Since the GOP has been in charge for most of the past 30 years it is easy to forget what happens when they are out of power, but a review of the Clintion years will show you that groups like the Tea Party only pop up when the DEMS are in power.
The GOP supports them, gives them funds, and help, then drops them as soon as it gets back into power, which is fine with the type of people that are in the Tea Party because all they want is a government that will tell them that everything is Okay, even if it isn’t.
How has the GOP been “in charge”, Ken? Because you view the President as an Absolute Dictator with unlimited power?
Reagan spent eight years dealing with a Democratic Congress. Congress has been overwhelmingly Democratic the last 30 years. That’s why they called it a “revolution” in 1994, and short-lived it was.
shortass, um, Bush’s “cowboy” reaction managed to alienate nearly every ally we had had during the first Gulf War (remember, where his father the diplomat forged a very impressive alliance?), as well as costing us billions and billions for a war we did not need. You want to talk clueless? He ignored the policy set for warfare by his own Secretary of State - a highly successful general.
And as regards leaning towards the center - the “center” of this country has moved so far right that even rich Europeans won’t go there. Obama IS a centrist, didn’t you realize that? Just like Clinton, who is arguably one of our most successful Republican presidents - you can’t tell me NAFTA is a pro-union position!
Hmm, shortass. A “cowboy” spends his time out in the rain, snow, mud, and summer heat for low pay, riding around on a horse in a swarm of flies that also follow the cows around. His pay is lousy, he has little formal education, never listens to wiser advisors, has a drinking problem and a pickup and cuts firewood in his off-time. He gets into fights quickly because he doesn’t think through his actions, looses at least half his fights, and ends up in jail on DUI charges.
To be fair… let’s say, for a moment, that Iraq was necessary. Let’s say… for a moment, that the surge “worked.” The president’s highest military commanders at the time requested over 100,000 troops to go into Iraq… for that they were fired. I think that itself was a major problem.
shortass–
I believe 9/11 would not have happened because the Clinton/Gore Administration were very aware of the danger of Al Quaida and WARNED the Bush team of the danger posed from this group.
Mr. Shortass (thanks for the courtesy - it’s been in short supply around here) - You’re separating Afghanistan and Iraq, which is a point. Bush ignored Powell’s principles for Iraq, then. Also, if you compare the first Gulf War to the Iraq war, you will find a major difference. We actually bribed countries to become (and stay) allies in this war. Last war, we were so well funded that we actually turned a profit. (I have a friend who worked in the Reagan and Bush White Houses and was responsible for collecting the checks!) Our alliance was a true alliance last time - this time it was really just us.
And yes, Obama is a centrist. Look at what he has done, how he has reached out to the Republicans, how he supported the bank bailout (a Republican initiative, remember) – a true socialist might have tried to nationalize the healthcare system, not pay MORE money to insurance companies.
Clinton was a centrist, too. NAFTA opened the door to lower-wage Mexican workers taking away jobs from Americans – this is a Democratic pro-labor platform? And that’s just for starters!
The truth is that the terms “socialist” and “Communist” are being thrown around without regard for their actual meaning. The head of the Socialist Party of America says Obama isn’t a socialist – why not you?
follow the $$$- attack the Republican FORM of Iraq, install a Brit type “democracy”.
USE the u-knighted states troops and $$$( that ought to out a hole in their abilities to serve the people), then COLLECT the Iraq oil leases for ROYAL dutch shell, bp, this is what happened.
Once again, the U.S.(Troops AND capital) is used as an “attack-dog” for the crowns oil—Sir Kissinger used the back door at the white house for 8 years to advise- W.
(hence the YEARS long refusal to give up the logs of WHO comes and goes to OUR White house).
watch as W gets on his ‘american” knees to accept the queens Lordship(like his daddy, sir rumsfled, sir colin powell, Sir reagan) for their GREAT SERVICE TO THE CROWN!.
watch THEIR Tory controlled medias cover it up and NOT cover it.
Hillary has now set up a war against the Republic of Iran(vapid as it is…) to “open up” their oil for the royals, if she pulls it off, she too will be knighted=LADY Clinton, and like the above creeps, a life time seat in the house of Lords.
short- if “cowboy” Reagan’s folks hadn’t been negotiating during the election to give Iran the weapons they wanted when he got elected, maybe they wouldn’t have held the embassy folks until five minutes after the “Acting President” was sworn in? Never considered how odd that was considering all those weapons North gave them to blow up our Marines in Beirut??
Why DO you think “W” was so quick to extend the secrets act to make sure nobody could find out what Ron and his Daddy were up to –really.
@ Shortass: I’ll have to disagree with you on a lot of things, but the most important: regarding the “general who was not listened to / fired” thing.
The case in point - or at least the most obvious one - is Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was Army Chief of Staff at the time. In 2003 he suggested that the US would need a much higher number of troops in Iraq than initially suggested - basically over a hundred thousand, or hundreds of thousands. He was criticized by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who believed that his estimates were exaggerated.
On the US having allies in Afghanistan and not Iraq - well, between an iffy case against Iraq and the whole “with us or against us” mood, a few countries soured on the US’ campaign. And yes, it was never a slam dunk case, and the “presentation” Powell made at the UN didn’t help much either. One of the very countries that had supplied information the US used to make its case against Iraq - Germany - did not support the military operation. Not to mention Saddam backed down just before the bombing started, which didn’t count for anything… There’s a reason the US had much more support in 2001 than in 2003, and a lot of it is because of what the US itself was doing in that period.
Clinton - well, on the ticket he was a Democrat, but quite a few of the things he left behind could well have been done by a Republican:
NAFTA - a cross-border free trade treaty.
Welfare reform - he put much more stress on working, tightening screwshis predecessors - two Republicans - hadn’t.
Balanced the budget - ok, so he’s been the only president in recent history to do so, but fiscal discipline is something the right stresses.
Glass-Steagal repeal - yep, one of the most important acts of financial deregulation, and he signed it.
As for Obama… well, he has quite a few Clinton cadres on board. He may be to the left of Big Bill, but that’s not exactly hard.
kennethcwarren64 almost 14 years ago
Since the GOP has been in charge for most of the past 30 years it is easy to forget what happens when they are out of power, but a review of the Clintion years will show you that groups like the Tea Party only pop up when the DEMS are in power.
The GOP supports them, gives them funds, and help, then drops them as soon as it gets back into power, which is fine with the type of people that are in the Tea Party because all they want is a government that will tell them that everything is Okay, even if it isn’t.
SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
btw, you can find Tom Toles and his blog daily here -
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/
Kosher71 almost 14 years ago
Heheheh . Why does tea-bag , junk-shot sound so wrong ?
halfabug almost 14 years ago
couldn’t be any worse.
Simon_Jester almost 14 years ago
The Repubs may be catching on….
http://theweek.com/article/index/203351/is-the-gop-turning-on-the-tea-party
jhouck99 almost 14 years ago
@Jim: That’s the money shot…
HabaneroBuck almost 14 years ago
How has the GOP been “in charge”, Ken? Because you view the President as an Absolute Dictator with unlimited power?
Reagan spent eight years dealing with a Democratic Congress. Congress has been overwhelmingly Democratic the last 30 years. That’s why they called it a “revolution” in 1994, and short-lived it was.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
^ Isn’t this all about money?
SherriannPederson almost 14 years ago
Where is Humpty-Dumpty?
Motivemagus almost 14 years ago
shortass, um, Bush’s “cowboy” reaction managed to alienate nearly every ally we had had during the first Gulf War (remember, where his father the diplomat forged a very impressive alliance?), as well as costing us billions and billions for a war we did not need. You want to talk clueless? He ignored the policy set for warfare by his own Secretary of State - a highly successful general. And as regards leaning towards the center - the “center” of this country has moved so far right that even rich Europeans won’t go there. Obama IS a centrist, didn’t you realize that? Just like Clinton, who is arguably one of our most successful Republican presidents - you can’t tell me NAFTA is a pro-union position!
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Hmm, shortass. A “cowboy” spends his time out in the rain, snow, mud, and summer heat for low pay, riding around on a horse in a swarm of flies that also follow the cows around. His pay is lousy, he has little formal education, never listens to wiser advisors, has a drinking problem and a pickup and cuts firewood in his off-time. He gets into fights quickly because he doesn’t think through his actions, looses at least half his fights, and ends up in jail on DUI charges.
Yep, after 9/11 we had a cowboy in charge.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
To be fair… let’s say, for a moment, that Iraq was necessary. Let’s say… for a moment, that the surge “worked.” The president’s highest military commanders at the time requested over 100,000 troops to go into Iraq… for that they were fired. I think that itself was a major problem.
deadheadzan almost 14 years ago
shortass– I believe 9/11 would not have happened because the Clinton/Gore Administration were very aware of the danger of Al Quaida and WARNED the Bush team of the danger posed from this group.
starguy almost 14 years ago
Overheard from the west side of the US Capitol building, 20 Jan 2013: “I, Sarah Palin, do solemnly swear…”
Motivemagus almost 14 years ago
Mr. Shortass (thanks for the courtesy - it’s been in short supply around here) - You’re separating Afghanistan and Iraq, which is a point. Bush ignored Powell’s principles for Iraq, then. Also, if you compare the first Gulf War to the Iraq war, you will find a major difference. We actually bribed countries to become (and stay) allies in this war. Last war, we were so well funded that we actually turned a profit. (I have a friend who worked in the Reagan and Bush White Houses and was responsible for collecting the checks!) Our alliance was a true alliance last time - this time it was really just us. And yes, Obama is a centrist. Look at what he has done, how he has reached out to the Republicans, how he supported the bank bailout (a Republican initiative, remember) – a true socialist might have tried to nationalize the healthcare system, not pay MORE money to insurance companies. Clinton was a centrist, too. NAFTA opened the door to lower-wage Mexican workers taking away jobs from Americans – this is a Democratic pro-labor platform? And that’s just for starters! The truth is that the terms “socialist” and “Communist” are being thrown around without regard for their actual meaning. The head of the Socialist Party of America says Obama isn’t a socialist – why not you?
SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
We all know that socialists are dam-ned liars.
WarBush almost 14 years ago
^I thought it was neo-socialist, a new breed. Like the neocons.
WarBush almost 14 years ago
<======When he takes responsibility I’ll follow suit…maybe.
jaxaction almost 14 years ago
follow the $$$- attack the Republican FORM of Iraq, install a Brit type “democracy”.
USE the u-knighted states troops and $$$( that ought to out a hole in their abilities to serve the people), then COLLECT the Iraq oil leases for ROYAL dutch shell, bp, this is what happened.
Once again, the U.S.(Troops AND capital) is used as an “attack-dog” for the crowns oil—Sir Kissinger used the back door at the white house for 8 years to advise- W. (hence the YEARS long refusal to give up the logs of WHO comes and goes to OUR White house).
watch as W gets on his ‘american” knees to accept the queens Lordship(like his daddy, sir rumsfled, sir colin powell, Sir reagan) for their GREAT SERVICE TO THE CROWN!.
watch THEIR Tory controlled medias cover it up and NOT cover it.
Hillary has now set up a war against the Republic of Iran(vapid as it is…) to “open up” their oil for the royals, if she pulls it off, she too will be knighted=LADY Clinton, and like the above creeps, a life time seat in the house of Lords.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
short- if “cowboy” Reagan’s folks hadn’t been negotiating during the election to give Iran the weapons they wanted when he got elected, maybe they wouldn’t have held the embassy folks until five minutes after the “Acting President” was sworn in? Never considered how odd that was considering all those weapons North gave them to blow up our Marines in Beirut??
Why DO you think “W” was so quick to extend the secrets act to make sure nobody could find out what Ron and his Daddy were up to –really.
4uk4ata almost 14 years ago
Hey, Jordaner got a new spambot. Boo the spammer!
@ Shortass: I’ll have to disagree with you on a lot of things, but the most important: regarding the “general who was not listened to / fired” thing.
The case in point - or at least the most obvious one - is Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was Army Chief of Staff at the time. In 2003 he suggested that the US would need a much higher number of troops in Iraq than initially suggested - basically over a hundred thousand, or hundreds of thousands. He was criticized by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who believed that his estimates were exaggerated.
On the US having allies in Afghanistan and not Iraq - well, between an iffy case against Iraq and the whole “with us or against us” mood, a few countries soured on the US’ campaign. And yes, it was never a slam dunk case, and the “presentation” Powell made at the UN didn’t help much either. One of the very countries that had supplied information the US used to make its case against Iraq - Germany - did not support the military operation. Not to mention Saddam backed down just before the bombing started, which didn’t count for anything… There’s a reason the US had much more support in 2001 than in 2003, and a lot of it is because of what the US itself was doing in that period.
Clinton - well, on the ticket he was a Democrat, but quite a few of the things he left behind could well have been done by a Republican:
NAFTA - a cross-border free trade treaty. Welfare reform - he put much more stress on working, tightening screwshis predecessors - two Republicans - hadn’t. Balanced the budget - ok, so he’s been the only president in recent history to do so, but fiscal discipline is something the right stresses. Glass-Steagal repeal - yep, one of the most important acts of financial deregulation, and he signed it.
As for Obama… well, he has quite a few Clinton cadres on board. He may be to the left of Big Bill, but that’s not exactly hard.
SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
WarCriminal,
We socialists are the same old breed, just mislabeled by the (dis)- loyal opposition.
Our roots lie in the Christian social reform movements of the early 19th century.
George Bernard Shaw was a Socialist. Imagine that.