizing for that outrage. Please.

Are all democratic congresspersons bad? No, absolutely not. But the leadership DESERVES criticism. Blue Dog Democrats DESERVE criticism. Anyone voting for war authorization without a timetable for withdraw and anyone voting to allow bush's shredding of the constitution deserve criticism.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. That's funny - blind followers don't usually have statistics to back them.

[Exiled in America]

22. Back them with what? That 76% of the time it doesn't matter?

It's just as someone posted above.... the devil's in the details. It's that pesky 14% of the time when it is really critical that counts.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. And who made YOU the sole arbiter of "when it is really critical"?

According to you, it doesn't matter that they've opposed the President more than any other Congress in 50 years, it only matters that they don't do it when you want them to. Pretty damn childish, if you ask me.

[Exiled in America]

80. I'm not the sole arbiter. I have a pretty broad base of agreement

I wouldn't say that I currently sit "outside the mainstream" in my definition of critical issues. There seems to be a fairly significant level of agreement that the choice to reauthorize the war by caving on all conditions and a timetable is one, and that the decision to blanket grant the bush administration everything it wanted on surveillance is another.

Pretending that all issues have the same level of significance in order to apologize for weak democratic leadership and poor congressional performance - now that's what's childish.

By the way, could you list for me please, ten significant things this congress has opposed the bush administration on and hindered its agenda? This administration has only one real agenda and that is the continuing prosecution of this illegal occupation of Iraq. Everything else is an incredibly distant second. Certainly there have been SCANT FEW policy initiatives in the year that this democratic congress has been active, and of the few major issues that have come up, there have been few victories.

[TwilightZone]

27. 100% - 14% = 86%

Nothing of substance was accomplished by the 86% of the time that they opposed Bush?

Sure.

[cali]

34. You know what's really funny?

You have no flippin' idea what that 76% represents.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. It's my job to track what Congress does.

So I'm guessing I know far, FAR more about what that 76% represents than you do.

[MadHound]

23. Ah, you know what they say

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

The Congressional Dems may have opposed Bush 76% of the time, but what is their batting record when it comes to truly important matters, matters that the voting public put them in office specifically to take care of, you know, like the war?

Rather abysmal if you ask me. Not only have they failed to end the war(which they could do via defunding it), but they have even continued to support it by continuing to approve the funding for it.

There are other matters also that they have failed on. It is all well and good to oppose Bush when the stakes are small, but where are they when the matters are great, life and death, like the war? Oh, yeah, making meaningless gestures and then caving. So much for opposition.

[cali]

37. So you've analyzed all those votes?

No? Then how do you know what they opposed bushco on?

[MadHound]

40. Oh, so then the Dems have defunded the war? Wow, what an absurd question.

Geez, open your eyes and look what is happening around you. Are our troops home? Have we stopped inflicting death and destruction on innocent people? Whoops, no, we're still there, despite a mandate given by the American people to Congress last fall telling them to end the war ASAP.

But hey, just for your own edification, yes, I do read and analyze extensively what goes on with my government. Things like the Congressional Record and such. You?

[cali]

42. Yes, I frequently peruse

varied sources, including Congressional Record.

And oh c'mon. Do I think the dems should introduce legislation to defund the war? Yes. Would it pass? No fucking way. That doesn't absolve them from not having done it, but you might try living in reality instead of some delusional world where all the mean old dems need to do is wave a magic wand and all our troops will be home. Oh, and in case you didn't realize it, the "mandate" was, as all electoral voices are, a mixed one.

[MadHound]

46. Apparently you're not reading the Constitution very carefully however

Since the Dems don't need to bring legislation to the floor to defund the war. All they have to do is simply hold up each and every single supplemental war funding bill in committee, thus preventing it from either being voted on or becoming law, and they would thus defund the war and force the troops home. No, it isn't a magic wand, but it is a hell of lot better than passing meaningless resolutions and sitting on their thumbs, which is their current M.O.

Oh, and if you go back and take a look at the exit polls and the exit interviews and suchlike from last fall, you'll find that the overwhelming reason that people voted Dems into majority power is so that they would end the war ASAP. If that isn't a mandate, or *gasp* a directive from the people, I don't know what is.

[cali]

49. Yes, I'm aware that they could potentially hold

it up in Committeem, but that presupposes that all Dems on any given committee are going to vote to do so. Not exactly likely.

And if you check out current polls, you'd find that only a minority of Americans support defunding. Gasp.

[MadHound]

56. Ummm, actually the committee chair can hold up the bill

Basic Civics

But hey, even if it required a committee vote, the Dems should all damn well be voting to hold the bill up in committee. Otherwise they're just as complacent in this war as the 'Pugs.

And by the by, I was talking about American support for ending the war, not defunding it. Right now, and for almost a year now, support for ending the war ASAP has been running at about seventy five percent.

But on the subject of defunding, yes, a minority of Americans favor defunding the war, about forty eight percent. However an even smaller minority, about forty six percent are against defunding the war. This leaves a fair number of undecideds out there, but the clear message is that defunding the war is an option that more Americans favor than not. This is from a Fox poll. Sorry, I don't have a link, but if you google I'm sure you can find it.

[cali]

58. Show me a poll. that 48% support defunding

Show me the last time a committee chair held up major funding. The realities in Congress are a little different than your easy answers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. I've got one that says 18% support defunding.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343

[MadHound]

71. Umm, no, go back and reread that

"Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support." Not the same thing as saying that only 18% support defunding the war. Gotta watch out for those weasel words on polls. Zogby is notorious about using them.

[MadHound]

70. First, I told you how to find the poll, I'm not going to spoon feed you

Secondly, just because the Dems haven't held up a bill in committee doesn't mean that they can't do so. If you don't believe me either go read the Constitution or take a basic Civics class. Educate yourself.

As far as realities, the real fact of the matter is that people are dying while the Dems are playing politics with their lives. Harsh but true.

On second thought, I will spoon feed you a bit, simply because I know how you'll reply if I don't(funny, how many times have we had this conversation) And remember, this is a Fox poll, which means that their own personal take would be against defunding the war, so poll bias plays no part in this one<http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030107_Bush_Iraq_Iran_web.pdf>

[TwilightZone]

20. Blind apologist?

Ah, name-calling. How productive.

I don't disagree that some Democrats deserve criticism on many issues, and the "war" in Iraq is most certainly at the top of the list.

What I reject is the wholesale "they're no better than the Republicans" garbage that passes for "discussion" on DU, and the never-ending complaints that the Democrats are approving Bush's every whim unchallenged. That claim is about as inaccurate as it gets.

[Exiled in America]

24. That's not "name calling" - that's exactly what it is.

Someone who categorically rejects all criticism and excuses every action of a person or a group is a "blind" "apologist" for that person or group.

[TwilightZone]

29. Show me where I categorically rejected anything. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is you who is categorically and blindly accepting the premise to which I am objecting.

[cali]

38. Ugh.

Calling someone a "blind apologist" is absolutely name calling. DUH.

[Bitwit1234]

8. They still are bush dogs and not blue dogs.

[cali]

10. Now there's a meaningful comment! n/t

[dbt]

11. Only the "Democrats"in Congre$$,

Unfortunately, the only "Democrats" who seem to matter nowadays.

Check the Ratings for Congre$$.

[rasputin1952]

12. Far more important than the #'s of Congress, is what the #'s...

show for each district and each state.

Most people don't care for other districts Congresscritters, but they love thier own. There lies the fault in "Congressional Ratings". All politics is local, and what the people in a district in say, OR, KS, ME or wherever, think their Congresscritter is bringing home the bacon, then they see others as being lame, regardless of how lame their Critter is.

Congress has rarely had more than a 25% positive rating as a whole....but the locals love their own and re-elect them in droves until they screw up.

[napi21]

39. Ya know, I keep hearing that statement, but I sure can't say it's ever

been true in MY case. I've lived in 6 different States, and I can't ever remember "loving" my Rep. Under the current fiscal situation, I say shame on ANYONE who thinks it's a good idea to "bring home the bacon"! Of course, when I criticized some of the Ga. Reps for earmarking $$ for several projects, a lot of other DUers hammered me because things like "bike paths" and "walking trails" were GOOD THINGS! Of course they're good things, but to me if you don't have the $$, it doesn't matter how good the idea is, YOU JUST CAN'T AFFORD THEM NOW!

I think the congressional re-election rate has a lot more to do with the ability to raise money and name recognition than it does with people loving their own Rep.

[TwilightZone]

69. SurveyUSA.com is a pretty good source for comparisons.

They tend to have a lot of information on individual approval rates by state, rep, etc. Individual approval rates are consistently much higher on average than the overall Congressional approval rates.

[napi21]

73. I guess it depends on who they survey...or maybe I'm just an oddball! n/t

[TwilightZone]

74. No, you're right.

Polls can obvious vary depending on the target audience - all voters vs. registered voters vs. likely voters, etc.

It does seem, though, that the overall Congressional approval rating is vastly different than the ratings for the average Congressperson. Otherwise, it seems that no one would ever get reelected.

[rasputin1952]

76. here's the thing, people who vote for their Reps, are the ones

who put them in office. Those who don't vote, and still complain are the real villains in all of this.

Name recognition has a little to do w/it, but the whole concept of R vs D has a lot to do w/it as well. However, the Gerrymandering is the most vile aspect of the situation. Hence, there is a "love" for the candidate as they generally take 75%+ of the vote.

A lot of this is slowly changing as people are becoming more mobile and districts are changing within the boundaries. Here in NE, I got stuck w/Fortenberry(R 1st Dist) is really disliked. He only won by 7% lat election, and that is unheard of in NE. It was the usual that a GOP lapdog was guaranteed a set, now, things are changing for a # of reasons. (i had to laugh last year when he showed up at the Comm College in a $1000 suit talking to people about how he was a "man of the land, a true farm figure." The man is a real ass, he lost a lot of votes right there, from the coverall crowd. These people are NOT stupid).

I can do little to defeat a congresscritter from another district/state once someone walks in to cast their ballot. But I can make some waves before the voter makes his/her mind up. Planting seeds is the best way to deal w/this stuff, and let people vote their conscience. Voters do not like being embarrassed by their Critters, it is unbecoming....:)

[TwilightZone]

77. The Fortenberry result was surprising.

It seemed to indicate that things are changing in Nebraska. As you noted, a seat like that was usually a piece of cake for the GOP, but that race was much closer than I thought it would be.

Same thing with Lee Terry's 55/45 win - much closer than expected and another sign that the GOP can no longer take those seats for granted.

If we can be competitive in NE, we can be competitive anywhere.

[rasputin1952]

78. The changes here in NE are amazing...slow, but amazing.

A lot has to do w/the bush regime and it's screw ups, but there are other things at work as well. Farmers are not happy w/the current economic outlook. Even w/ethanol taking off, the caution is there as they have seen farm subsidies, food stamps and other items that directly affect them on the ropes.

We are still 20 years behind everyone else in many instances, medicine and pain treatment are still stone age around here, and the way they deal w/lawbreakers is absurd, (minor offenses often become ridiculous jail sentences, and larger crimes are mishandled to the point of embarrassment).

It takes time to change things, but when I see NE changing relatively quickly, I know the GOP is in deep stuff.

An aside, when Fortenberry was here in Northeast NE for his debate w/Maxine Moul, he was a blathering idiot, Moul knew her stuff and handled him adeptly, but there was just that dumb mindset, "he's GOP, her must be good". I don't think that will happen again. One of his aides had an American Flag tie on that evening, and I said that if I ever felt like burning a flag, it would be the one he was wearing, while he was wearing it, because under the US Code, he was defacing and demeaning the flag. He almost dropped dead on the spot. Later, I asked Fortenberry if he ever had an original thought, or if he was just given a GOP rag to read. It was the only time I ever saw the guy w/beads of sweat on his forehead...:) I had to ask if that was the first time he ever sweat, as I know he never did a days work before in his life. Lot's of GOP'ers behind me got out of the line and walked away from the "greet & meet", looking disgusted I might add....:D

[TwilightZone]

79. I love your Fortenberry story

He seems like such a knucklehead. I haven't seen anyone this unqualified to be in Congress since Jon Christensen.

[rasputin1952]

83. That idiot from AZ who got popped out last year, the one

from Phoenix, he was a sportscaster, and I just can't recall his name, but he was the DUMBEST person to sit in congress for years!

Fortenberry is giving his stupidity a run for the money...:D

Actually, I'm surprised I haven't been audited or some other weird thing, since my e-mails to the "fort" usually sizzle. He only comes to town for fundraisers up on The Hill, where the somewhat wealthy live. Bereuter, the guy Fortenberry replaced, was actually pretty good about coming around for Town Hall meetings and such, we could count on him twice a year, and although 60% of what he voted for was a complete RW agenda, the other 40% generally helped out the state and the nation as a whole. I did get escorted out of one of Bereuter's meetings though, after I asked why some of the elderly people in the audience could not get the meds they needed, but congress could talk all day about flag burning and denying various citizens their basic human rights...:) I was escorted out, but I left to a standing ovation!...:woohoo:

[TwilightZone]

84. I think you're my hero.

I lived in Nebraska for close to twenty years, and unfortunately, I often felt as though putting pressure on local politicians was a futile exercise. You're definitely making me think I was a little too quick to think that. ;)

[rasputin1952]

85. J.D. Hayworth was the moron I was thinking of...

I lived in NW AZ when he first got elected...not my district, but he was an incredible embarrassment to the whole state. Idiot extrodinnaire! Kind of makes Fortenberry look like he made it past the 5th grade, but barely...:D

BTW, always question these people. You may actually agree w/them on some things, (doubtful, but possible), but make them answer questions, hold those feet to the fire and watch them squirm. When people see they can't answer questions on their own, they tend to vote against them...surprising how often they fold...

[TwilightZone]

86. True...Hayworth was a piece of work.

Re: question these people - I grew up in South Dakota, quite the bastion of conservatism, and I spent quite a bit of time making people uncomfortable by questioning their political allegiances. :)

I thought SD was conservative until I moved to NE. Western Nebraska, in particular, is about as red as it gets.

I recently moved to Austin, Texas, and I'm quite happy to be in a much more politically diverse location!

[rasputin1952]

87. From what I understand, Austin is one of the bastions of

progressive ideology in TX. I think Molly Ivins was from Austin....:D

God, I miss Molly...:(

I was stationed at Ft Sam Houston for a while, San Antonio was a pretty nice city...loved the Riverwalk at night. Other than that, I just passed through the panhandle several times going from AZ to NY...:)

[TwilightZone]

88. I've only been here for a few months...

but, I really like it here. The longer I'm here, the more I like it.

Yes, Molly was from Austin. Unfortunately, so is Karl Rove. The politics here are all over the place, but that's part of what makes it interesting. Some of the suburbs are pretty conservative, but the core of the metro is very progressive. The liberal seems to outweigh the conservative in many respects, and that's a very welcome change from the places I've lived most of my life.

[rasputin1952]

89. Well...I had my fill of TX, but I don't disparage the place, it's

just not for me. I got the impression that about half of the Texans I met tried to push the "Wild West" down a lot of throats...but, if they ran afoul of the law or their neighbors, they cried like kids. Then again, that is just about anywhere you go these days, and have to deal w/the RW...:D

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. K&R. DUers need to see this.

Otherwise, we'll start having plenty of "morans" over here too.

[dbt]

16. Too late. They're here. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

17. DUers just like ripping Democrats....

... Predictably, they'll say something like "that 1 vote was THE important one!!!".

[cali]

18. Yep. and then some Congress Critter will say or

do something they like, and there'll be mass adulation, until he or she says or does something they don't like.

[Exiled in America]

26. Yeah.... there's absolutely no justification whatsoever for being critical

... of Democratic Congressional performance right? I mean how DARE we express dissatisfaction with the behavior of our congressonal leadership or so-called blue-dog democrats! :eyes:

[dbt]

30. IF ONLY individual posts could be Recommended!

:evilgrin:

[TwilightZone]

31. Sure there is. 14% of the time, apparently.

n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Then justify it.

You say you want more opposition to Iraq - tell me how Democrats go about doing the following:

1) Obtain 60 votes in the Senate to override a filibuster, AND
2) Obtain 66 votes in the Senate to override a veto, AND
3) Obtain 290 votes in the House to override a veto.
-or-
4) Overcome public opinion that states that only about 18-40% of the American people support completely defunding the war.
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.poll/index.html

If you can tell me how they can accomplish that and you'll be justified in your criticism. Good luck.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

72. Still waiting on that justification Exiled.

[Exiled in America]

81. Sorry - I've been getting my master's degree all day.

Sorry I couldn't immediately respond to your demand. But I'm home now.

Congress doesn't need 60 votes. Congress could have sent the same bill to Bush over and over again and LET HIM BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFUNDING THE WAR IF HE SO CHOSE. And if they lost enough votes to get it to the White House, then they could still control what bills were voted on in Congress, and put the responsibility on the whole REPUBLICAN PARTY for "defunding" the war by refusing to support a responsible alternative.

Congress could have placed the blame for "defunding" on an obstructionist administration that refuses to adjust from disastrous policy and that kills our boys and girls needlessly, and that congress is ready and waiting to authorize a plan that provides appropriate money for an EXIT STRATEGY that does not leave our troops hanging but DOES defend them from a disastrous course of action that has totally failed.

It's ok if only 18% of the public supports total defunding of the war (however, as was pointed out above, that's not actually exactly what your polls say) - because it wouldn't be democrats in congress doing it. They could and should have had the guts to point the finger back at this administration - an administration that has record low approval ratings too - and present themselves as ready, eager and in fact desperate for the administration to stop obstructing and start supporting a better course of action in Iraq.

[stimbox]

50. Two cheerleading threads about Congressional Dems.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3496242

Must be some talking point memo going around. You kneepad wearers are supposed to spread these out a little.

:rofl:

:hide:

[TwilightZone]

53. Wow, two people posting a thread about the same thing. Unprecendented!

That *never* happens at DU!

[cali]

54. nothing like nice little mindless adhoms

There are generally oodles of threads around here calling dems everything but babykillers. There's a difference between criticism- and there's much to criticize dems for- and zombie rhetoric.

[endarkenment]

75. War. More War. Warrantless Wiretaps. What Subpoena? nt.

[Orsino]

82. QED.

There is token opposition to the * Agenda, and sometimes it is more than token. By and large, though, our "representatives" are too comfy to work.