Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
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?