Skip to main content

View Diary: A Democratic Karl Rove (249 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this: (none)
    They have to plan and act in ways designed to allow them to regain power in 2006.

    sounds like what they tried to do in 2002 and 2004.

    perhaps i'm just not sure how it's different.

    Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

    by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 01:12:00 AM PST

    •  The plan then (none)
      was to do whatever Bush said on Iraq.

      Bad plan.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 03:16:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  cause at the time (none)
        bipartisanship behind a president with a 60 - 70 approval rating was seen as a plan and act in ways designed to allow them to regain power in 2002 and 2004.

        at least that's the conventional wisdom.  that a bad plan was arrived at not because people acted according to their beliefs, but because people acted in ways designed to win elections.

        Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

        by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 03:42:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  For an Opposition Party (4.00)
          going along is ALWAYS a bad plan.

          Always.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 04:15:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  why should any party ever agree?? (none)
            with any other party?   they're all opposed to each other.

            if one says "always" then all dem nominated judges should be filibustered by repugs and all repug nominated judges should be filibustered by dems.  and no judge ever will be confirmed as long as the filibuster remains an option.

            that.... ALL wars initiated with a repug in the white house should be opposed by dems.... that ALL wars initiated by a dem in the white house should be opposed by repugs.  by that definition, a REAL opposition party should have also been against the afghanistan campaign initiated right after 9-11.

            in the end, i'm not convinced there aren't just as many people in america who are sick of this kind of attitude in government as there are kossacks who believe there can be no other way.

            Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

            by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 04:36:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Going along (none)
              Look it up. You don't understand the phrase obviously.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:09:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  nope (none)
                it's impossible to understand what you mean when you say "going along."

                so instead of assuming people don't know what they're talking about... lets just ask a question.  and define the term.  it's why i offered the example above.

                were democrats "going along" with repugs on the afghanistan campaign and, if so, was that wrong??

                Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

                by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:26:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nonsense (none)
                  That is what annoys me about you. Never admit a mistake.

                  Avoidance: Conflict and discomfort by going along to get along, hence not getting dismissed.

                  No, Dems were NOT going along on Afghanistan.

                  They wholeheartedly and rightly agreed with the attack on the Taliban and Al Qaida.

                  They WERE going along on Iraq.

                  What is your problem?

                  The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                  by Armando on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:52:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  because (none)
                    They wholeheartedly and rightly agreed with the attack on the Taliban and Al Qaida.

                    certainly sounds to me like they were "going along" with it.  i'll be happy to admit the  mistake of not seeing what you meant.  

                    now i see when you're saying someone is "going along"...  that means someone is agreeing with something they do not wholeheartedly or rightly agree with.  

                    i really don't want to revisit a debate on the iraq war in this thread.

                    Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

                    by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 06:52:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's what it means BC (none)
                      Did you really not know that?

                      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                      by Armando on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 06:57:34 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  this may sound overly glib (none)
                        but if you want an answer, this is the best i can do.

                        if a neighbor goes to see "good night, and good luck" and i "go along" that doesn't mean, in my mind, i don't want to go see that particular movie.  "going along".. honestly.. does not imply against my will or better judgement for me.

                        more particularly, and i said i wouldn't go into this cause it's not what this diary is about, but screw it... it's because i still find the idea that dems "went along" on the iraq war in that sense of the word insulting to those dems.

                        for instance, i don't think congressman Murtha was just "going along" with repugs on iraq.

                        Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

                        by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 07:14:37 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  awe crap (none)
              that wasn't even my original point....

              my main point is politicians should not ask this question:

              -- what should i say and how should i act to win the election??

              they should ask this question:

              -- what best represents my values and the values of my constituents??

              the most valid criticism i find of HRC is that nobody will ever know for sure where she stands on anything cause she's always asking herself the first question.  not the second question.

              Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage/And the bravery of being out of range. -- r. waters

              by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:18:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site