Democrats: Voting against us is a vote for Victory

JaJae · 03-21-2007, 12:53 PM

Ok so it's not exactly for victory, it's Republican victory. But I got you to click the thread

Apparently the bill that never would be is going to be voted on tomorrow. This is the bill that sets dates and guidelines for a pullout of Iraq. Currently the Dems are short votes. So they are strong-arming their own party to get those votes and literally extorting their own politicians. After the treatment of Lieberman this doesn't come as much of a shock, however, the lengths they are going to seems to be a bit much.

Quite a few key Democrats oppose this ridiculous bill:

One of the Democrats' chief designated vote counters, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), is actively working against the Iraq war spending bill. The leadership's senior chief deputy whip, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), spoke passionately against it on the House floor. And one of the whip organization's regional representatives, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), is implacably opposed.
Link

And I have to say, good for them. Voting against this bill is the right thing to do. It's loaded with pork barrel spending and puts the wrong terms on a pullout for Iraq. Even people who support a pullout of Iraq should be against this bill. This is not the way you handle the matter as these brave Democrats have repeatedly said. They didn't have nearly enough votes.

So now Democrats are now strong-arming their own members. And Moveon.org is getting involved.

California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.

They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.
Link

They're turning members who admit they're only voting for the bill because of the pork barrel spending.

That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. His spokeswoman, Danielle Langone, cited $400 million for a one-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

"That's pretty vital for our district, so we'll be voting for the bill," Langone said.
Link

And the strong-arming and propaganda ensues:

One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders, bristled at how aggressively he was being pressured to vote for the bill, singling out Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as especially forceful.

"I really resent this," the lawmaker said. "Rahm Emanuel told us a vote against this bill is a vote to give the Republicans victory."

The congressman also noted that Democratic leaders had "made clear" to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure.
Link

God forbid our lawmakers vote based on morals, ethics, what's best for our country and not what's best for the other party. Are they really trying to turn votes by saying if you don't vote for this you're supporting the Republican's "victory." Bad choice of words and it just goes to show how irrational the Democrats are on this issue.

The involvement of moveon.org in this is simple. Propaganda by the Democrats without putting their name directly on it. They put a poll on their website with limited responses to force a result they would like to be able to brag about.

A jovial Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger went up to fellow Maryland Rep. Albert Wynn as he sat off the floor with a reporter and told Wynn that a vote against the bill was a vote for Republican victory. He waved a copy of the MoveOn.org press release backing the measure.

"Have you seen this?" Ruppersberger asked.

"Yeah, who did that?" replied Wynn, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

"Some people we asked to put out a press release to get you to vote for the bill," Ruppersberger joked. He razzed the noncommittal Wynn a few moments longer, pretending to twist his arm, then headed off to reprise the routine with another Out of Iraq Caucus member, Maryland Rep. Elijah E. Cummings.
...
Some anti-war activists assailed MoveOn.org's approach to the Iraq bill, alleging that the organization had used a skewed poll to conclude that 85 percent of its members backed the measure.

"MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning."
Link

For all the Moveon.org fans, even the moderate Democrats are saying, "Holy propaganda Batman, I'm not touching that."

So I guess some cliffs:
The Democrats are pushing forward a pork spending/Iraqi pullout plan that's absurd. Many Democrats oppose and the party doesn't have enough votes. Many of their whips oppose so other Democrats are stepping up to help get votes. In doing so they are extorting, blackmailing and saying things like: A vote against this bill is a vote for Republican victory. They enlisted moveon.org to run a propaganda poll which they are passing around to their colleagues, many of whom are laughing and joking at it. Some Democrats are ending their membership of Moveon.org over it.

With the vote coming up tomorrow the Democrats are pushing for this more and more. They're strong-arming their own party trying to force people who don't support this bill to vote for it through unethical means.

As the Democrats gain more power I'm beginning to question if they were really any better than the Republicans. Same shit, different party.

ballz2wallz · 03-21-2007, 12:58 PM

It never matter about what was best for the country with them, it only matters what's making the Republicans look bad.

Thorgrim · 03-21-2007, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

As the Democrats gain more power I'm beginning to question if they were really any better than the Republicans. Same shit, different party.

Just today?

To your point, you sound like a Nader supporter who thought there was no real difference in liberalism between Gore and Bush

People working against this bill should join the Green Party, ofcourse I'll never tell them that, because I like their votes, but they're too narrow minded

RMNIXON · 03-21-2007, 02:33 PM

Yep, they are crying about those Blue Dogs and Pelosi being pulled by the leash again!

When will Maxine tell us what she yelled at Pelosi in private not long ago?

JaJae · 03-21-2007, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

People working against this bill should join the Green Party, ofcourse I'll never tell them that, because I like their votes, but they're too narrow minded

The moderate Democrats are narrow-minded. Regardless of the fact that the people against this bill are more in line with the mainstream views of America than the extremists like Pelosi who are trying to push this through.

People old enough to fight and die in Iraq are too narrow-minded and you feel they need to be extorted for political means. Interesting position.

grembert · 03-21-2007, 03:10 PM

I don't understand why there is so much loyalty to political parties. If you are a real conservative or real liberal or whatever you should be standing up for the principles, not those people who call themselves Republicans and Democrats. The labels - Republican and Democrat - don't mean much right now anyway.
The Deocrats now are making a mistake, putting pork in the Iraq troop billl. The Republican are making a mistake, claiming that Democrats should not be challenging Bush's Iraq policy.

Pro Street · 03-21-2007, 03:14 PM

what's the bill #?

I hate when news agencies don't bother reporting that.

Stylerod · 03-21-2007, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by grembert

I don't understand why there is so much loyalty to political parties. If you are a real conservative or real liberal or whatever you should be standing up for the principles, not those people who call themselves Republicans and Democrats. The labels - Republican and Democrat - don't mean much right now anyway.
The Deocrats now are making a mistake, putting pork in the Iraq troop billl. The Republican are making a mistake, claiming that Democrats should not be challenging Bush's Iraq policy.

Unfortunately the parties control the power and money. If you go against them, they will take away your power and any money that might have gone to your area of interest. It's a shame.

JaJae · 03-21-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Unfortunately the parties control the power and money. If you go against them, they will take away your power and any money that might have gone to your area of interest. It's a shame.

Yes sir.

Grembert made a really good post. It's wrong when the GOP did it and it's wrong now. The extortion needs to end. Our political groups need to support moderate views and a multitude of opinion. This is just more separation of our government and another example of everything that is wrong with our current political system.

DosEquis · 03-21-2007, 03:26 PM

I dont really think it is a matter of 'how they treat their members like lieberman'. He is pro-war and pro-bush regarding the war and most of the party is not. His state was not and they didn't give him the democratic nomination because it of. He did it to himself because of his position.

Stylerod · 03-21-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont really think it is a matter of 'how they treat their members like lieberman'. He is pro-war and pro-bush regarding the war and most of the party is not. His state was not and they didn't give him the democratic nomination because it of. He did it to himself because of his position.

Most smart people aren't going to decide who to elect based on One Issue. Hence the re-election of Lieberman even though, as you say, his state was against the war.

This is the perfect example of the small mindedness that makes both political parties suck.

DosEquis · 03-21-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Most smart people aren't going to decide who to elect based on One Issue. Hence the re-election of Lieberman even though, as you say, his state was against the war.

This is the perfect example of the small mindedness that makes both political parties suck.

His party is against the war. In his state/region especially, the democrats are more liberal than most other states. He was pro-war so the party stripped him on the nomination for a guy that said he was in favor of bringing the soldiers home. He was elected anyway because the moderate democrats and independents voted for him regardless.

There are a lot of issues that some people consider extremely important, important enough that they trump other issues. There is a shit load of one issue voters in nebraska in regards to abortion. Pro-choice, no vote. I am not sure i question their intelligence but why they have their priorities in such a way.

Stylerod · 03-21-2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

His party is against the war. In his state/region especially, the democrats are more liberal than most other states. He was pro-war so the party stripped him on the nomination for a guy that said he was in favor of bringing the soldiers home. He was elected anyway because the moderate democrats and independents voted for him regardless.

There are a lot of issues that some people consider extremely important, important enough that they trump other issues. There is a shit load of one issue voters in nebraska in regards to abortion. Pro-choice, no vote. I am not sure i question their intelligence but why they have their priorities in such a way.

Exactly, small mindedness based on One Issue lost them a member that ended up winning anyway because most people are NOT One Issue people. Most people look at everything a candidate stands for and elects him/her based on that.

Scrum · 03-21-2007, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Exactly, small mindedness based on One Issue lost them a member that ended up winning anyway because most people are NOT One Issue people. Most people look at everything a candidate stands for and elects him/her based on that.

He won because the GOP pumped millions into his campaign.

Stylerod · 03-21-2007, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

He won because the GOP pumped millions into his campaign.

So the voters of Connecticut were paid money by the GOP to vote for Lieberman. That's interesting. Isn't that illegal?

JaJae · 03-21-2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

He won because the GOP pumped millions into his campaign.

I could be wrong, but I thought Lamont spent more money on his campaign than Lieberman.

Thorgrim · 03-21-2007, 07:23 PM

Uh...against mainstream America...wtf?

"Do you favor or oppose congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?"

3/14-15/07

Favor 59
Oppose 34
Unsure 7
Iraq

They are doing the bidding of the people, House of REPRESENTATIVES not house of anti-pork or house of bushism