Monday, October 01, 2007

Democrat's Problem -- having to lead is too hard for them

When the Republicans were in their 4th decade of minority status in the house, a lot of conservatives were beginning to wonder if they weren't just happier in the minority, because they didn't have to be responsible for anything and could just snipe at the majority and sit back and whine and complain.

Once the Republicans took the majority, they were expected to accomplish something. And they actually did, for some time, but after a while some of them were more about keeping their jobs than doing what we elected them to do.

Well, the Democrats used that to great advantage in 2006, promising to get things done, to do everything better, smarter, faster, whatever. One great example was the appropriations, with the Democrats jumping all over the Republicans for failing to complete all the appropriations bills before October 1st deadline.

Well now it's a year later, the Democrats are in charge in the house and senate. And they have done almost nothing. For example, not a SINGLE APPROPRIATIONS BILL has been sent to the President for a signature. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Meanwhile, their base, which expected to be repaid for their support, is getting really mad at them for not getting us out of Iraq, not getting Bush and Cheney impeached, and a host of other things they expected but are never going to get.

So it wasn't surprising to see this blog entry from some guy named Brad, a self-professed democrat, who says he's giving up blogging: "Bye":

I’ve talked for months about why I feel the Democratic party is the best solution for America, and I can’t say I believe that as forcefully any more. They are in no way worse than Republicans, but after nearly a year of a Democratic majority that was supposed to rein in a runaway executive and put the nation back on the right track, we are now even worse off than we were when Republicans controlled Congress.

Ouch. I've actually been relatively happy with Congress because they've only screwed up a few things. Having accomplished almost nothing is the best I could hope for from the liberal leadership, and I've gotten my wish.

Brad's littany of horrors continues:

The Democrats have conspired to legalize illegal wiretapping (once an impeachable offense) and they’ve allowed Bush to send even more troops into Iraq, escalating a war they were given a mandate to end.

I'm thankful for both of these accomplishments.

I’ve defended Democrats on this blog for too long. In my opinion the Democrats currently in both houses of Congress (with some notable exceptions) are not part of the solution; they have only so far furthered the same old problems. I can no longer with good conscience defend them as a group.

Sorry Brad, but you've learned what we conservatives already knew -- you can't trust the Democrats in congress to do what they say. They often lie to get elected. In conservative districts they pretend to be conservative, in liberal districts they say they'll toe the liberal line, but once in office they will do what they will.

In this case, enough Democrats know that the war is important that, while they were happy to ride into a majority on the backs of the anti-war liberals, they had no real intention of ending the war.

Look at the big 3 democrat presidential candidates. Not ONE of them will promise to get us out of Iraq in their FIRST 4 YEARS. So much for the "mandate to leave Iraq", we aren't talking about out in a year. Under any likely Democrat president, we will probably still be in Iraq in 2012. Again, this is only right, I'm glad they won't commit to a date to leave, but it's not what they promised to get elected.

I know there are republicans who say whatever to get elected. But I find most will tell the harsh truths, and sometimes it will cost them if their opponent will lie to be elected.

So Brad is not going to blog anymore, and I can't say I'll miss him because frankly I have no idea who he is and I've never read his blog before. He closes:

I also remain convinced that such broad-based blogging about politics is useless without a massive net to cast. I don’t have that. Big ideas were my focus, and big ideas are what are for some reason incompatible with this modern political state. This has never turned out to be quite what I wanted it to be, and that’s okay with me. It’s time to move on.

Oh, OK, that's not how he closed. He did say that, but then he went on to explain how he's starting up a NEW blog to attack Eric Cantor.

Because as a liberal, he's learned a lesson. Big ideas were his focus, but big ideas are meaningless in the liberal world. So he's going to do what liberals do best -- Run a personal smear-site against a republican politician.

3 comments:

James Young said...

Interesting post. Put succinctly, the Democrats have not followed the moonbat line. Guess it sucks to have to actually govern.

Brad said...

Well done, completely misrepresenting the entire point. The Democrats have failed because they've not governed as if they are the majority. They've expected civility and honor in leadership from Republicans. Why? I have no idea. They don't have the will and the balls to attack the worst administration in the nation's history and their enablers in Congress. Governing is the easy part. Fixing what Republicans have ruined for over a decade now is a bit harder and requires more than what the Democrats have thus far offered.

But silly, foolish little Republicans (like you) don't bother with facts or anything like that, do they? It's far easier for you to wax idiotic to your loyal, mouth-breathing fan-base of... what, three? Four?

And by the way, sport, here is the appropriation legislation so far that HAS BECOME LAW, meaning that either you're lying to prove a "point" or don't bother doing research, troubling either way:

4th continuing resolution - HJ Res. 20 - 2/15/07, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app07.html

Bush has vetoed or promised to veto all the rest. Why doesn't he support the troops?

Charles said...

Brad,

I appreciate you coming to my humble blog to comment. I thought my quotes of your words made your point adequately, and if they didn't you only have yourself to blame.

My words made my point, which is that if I were a democrat I'd be dissappointed in the Democrats as well, probably for the same reason you are.

You are I believe crazy in your assertion that their problem is that they "expected civility and honor", as if they haven't received it.

The Democrats claimed they would open up the process, but now they run the most closed house in memory. They claim it's because the republicans aren't getting along, but that's the excuse the republicans used when they were in charge.

The Republicans once held a vote open for 3 hours to switch votes. You might think that was the worst thing ever, but the Democrats aren't to be outdone. They actually closed a vote, and THEN ALLOWED people to switch votes in order to change the outcome of an already completed vote.

Meanwhile, they've closed off the rules process, sometimes even ignoring republicans who come into the room. Which may not be any worse than what the Republicans did, but it certainly isn't a "better, more open" process.

They promised to ensure everybody knew what was in the bills, but now they let bills come up with even LESS time to review than the Republicans.

As to your claim that I made an error in appropriations, you are simply wrong. It's OK. The bill you cite is NOT an appropriations bill, but it is a CONTINUING RESOLUTION. It funds EVERYTHING, but it is not an appropriations bill.

The Republicans passed one of those last year and the Democrats attacked them for "pushing off the real work to be done". But the Republicans had passed for actual appropriations by that point.

Meanwhile, the Democrats haven't even sent a single appropriations bill to the President, so they can't blame him for vetoing anything.

OF course, he should veto a military appropriations that defines a new domestic civilian criminal code of "hate crimes". There's an appropriations bill that covers that, although new laws should be passed as new laws, not attached to appropriations.

But regardless, it has NOTHING to do with the military, unless the Democrats are saying we should send troops in to enforce hate crimes legislation.