This was brought up on a few news shows this evening. Most of the democrats are being silent on the whole Iraq issue. Are they being spineless because they don't want to look like they fall into the stereotypical 'weak on defense ' argument? Is it because they are afraid they'll lose contributions and votes from the Jewish sector? Why are they quiet about it? Or could it be they are playing politics and just watching Republicans fight with their own party members? It seems like either way they are afraid to take a stand. They are being spineless.
In an election year when democrats actually have a shot at widening their control of the Senate and taking control of the House, they are avoiding the Iraq issue to focus on the economy because polls show fairly clearly that Republicans are considered by most Americans to be, at least in their minds, too closely aligned with big business. You don't go after a foreign policy issue this delicate if you want to win seats in Congress. You say your peace on the floor and let your leadership handle it on the Sunday morning talk shows. But, you don't go for the jugular when it has the chance of being a rallying cry for the president and the GOP. In addition, most Dems are heavily supported financially by the Jewish lobby in America. There is no way they are going to piss them off 90 days before the election.
Jeff, I pretty much think are correct about the reasons why they are silent. My only problem with that is that it's spineless. I understand that's the way that politics work. I would much rather see people come out and take a stand on all important issues facing the country, and then win or lose based on their stance. Sure the dems could hit the Republicans harder on Economy and big business scandals, but to remain silent on such an important issue seems almost negligent to me.
I think a big part of it is that Congress doesn't really "lead" foreign affairs. Generally, Congress' role with regards to foreign affairs is to support or criticize Presidential policy. Not sure why, but that's just the impression I've always gotten. Until the administration actually provides a plan of action, there's not much to say except "Iraq is bad. We don't like Hussein". No one's going to say they support a war where they don't know any of the details. This applies to Republicans too - I think they are just complaining about the administration not giving them direction more than anything else. Once Bush comes out and makes a case one way or another, I think the criticism and support (from both parties) will be much clearer - or at least, I would hope so.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public" -- Dan Ackroyd "Tommoy Boy" The truth is that the Republicans are not funded any more by big business then are the Democrats.
Of course you are absolutely right. Dems get money from the trial attorneys while the GOP is mostly industry. They are all taking money from someone somewhere. The main difference is that there are quite a few big industry CEO's or higher up's now in the administration, particularly on the cabinet. That makes them an easy target with Enron and Halliburton, etc. FranchiseBlade: I'm not sure what you would have them do. Major pointed out a very important fact - the Congress does not lead on foreign policy issues. To be honest, other than the raging lefties, most of the Dems have been in favor of Israel and going into Iraq in some ways even more than the GOP.
silly, didnt you know Democrats are silent because we lost our will to speak after the rest of you ignoramus' Voted for that idiot bush. and that even after you knew he lost the election you let him tell you lies. you know, just like his daddy did. isnt it so cute. Go on another vacation Bushie, your 4 years will be over sooner that way.
I'm not a Republican, and I didn't vote for Bush. I'm actually a registered Dem. I've worked on campaigns for various dems over the years, though I'll vote for a few Republicans when I think they have the better candidate, or I'll vote for various third party members. I was asking because I think it's the party is actually stronger for taking a stand, than not taking one.
While they don't lead on it, people from the foreign relations committee, or Intelligence committee should have something to say. It's true that Joseph Biden is one of the few dems to really comment on it, as was John Kerry. The problem is that if the issue was very unpopular I'm sure there would more demands for Bush to consult with congress etc. I think since the congress would eventually have to declare war, or pass a resolution they have more involvement in the issue some of the Bush Sr. guys that are coming out now and speaking on it. The reason why they should speak on it is because they are a branch of govt. that will eventually be involved. It looks like they are scared to lose donations, or vote, and I don't think it looks good when they appear scared, or bought and payed for. Prior to Iran-Contra which was a foreign policy issue, they acted early preventing govt. money from going to aid the Contras. They congress acted to the big scandal. Sure it had something to do with money, but so will this. I'm not saying they should act now, until they have all the facts, or should even campaign on Iraq as an issue, but to comment on it, only seems healthy. In general I would rather have a democratic congress than a Republican one, but I would still want one that leads from strength.(taking stands on important issues facing the country.) Chuck Haegle, Dick Armey, Dick Lugar, and John McCain are all senators that have voiced their opinions on the matter. And some had opposing opinions. There are other prominant Democrats calling on them to speak as well.
Refman said: The truth is that the Republicans are not funded any more by big business then are the Democrats. Sorry, but this is just factually incorrect. Unfortunatley the demos get 60% or so of what the repubs get. It has been growing. This is one of the reasons why they are not speaking out on the financial sandals more strongly. It is a priniple reason why if we want a democracy and not an oligarchy we need to fund elections without big business money. BTW, Jeff,equating "trial lawyers" with big business is not correct. You've fallen for right wing rhetoric on this one. It is true that many of the sucessful trial lawyers are millionaires, but there offices usually have much less than 25 employees. In many cases less than 10. Their mentality and size of small businessmen and entrepeneurs. When people say "trial lawyers" they are referring to these plaintiff firms, not the large corprorate law frims that work for the corporations and do indeed have hundreds or perhaps even a few thousand employees. It is true that trial lawyers represent an important group of rich contributors to the demo party. Though I agree with virtually all of their positions, I believe that we should take all the money out of elections and let the ideas compete on a more level playing field.
Is it enough to buy them off...probably so. That is the point I was making. But just above you said that it was unfortunate that the Dems are only getting 60% of big business money as the GOP. Now you don't want that money? Do you want it or not??? 6 of one...half a dozen of the other. You also forgot the labor unions. The number of employees has nothing to do with this. I know big business must have 25 employees or more. You are playing semantics and not sticking to the issues.
REfman, you missed my point. I was saying that it is a shame to that the democrats get even that much from the big corporations. I agree if your point is that it makes them sell out to those interests, too. When people say "big business" they don't mean small business. A neighborhood restaurant is not the same thing as a multinational corporation. Arguing the size of the business is unimportant when the issue is clout in the political arena is not a semantical point. To argue so is to try evade the issue of the undue influence of "big business" in the political arena. Labor unions are bigger organizations than trial lawyer firms, but there again, big biz outspends them by a lot. Perhaps we agree that all of these organizations should be barred from political contributions and campaigns publicly funded. Nevertheless it is still importatnt to realize that big biz outspends the trial lawyers and the unions combined by at least ten to one. If you insist I can track these figures down. If I do so, you should then concede that big biz is the main problem with this type of contribution.
All politicians are "cucking forrupt". They are the biggest whores on the planet. To hell with the lot of 'em. Aah, now I can have a nice cheery day at work!
Why take a stand now . . . . when in 90 days you can stand with maybe 2~5 more voices and the other side having 2~5 less voices? You have to pick your battles and the times of battle. Rocket River
The War in Iraq can start today. Picking your battles is important, but I think you can't wait 90 days on an issue this big. I'm a "conservative" (not Republican), but believe a democracy thrives with each opinion being heard.
glynch: You do realize there are more Democrats in Congress who are millionaires than Republicans, right? In addition, the richest Congress members are by far Democrats. I understand what you are saying, but the Dems aren't exactly the little sisters of the poor, at least not in DC.
Truthfully Republicans are in control of all the major positions so what does it matter what Democrats think?
Well if the Democrats don't want to challenge for a share in that control then it doesn't matter what they think. But I believe that the party wants to win the house and increase the lead in the senate, and therefore should address important political issues facing the country today.
