Bad Timing
by matt at 3:30 pm on May 22nd, 2007 in Bad DemsDear DCCC, DCCC, and DNC:
It’s poor form to send out fundraising emails within hours of caving on the very issue that caused people like me to donate heavily last cycle.
-
« Home
-
About This Post
- Written by matt
- May 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
-
Categories
-
Interact
Matt Tobey wrote:
“Caving” seems like an understatement. Imploding? So much for our way being better.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 5:26 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I believe we are supposed to console ourselves with the fact that we live to fight another day.
(Most baseball fans — current or former — will have been reminded of the self-delusional rallying cry that packs the most punch when you put it in the mouths of the hapless “anyone can have a poor century” Chicago Cubs: “Just wait till next year!”)
Of course, when that “another day” rolls around, why abandon a perfectly good script? Why fight today what can be so easily rescheduled to be fought tomorrow?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 6:18 am ¶
matt wrote:
this wasn’t our way, it was steny hoyer’s way. and he ain’t part of “our.”
Posted 23 May 2007 at 6:28 am ¶
matt tobey wrote:
Awesome. So now we don’t just need a majority in congress, we also need a majority among the democrats in congress.
Bush is like Vinnie Chase this week. “You can only have this check for $60 million if you go upstairs and fuck my wife first.”
Posted 23 May 2007 at 6:39 am ¶
matt wrote:
well, not to knock a nice entourage reference, but you do know he doesn’t go upstairs, or get the check, right?
aaaaauuuuggggaaa!
Posted 23 May 2007 at 6:43 am ¶
sac wrote:
This turn of events does not surprise me in the least, but it does extinguish the last dying ember of my support of the Dems. Fuck ‘em. Seriously. Dismantle and rebuild.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 7:49 am ¶
matt wrote:
from the man who chose biden. epic.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 8:13 am ¶
sac wrote:
Hey, I chose him from the choices given. Sure, he’s a player, but I like what he’s said about Iraq.
What is your grand solution for the Dems? Do you have any faith in them left?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 8:33 am ¶
matt wrote:
look, you can divine anything you want about what you think joe biden may have said about iraq. you’ve proven on many occasions that you don’t know what some pretty key words even mean. joe biden is pretty much exactly what’s wrong with the democratic party. he has what amounts to a senate seat for life, yet he insists on taking huge contributions from credit card companies, and doing their bidding.
he has been ranking member or chairman of the senate foreign relations committee forever. he didn’t just support the iraq war, he provided joementum-style cover for the administration for years.
on other issues, he’s been awful. he took the lead on the toxic bankruptcy bill and the absurd RAVE ACT, has a pretty shitty naral ranking, and is no friend of privacy. if it wasn’t for obama, he’d be my 8th place choice.
but he’s the one you chose to dismantle and rebuild the democrats. fucking excellent!
Posted 23 May 2007 at 8:45 am ¶
matt tobey wrote:
I’m honestly dumbfounded by the move. Is there any way it makes sense for the dems to fold on a political level, let alone a moral one? I’m not asking rhetorically. What do they think they’re accomplishing?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 10:20 am ¶
matt wrote:
it was suggested that they’d rather have the war as an election issue than actually end it. i think this is insane, but it’s exactly how they are acting.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 10:27 am ¶
JimC wrote:
From a left point of view, wouldn’t ending the war be the greatest platform for the next election? What are their concerns then?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 10:43 am ¶
matt wrote:
just us lefties? from the 70% point of view.
you know, from experience, what their concerns are. they are sensitive to accusations of “not supporting the troops.” that this is a non-sequitor, and not true, doesn’t stop it from being said, or stop congressional dems from fearing it.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 10:59 am ¶
frankypelvis wrote:
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Democrats it that they read shitty Op-Eds. If the WaPo and Tom Friedman say “just wait until September, and believe in fairies really really fucking hard and Tinkerbell will come back to life.” Democrats will fall all over each other to embrace the Washington Elites “CLAP LOUDER” plan even when 60%-70% of the country can plainly see it’s bullshit.
It’s beyond depressing. The Democrats are worse than Marty McFly in their fear of being labeled cowards.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 11:17 am ¶
JimC wrote:
What is that 70% from? Those who want the war to be over? Or those who want to cut funding in order to do so? The two are not necessarily the same. I want the war to be over, but not in the manner that some others want it to be over.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 11:25 am ¶
matt wrote:
your original comment didn’t say anything about methods. 2/3 plus oppose the war. it’s that simple.
all the rest of it is unwillingness to admit mistakes, and that those mistakes led to defeat.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 11:35 am ¶
JimC wrote:
This is my point, they know that even among those who want the war to end, the only option they have is not a popular one, according to the Polls, only 24% approve of cutting the funding. At the same time they cannot get past the veto of anything that includes withdrawel dates, so what’s their option? Continue to drag out the debate, knowing full well that the other side will say that their inaction is keeping badly needed supplies to the troops in harms way or do the unpopular thing and cut funding outright, or simply let Bush continue and attempt to capitalize on failures for 2008? Seems like they are in a no win situation until elections but by then, they might have been effectively labeled as ineffective.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 11:55 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
For some reason, The Blog Report carried this post by Jeffrey Feldman today. He seems to think what the Democrats did makes sense. I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what his argument is supposed to be. (If your head starts to cave in or implode, you should stop reading, like I did.)
Oh, he also likes to be called Dr. Feldman, because he has, you know, a Ph.D. and stuff.
It’s probably too late for me to switch to Dr. Guthberg now. But Dr. sarabeth may still be possible…
Posted 23 May 2007 at 12:00 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
JimC: can we please keep this fact-based, and stop this nonsense about cutting funding?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 12:02 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Isn’t that an option? I’m not sure what you’re implying. Are you implying that cutting the funds (or rather never approving additional funds) isn’t their only option to stop this war now?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 12:17 pm ¶
frankypelvis wrote:
sarabeth,
I checked out the link, but have to agree that the argument goes nowhere and doesn’t even attempt to make sense. Even if there were some grand strategy, if it involves pushing the ball back in Bush’s court, to let him fuck up some more, it cannot possibly be a good thing.
Ending the war is not about winning elections, it’s about stopping the most colossal foreign policy blunder since at least the Spanish-American war, if not in American history. Every day Bush is at the reins is another day in which America is responsible for carnage.
Beyond that, I don’t think the Democrats won the last election on pledges to compromise or negotiate with Bush. Feldman never seems to get around to how surrendering to each of Bush’s petulant demands “restores the balance of power” between Congress and the executive branch. It’s just more of the same “wait and see” that we go through every six months without fail.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 12:29 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Who is supposed to be advocating “cutting the funds” or “never approving additional funds”?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 12:45 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
That’s what I’m trying to find out. According to polling report, 24% of Americans support this tactic.
Given the options, what else is there if the war is to end now? What does Sarabeth think the Dems should do? I simply don’t see any other options for the democrats. Either fund the war, try to push bills that Bush will Veto (effectively cutting off funds), or explictly end the debate and provide no more funding. What other options are there? What would you propose?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 1:05 pm ¶
frankypelvis wrote:
JimC the other approaches include setting a timetable for withdrawal, and tying funding to benchmarks for success. Almost no one is saying that funding should be cut off, besides the president who is cutting off funding by being obstinate and not signing the bill.
You reinforce false framing by blaming Democrats for cutting funding when it’s the President standing in the way.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 1:09 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Well, as long as we’re all now clear:
Bush is the only one taking actions that involve cutting funds or not approving additional funds.
The options the Democrats had pursued up to now involved a withdrawal timetable or benchmarks with teeth. Both of these were perfectly good options for forcing a change in our Iraq policy. Neither can honestly be described as cutting off funding.
No Democrats have advocated or embraced “explicitly ending the debate and providing no more funding”.
I do have a question for JimC: are you really trying to say you’re hearing this argument for the first time?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 1:24 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You’re funny. Answered below.
Except they both attempted to usurp the President’s authority in conducting military actions. They can try but it is well within the President’s right to veto such attempts.
I didn’t say these two options were. My question is what other option is available other than cutting funding. Throwing bills at the President he said he would veto will not look nor spin in the democrats favor, this has to be obvious.
I have not heard this specific argument, that it is the President who is blocking funding but rather it is the President blocking Congress from dictating how the military is run. I don’t want to get into all the details of why I believe this way and how you think I’m an idiot (or something else), etc etc, but one thing is clear, Bush is the current Commander-in-Chief, until that changes, he calls the shots for our military. Also is clear, Congress controls the money. Bush can determine how the war is fought. Congress determines how it is funded. Bush therefore cannot control the funding except when it is tied to something he will veto, e.g. time tables for withdrawal. We can go back and forth on this topic until ones of us quits, but Congress dictating how the war is conducted is something the President should veto. If Congress doesn’t like that reality, then they need to substitute their own, by impeaching the President. However, that too, like the rest of the new Congress’ agenda would most likely fail. So, either they pucker up or stand up, stand on the promises to end the war, and cut the funding. Anything else is futile.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 2:25 pm ¶
matt wrote:
this is bullshit. the democrats send a funding bill to the president. he vetoed it. as long as he refuses to sign the funding bill, he is cutting off funds.
and while were on the subject, “cutting off funds” is a misleading phrase. it’s not cutting off funds and leaving the troops in the field, it’s cutting off funds so that they must be returned home. and don’t pretend it’s any different.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 2:54 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
A funding bill? Did anything else go along with that “funding bill”? It was more than that. The democrats tried to force the President to do their will by ransoming the funds. But they knew full well that they could not achieve that goal, nor could they afford to drag this out. They had to make their “try” and then cave in, because in the end, they do not have any viable options. Dragging it out any longer would have put them at political risk for the very reason you stated before, so they wouldn’t be painted as “not supporting the troops”, which is what would happen. This is why they caved and why they can’t simply cut the funds and why they will continue in this same manner for the hope that 2008 will bring them the White House….in the mean time, I hope we can turn things around in Iraq, there is evidence this is happening with more insurgents turning on Al Qaida, our troops may yet have their victory, in spite of the forces against them…
Posted 23 May 2007 at 8:54 pm ¶
matt wrote:
and this kind of tactic is called…politics.
political risk isn’t the same thing as what’s right. just because you call them traitors doesn’t make it so.
like their “decider guy” right? also, doesn’t it get embarrassing to constantly say that there is light at the end of the tunnel only to see the body count at record highs? that’s a serious given your past comments here. you’ve said that we were winning, maintained that in the face of overwhelming evidence and the government’s own statistics, and out and out mocked us for suggesting otherwise. now pretty much everyone knows that a stalemate is our best shot, and even that is a long shot. so now you fall back on “hope” and “may yet.” does it not get embarrassing?
Posted 23 May 2007 at 9:04 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Bush is embarrassing most of time, so I am used to it by now, but I also know that I will never give up on the soldiers. As long as I keep reading letters and seeing videos of soldiers in Iraq doing what they believe is the right thing and they state that they want to stay to finish the job, and give those people a chance, then I say there is hope and have no problem saying it…
Posted 23 May 2007 at 9:34 pm ¶
matt wrote:
that’s not what i asked. don’t fuck around.
you’ve been consistently, catastrophically wrong about both the situation in iraq, and the president’s conduct. and you’re not embarrassed because a few of the troops think their mission is just and is still technically not actually lost quite yet? jim, intellectual honesty demands more than this pathetic dodge. seriously.
this isn’t about your hope. this isn’t about your faith. you’ve been spectacularly wrong on every outcome concerning the war so far. is that not a problem for you? it’s like reverse crying wolf already. come on.
Posted 23 May 2007 at 9:43 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You and I have a very different view of this war and we’re just not ever going to see eye to eye.
I believe there were mistakes, many mistakes, but I don’t ever believe a mistake means quit or give up. I believe there is still a very good chance that Iraq will come through this and the people there will have a better life. I don’t want to give up on our troops nor the Iraqi people who are caught in the middle of this mess. Quitting and fleeing are words that embarrass me more than anything mentioned so far. Right now I see no reason to leave other than a political agenda and lack of resolve to own our (or just mine and Bush’s) mess.
I respect your view, I just don’t agree with it.
Posted 24 May 2007 at 6:33 am ¶
matt wrote:
it’s not about this. it’s not about whether mistakes were made. it’s about your record of predictions and analysis of where the war stood at each and every turn. this isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s burned into the archives. you have been a perfect 0-for-everything war progress related. this isn’t opinion. you chastised everyone here for their assessments, but we were right and you were wrong.
stop turning this into some kind of “i won’t abandon the troops” argument. i know that’s what you would like this discussion to be about because it makes you feel all blackhawk down or whatever. this is about why you feel no shame about being 150% wrong about everything while calling us names while we were getting it right. if that isn’t paralyzingly embarrassing for you, you are a fundamentally dishonest person. there is nothing more to it.
stop changing the thrust of my question and answering something i didn’t ask (you’ve been warned about this, and this is a perfect example). you aren’t fooling anyone. just come clean already.
Posted 24 May 2007 at 6:48 am ¶
sac wrote:
Jim, troops are sent to do a job. When that job is considered over, whether because of victory or another reason, they come home. Wanting to stay in Iraq because the troops are fighting hard and we don’t want to let them down doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying a guy should keep fucking his girlfriend even though she’s already said, “Look honey, it’s just not gonna work tonight,” just because you don’t want to hurt his feelings. The only result of that kind of thinking is a chapped dick.
Posted 24 May 2007 at 7:46 am ¶
sac wrote:
I never said I’d pick Biden to rebuild the party, I picked him out of the choices given on your little survey. Don’t Put Words In My Mouthâ„¢.
As for his failings in other areas, I’m well aware of those. But Iraq looms larger in my mind, and anyway, I mentioned he’d be better as Sec. of State or something. Doesn’t matter, though, he won’t win, and of the Dems keep acting the way they are, no Dem will win.
Posted 24 May 2007 at 7:50 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Sac, if you want to continue this, I feel we need to take it “offline”, please go to my site and email me, I will then reply to this…
Posted 24 May 2007 at 8:32 am ¶
matt wrote:
we’re not “taking this offline.” this is an important discussion that’s going to continue. if you answer the questions asked and address how we got here, there won’t be a problem.
just don’t make shit up or pretend that you were asked different questions because you have a factual problem answering the ones that were asked.
Posted 24 May 2007 at 8:34 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Alright, I will do my best, it will have to do this later but I will try to get something put together to try to address your points (And I don’t disagree that I made unwarranted comments in the past that you were factually correct on but I will try to explain my current comments with that in mind).
Posted 24 May 2007 at 8:54 am ¶
tom wrote:
Posted 24 May 2007 at 8:17 pm ¶
tom wrote:
lemme try again:
how do you know that?!?!?!
Posted 24 May 2007 at 8:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
because i watched the preview for the next episode.
Posted 24 May 2007 at 8:43 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
82 hours and counting…
Posted 27 May 2007 at 6:56 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Sorry, Sarabeth, I’ve had my 10th wedding anniversary and family/church activities this weekend, but I have been giving my reply some thought, so unless you want a complete rant, I will let you know when it is ready….
Posted 27 May 2007 at 7:06 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i’m really not sure what is left to say. the editorial positions of this site have been very close to exactly correct. we’re not iraq experts, but are voracious consumers of news and analysis, and when we have directed readers to information or have used other reporting to augment our own views, you’d be hard pressed to find much that we got substantially wrong. i did make a few wild predictions, namely cheney being dumped from the ticket and parades for returning troops both in 2004, but these were hardly major topics here.
contrast that with jimc, alex aka bob aka general fluffer who not only have touted phantom progress, hyped weapons discoveries that never amounted to anything, all the while, accusing us of being traitors, hating the troops, being wrong, etc.
the simple question was “isn’t it embarrassing to be wrong about everything iraq-related all the time?” this isn’t a research project. the scoreboard isn’t shrouded in fog and illegible. everyone here knows. yet when i asked jimc about this, his answer didn’t even bother to address my very simple question. so i have a new question: what on earth do you think you have to “rant” about?
take your time. i’m on vacation anyway.
Posted 27 May 2007 at 8:06 pm ¶