Sorry about the misspelling of (gamble) and thank you for the correction. My point is this. The president's thinking is not rational and congress needs to override his proposals.
They certainly have that option.
And if they don't, will you blame Bush for Congress's inaction?
No I will place the blame on the new congress. The now have what they need to govern, no excuses, if they fail to use that authority, they will get the blame.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo***************oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I am beginning to wonder just how much blame can be heaped upon the sitting Democrats.
You watched Pelosi lilke a bouncing ball with candidate Murtha, only to be shot down lickety split by a faction that was not mentioned in the press.
You watched prominent Democrats rush to rescue Joe Lieberman, whom most Democrats in the collective view as a traitor, and strangely, when questioned by the media, had a single reply: "Buddy." You know, the word of the day . . . ie, "augmentation." (Good reporters, these days, are probably drunk and calling their journalists brothers to compare texts and circling the operating word of the day, which they are, when the dinner bell rings, obliged to repeat from up top. Imagine how it feels to know the tactic and recognize the motive, and then made have to include it, without exposing it? They are outside the arena, nursing their wounded journalistic principles, and they hate their bosses, who are promoting those who are empty, fawning and compliant.)
How many constituents realize just where their elected Democrats stand?
You know that most of the country wants the war ended, and elected the Democrats in to do that.
Will they?
I see no professional pundit sitting on the end of THAT branch, saying so with any certainty whatsoever. And remember, this all conflicts with the whole of Democrative voters, who would sound a much clearer warcry.
Everybody talks about the legal crowbars, but in the end the reality will be one of willingness, not tactic.
Watching Republicans breaking free from the grip of the Neocons seems in my mind to make them more trustworthy than do some of these Democrats who seem to have a small coterie agenda which is kept scrambled in the mind of the great constituent collective. On every issue, they throw smokebombs, like ninjas. Could that mean that they benefit from the clouds?
I used to think the Democrats were not organized, by comparing them to the Republicans, who had Rove to weave them into a single, captive cloth. But now it seems worse than that. Now it seems that the Democrats are disconnected, like they have broken out into little gangs, little gangs for hire.
I would wager that the truth is that neither party truly represents its constituency like they used to. They work like the football arenas in the big cities. All but little goes out of state, to out of state investors. Most cities realize very little of the capital taken in. They are the opposite of a local enterprise. The host city usually just has crews to mop up the mess of the trained indulgence. But now, it seems specifically that the elected Democrats seem to represent, at least honestly, no constituency at all, above themselves.
Most Democrats nationwide, watching Murtha slay the dragon, would have had Murtha in. (He was the one sunofabitch who delivered what most Americans think elected Democrats lack--courage.) But, those constituents in the states continue to remain doubtful of their collective clout, because the media crafts and prunes, keeping them separate, and in the dark. The great virtue of NPR is that it connects the dots that the media intentionally refuses to.
Like all oppressives who have control of the state, they hate most he who would unite the tribes.
