:laugh:

 

Is that like Bush calling himself a conservative while spending more than the most liberal Dems?

That is probably my biggest complaint with Bush and the GOP Congress. Sorely disappointed me in this regard.:irked:

#8. Maybe instead the evanlegicals were not as pigeon-holed and lockstep as everyone painted them to be.:sssh:

 

#11. What power does the Democrats have through Congress to effect what is going on in Iraq?

 

 

#4 and #5, I think you are right on. The Democrats have a WONDERFUL opportunity here. Let's see if they handle this right or blow it. Having Dean and Pelosi making decisions for them is not a good start.

 

 

Money. It takes money to fight a war. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but Congress has to allocate the funds to fight it.

Money. It takes money to fight a war. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but Congress has to allocate the funds to fight it.

Not sure if that would be nothing but political suicide. Let me be clear on what you are proposing.

 

You propose the Democrats cut the funding to the our soldiers fighting in Iraq?

Not sure if that would be nothing but political suicide. Let me be clear on what you are proposing.

 

You propose the Democrats cut the funding to the our soldiers fighting in Iraq?

 

Pelosi is on record as saying that the notion of cutting funding for troops is off the table. I guess we'll see.

Pelosi is on record as saying that the notion of cutting funding for troops is off the table. I guess we'll see.

If that is true, then what recourse does the Congress have in handling Iraq? I understand political pressure from the media and fans but I am talking about power to effect what is going on?

Congress has more than the power of purse strings. Investigative oversight (and the threat thereof) would be the most powerful tool of a Democratic Congress looking for a little say in the war.

Pelosi is on record as saying that the notion of cutting funding for troops is off the table. I guess we'll see.

 

John Murtha, who is up for the majority leader job, said this morning on NPR that there is NO WAY they would do this.

For the most part they are one and the same. They ran as conservatie dems (thats an oxy moron) only to fool the people. It will all be downhill for the country's morals now.

 

The unceasing attempt to paint every Democrat as a flaming liberal has grown so old that even that tactic couldn't save the power struggle for the Republicans this time.

 

As for the comment that "It will all be downhill for the country's morals now", I guess that's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find sending young men and women into a war that should never have been fought, and can't be won to be as immoral as it gets.

 

And please save the speech about having a defeatist attitude regarding the war in Iraq. This is a civil war, being fought by factions that will not tolerate each other's existence. There is no way to win it, regardless of our intent.

 

 

Frances

It's not just the Dems that change their feathers for elections. Suddenly, McCain has become a fiscally conservative Senator.

IMO the ultimate question, from an idelogical prospective might have been ignored by Hearsay's nice analysis.

 

If the Democrats actually get something done and encourage the American people, arguably a Democratic (and hopefully moderate) President would have the power to appoint Federal Judges.

 

I CANNOT overemphasize the important of the 08 race and what it means to the highest court of this country.

 

Justice Stevens is approaching the end of natural life. I think an interesting development will be what becomes of his seat.

Pat Buchannan just mentioned my point.

 

Assuming Stevens dies or resigns during Bush's term, the Supreme Court is looking at another Kennedy at best. Had things gone differently a day ago, the court might have been looking at another Alito or Thomas.

 

A dramatic difference that many might not understand fully, but must be discussed IMO.

I agree this is a huge opportunity for the Democrats to really position themselves nicely for a 2008 run at the Oval Office. However, I think if they nominate Hillary they are doomed. This election proved that the American public is not interested in the far right or left, rather something much closer to center, which is why so many moderate Dems took offices.

 

The Republican party IMO would be best served to run a ticket of McCain/Rudy G., especially if the Dems use the possible tandem of Hillary/Obama. Hillary is just too liberal for America right now, and if she is nominated the Dems may be in for at least 4 more years of a Republican held Presidency.

The unceasing attempt to paint every Democrat as a flaming liberal has grown so old that even that tactic couldn't save the power struggle for the Republicans this time.

 

As for the comment that "It will all be downhill for the country's morals now", I guess that's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find sending young men and women into a war that should never have been fought, and can't be won to be as immoral as it gets.

 

And please save the speech about having a defeatist attitude regarding the war in Iraq. This is a civil war, being fought by factions that will not tolerate each other's existence. There is no way to win it, regardless of our intent.

 

 

Frances

I agree and feel the same way about attempts to make every Christian as some rightwing nut job that follows lockstep behind some person that the media has dubbed a national leader and wants to dictate every decision a person makes in their life.

 

I also agree with the last part. I feel it was right to remove Saddam from power and WILL/HAS made this country safer in the long run. The war has moved past that to a civil war that needs to be fought within the fractions of the country with guidance/advice from us.

I agree this is a huge opportunity for the Democrats to really position themselves nicely for a 2008 run at the Oval Office. However, I think if they nominate Hillary they are doomed. This election proved that the American public is not interested in the far right or left, rather something much closer to center, which is why so many moderate Dems took offices.

 

The Republican party IMO would be best served to run a ticket of McCain/Rudy G., especially if the Dems use the possible tandem of Hillary/Obama. Hillary is just too liberal for America right now, and if she is nominated the Dems may be in for at least 4 more years of a Republican held Presidency.

 

I have always said that I would vote for Rudolph Giuliani. I do not always agree with his policy stances, but I admire his personal grit and determination, as well as his ability to mobilize. The man chooses his words, and listens more than he talks, which is remarkable for a politician (or lawyer:D ).

 

I do not like McCain. I think he blows wherever the winds blow. He is married to the pollsters. Its one thing to have to moderate and compromise, but even moderates have to have a spine.

The Republicans would be wise to run a team of McConnell and Trent Lott.

Both are skillful and would make things difficult for the Dems in Congress.