The latest poll from The New York Times and CBS News finds that the approval ratings of George W. Bush are at an all-time low of 30%. 72% think the country is off track, 67% think things are going badly in Iraq, and 63% want a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. So you would think this would be a perfect opportunity for the Democrats to really flex their muscle and get exactly what they say the American people voted them into office for. So why are the Democrats backing down from the current war spending bill which doesn't include the timetable they've been clamoring about for so long?
I suppose one could argue that this is what I've been wanting all along, for the President and Congress to compromise and meet in the middle to do what's best for the country. Bush didn't give in to a set withdrawal date, but did concede to setting up benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue to receive reconstruction aid. Still, this seems like a victory for the Bush administration. I'm still left with this feeling that the Democrats, for whatever reason, seem to crumble when they have to stand up to the Oval Office.
I actually get a bit bothered by comedians commenting seriously on political issues most of the time. I think they too often hide behind their jokes to say what otherwise would be considered rather offensive. They can say some pretty mean-spirited stuff that any other "serious" commentator could never get away with all because it's hidden in the veil of humor. Still, they usually have some pretty intelligent things to say, as does Bill Maher in this clip which sums up exactly what I think of the Democratic Party right now:
On a side note, I thought it was rather humorous that Jimmy Carter of all people called Bush the worst president of all time. After all, who had the lowest approval ratings prior to George W. Bush? Why, Jimmy Carter, of course.
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Democrats are all girlie men...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ok, I had a longer reply but I deleted it because I felt it was too mean spirited and I try not to get to riled up over politics here. What can I say, it's a holiday weekend and I grew a goatee as I usually do when I have 3 or more days off, and we all know goatees make you evil.
The main point I made though was this: as Jon Stewart said about the whole Jimmy Carter thing on The Daily Show "When a Noble Peace Prize winner calls you a prick, it may be time to reassess some things in your life."
Jimmy may not have had the best Presidency either, but he more then made up for it in the long run. Will W? Will W start a group like Habitat For Humanity and broker peace agreements between long warring nations, or will he go back to the oil business? I have my guess, but I've been wrong before
I don't know if this is so much that they can't stand up to the White House - I think they were convinced that this was necessary to preserve our way of life.
I personally think our way of life should change. Ergo, I am disappointed. However, I am not surprised. The Democrats who capitulated probably have as much to lose as their republican counter parts - rich Democrats get into office, not poor ones.
Little do you know, Wander, that every comment, even if it gets deleted, is automatically emailed to me. I didn't think your original comment was that mean-spirited--it's what I ask for when I throw posts like this on the blog for all to see. Just as long as you don't say anything bad about my wife or my momma.
Anywho, I probably should have left that comment about Carter out of my post, but it just hit me as being poor form on his part to be making broad comments like that.
I will give credit to the main Democratic presidential candidates. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all voted against the war spending bill in its current form. Perhaps this was more symbolic than anything--I'm sure they knew which direction the vote count was going to go, and didn't have anything to lose by voting against the bill.
Jokes on you Swany! I love your momma like she was my own, and I like your wife more then you =P
(ok, not more, but equal... she's cool!) So I'll just continue my riffing on your odd political leanings!
I honestly don't know why Carter is considered a bad president. Is it from being in office during the Iran hostage and oil embargo thing?
That was part of it. But the worst of it probably was that the economy was way off course with record unemployment and skyrocketing inflation. Can you imagine the banks charging prime rates over 20%? Whether or not Carter really was responsible for all that or whether it was just bad luck for being president at the wrong time, well, that's probably a question for our parents.
And, again, to comment on the irony of Carter's comments, it was his statements as president during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that kind of layed down the precedent for both Iraq Wars. Luckily, Carter didn't have the military power to go toe to toe with the USSR back then, instead just pulling our athletes out of the 1980 Olympics. Then again, had Bush 43 showed similar restraint, well...
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't understand how Carter's statements ushered in the Iraq wars. Any more info on that?
Although, I am starting to see why Carter is regarded as a bad president. True, it sounds like he really had his work cut out for him, and had he had a lighter work load he probably would have looked better and been thought of more favorably. So, in light of his workload, maybe he wasn't so terrible as much as he was in over his head.
That being said, the presidents (or any leader) who can face such adversity and navigate their constituents through it are always thought of as the truly great ones, i.e. Lincoln.
So, had Carter been as successful in tackling the problems during his presidency as he has been in post-presidency, he might have been remembered as one of our best.
It seems that he is considered a poor president more for what he didn't do, rather than what he did do.
Bush, on the other hand...
The "Carter Doctrine" extended American military interests into the Persian Gulf and set-up the framework for what Bush 42 would use in the first Iraq War.
I'm actually talking out of my hat here, though, considering I have absolutely no historical perspective on this other than the bits and pieces I've read on the internet and seen on random news specials.
Follow this link for a synopsis on Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/carter-doctrine), the authority on all things. That's a joke, by the way. Everyone knows Wikipedia is the real source for facts. ;-)
Post a Comment