Why should Dems go through a charade if a veto is inevitable? It's STUPID

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Why waste time and money playing make believe if a veto is inevitable.

Democrats who face realities like veto proof majorities aren't spineless they're just not playing the game of dupe the rube by putting up a phony fight they know they can't win.

[bmcatt]

1. I'm confused...

What's the issue with just not sending a funding bill to the White House? If you can't defund the war with a god-damned explicit bill for withdrawal, just don't send any ()*#@ing money.

Grab the MSM by the throat and trumpet loud and clear and every single time that the Dems *tried* to fund the war, but that the asshole in the WH didn't want their funding.

[zalinda]

2. I heard that they are going to put an Iraq timeline

in some domestic spending bills. This will another way to work the withdrawal.

zalinda

[OHdem10]

3. It is clear clear clear--Bush is going to do what he wants to do

It should be clear clear clear that the Democrats fought
back.

There is no way in H. that the Democrats could cut off funds
with the troops on the ground and Iraq going up in flames.
Politically it is impossible.

There is a chance that this war will be coming to an end
sooner than we think.

Of course they are now playing the Iran Card to distract us.

There are serious people who believe we will be out of Iraq
within a year.

The Democrats did the best they could. Their approval rating
is now equal to Bush. All this fighting may not be helping.

[Disturbed]

4. Of course Busholini will veto this Bill if

the Fed. Minimum Wage hike is included.

[msongs]

5. if bush vetoes it, the congress does NOT SEND HIM ANOTHER ONE nt

[koopie57]

19. I think that they should submit the original bill

if he vetos that bill, send him a bill with $1,000 less fuding and one day sooner for pullout, but I guess they should also include funding to be used only to get our troops home.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Roll over and play dead

the Social Democrats did in the 1930s, and you and I have seen the movie.

You fight, that's all they should have done

[sam sarrha]

8. now they are part of it.. dead soldiers and dead civilians for Bu$h's oil money

NOTHING GOOD can come of this..

[Telly Savalas]

7. Why don't they just take a vacation until Jan 2009 then?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Because they're using the P.T. Barnum manual of practical politics - aka "Triangulation".

The theory being if you pander to the Right, you pick up votes, because the Left has nowhere else to go.

It also has the extra added element of pretending to do something when accomplishing nothing.

[Odin2005]

10. It's called SENDING A MESSAGE!

The more he uses the veto the more it tells the American People he is an obstructionist.

[karlrschneider]

11. The problem with that is it will be seen by a lot of morans as "strong"

:grr:

[Rosemary2205]

12. I totally do not understand how this is a cave in or a failure for Dems.

They sending Bush a bill with the money he wants and waivable benchmarks. It's my understanding they are including the minimum wage hike in the bill.

Bush signs it AMERICA gets something great - a wage hike - something that would never ever be possible otherwise -- and it won't mean diddly squat either way on Iraq because Bush WILL find a way to finance Iraq for 3 more months with or without this money.

Bush vetoes it because of the min. wage -- he looks like a total f'ing schmuck to pretty much everyone in America.


Seems like a freakin' win/win situation for Dems to me.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

20. bingo n/t

nt

[StefanX]

13. Why should Dems stand up for the will of 70% (or 88%) of The People?

70% of the public oppose Bush's Iraq Occupation.

88% of the public thinks Bush should be IMPEACHED.

Who the hell cares what a few Repuke holdouts in Congress think?

Get the ball rolling, they'll come around.

[leftofthedial]

14. make the motherfucker veto the bill over and over and over again

it's not their job to do what the executive branch tells them to do

they failed as the opposition party and they are failing as the majority party

it is clear that the "leadership" of the "Democrats" are in collusion with the same capitalists who put king george in power

[EFerrari]

15. Because that's what they were elected to do. Fight Bush. n/t

[H2O Man]

16. The charade

may be something other than what you identify here.

[JeffR]

17. Chilling thought, H2O Man

and all too plausible...

[koopie57]

18. who said they can't win?

they can, but they need to keep trying.