---------------------------------------------------------
In the last post, I debated with Jason about why Democrats who believe in spreading Democracy in the Middle East in 1990, turned around in 2002 and decided to support the status quo of Dictators.
Here is something that kept me awake:
"I could think of at least 20 Republicans who as President might have been able to get bipartisan support on this."
None of those 20 republicans were President in 2002, only President George W. Bush. In the 1990's, there were no other Democrats who were President other then Clinton. I also remember that in the 1990's, America reneged on it's promises to internal Democratic movements in Iraq. Then to say that no "organic movement" of Democracy could occur in a Dictatorship is a red Herring.
When, since 1979, has Middle Eastern Democracy grown "organically" under a Dictatorship?
Also, to make foreign policy work requires a sliver of Bi-partisanship. Let's rewind and see how good the Democrats are on that:
2001 - Democrats believe President Bush is an illegitimate President; Why negotiate? After 9/11, for three weeks, Democrats act Bi-partisan.
2002 - The Senate switches hands and an election is coming -- why negotiate?
2003 -- The Presidential Election is coming, Democrats want a replay of 1992 -- why negotiate?
2004 -- Same as above -- why negotiate?
2005 -- Problems with Ohio. Democrats hold the same views as 2001 -- why negotiate?
2006 -- Hurricane Katrina and Congressional Elections -- why negotiate?
2007 -- Democrats take Congress -- Why negotiate?
2008 -- President Bush is a lame duck -- Why negotiate?
And my question is, after 8 years of Democrats not proving to be Bi-partisan (except for three weeks in 2001), why should any Republican support any Democrat policy from any Democratic President? After all, most Democrats wanted an actor who starred in a TV show about a White House to be President, because they didn't like the one in the (real) White House.
Maybe, if a Democratic President is elected, we should just say, "I would work the Democratic President, but he isn't perfect enough, so why should Conservatives and Republicans support their views?"
Even during the Impeachments of Nixon and Clinton, both branches still appointed people and Government work still continued. Not under these current Democrats.
What proof over the past seven years have the Democrats proven to be Bi-partisan? And why should any Conservative or Republican support any Democratic President given this precedent?
JSF, your one sided demands bipartisanship are quickly becoming a joke. Bipartisanship is all about finding common ground. What has your side done since the Supreme Court elected Bush in 2000 to find common ground? There was a whole lot of "with us or with the enemy" talk. There was a lot of questioning the patriotism of anyone with a different opinion. There were plenty of cheap shots and poor analogies. But I don't think I can find a single example of of attempts at finding common ground. The way you try to turn this around to blame it on the dems would be a brilliant bit of partisan gamesmanship if your argument wasn't hollower than Dick Cheney's robot heart. But like your attempt to say that we're in Iraq to promote democracy, there are plenty of people out there who are stupid enough that they might still buy it and pull the lever for McBush in November. If you could only get them to read your blog you'd be doing a great job for your party.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteHow do you get to common ground? You sit down and negotiate (especially with Americans of other Political persuasions).
But the truth is here, after Overtime 2000, the word from the Hill was, the Democrats did not wish to talk. Democrats (even more so) started self-segregating themselves (courtesy f the currrent Speaker).
Democrats were so ready for a replay of 1992 in 2004, they didn't want or need to talk to Republicans. Thus, no negotiations, then no common ground.
If you can't connect on Capitol Hill to make Government work, how do you expect Kos'ers or HuffPo's to do the same?
Jason, 7 years of Ad Homs and what do you get? You start radicalizing a guy like me.
How about those questions below? Put yourself in our shoes, what do you think the answer is?
Of course, it's all the democrats fault! There have been 7 years of outstanding exposition, investigative journalism, and legitimate debate toward the positions and actions taken by this administration, yet you choose to only see the ad hominems so you can make excuses for radicalizing yourself. If you're going to be a radical, have the balls to take responsibility for it without blaming it on outside forces. Man up, dude! Nobody else has the power to change you. You don't hear Bush, Cheney or any other neocon blaming others for their radical ways.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats and Republicans are like the Arabs and Israelis of the Middle East. They engage in a lot of back biting and blame gaming, but they need each other for survival. They share this love hate relationship. I think that's very sad, but it is what it is, bipartisanship will only come when they realize that the bloodshed is unnecessary, just like that is when peace will come to the middle east.
ReplyDelete"Supreme Court elected Bush in 2000"
ReplyDeletePart of the answer right there... seems even the fact that after the recounts Bush still won means nothing.