Bush's approval rating at a new low
According to one poll, Bush's approval rating is now at 28%.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Pelosi proves once again that she's full of crap
Nancy Pelosi, in an ABC News interview, proves once again why she and her party are worthless as an opposition force to George Bush and his war in Iraq.
In the interview, Diane Sawyer asked her, "Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?"
In response, she said, "Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way."
This is, of course, complete nonsense. Pelosi has reiterated this excuse on other occasions as well. The best way to take the troops out of harm's way would be to cut off funding for the war so that they will come home. But that is one step the Democrats just won't take.
In the interview, Diane Sawyer asked her, "Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?"
In response, she said, "Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way."
This is, of course, complete nonsense. Pelosi has reiterated this excuse on other occasions as well. The best way to take the troops out of harm's way would be to cut off funding for the war so that they will come home. But that is one step the Democrats just won't take.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
No comment
From today's LA Times:
Steps to curb global warming. Tougher fuel economy standards for automobiles. Repeal of massive tax breaks for the oil industry.
Environmentalists are busy these days crafting their holiday wish-list, giddy about the prospects for success in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.
But industry groups are gearing up to fight, and their forces may include more than the usual Republican allies.
"We're confident that there are plenty of Democrats who know and understand us," said Charles Drevna of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Assn.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Justify?
The LA Times reports the following information about the Democrats' response to the Bush administration's plans on the Iraq War.
First, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid call for "a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, starting in four to six months". Not an immediate withdrawal, mind you, but a staged one, so that more American troops can be killed during the continuing occupation through the first half of 2007.
Second, Pelosi once again "emphasized that Congress would not cut off funding for U.S. forces now in Iraq." The one tool at her disposal for ending this war is the one tool she refuses to wield.
Third, Pelosi said in response to Bush's plans to send more troops, "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it." Justify it? What's to justify? Is she suggesting that if he gives a justification, she might go along with it?
First, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid call for "a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, starting in four to six months". Not an immediate withdrawal, mind you, but a staged one, so that more American troops can be killed during the continuing occupation through the first half of 2007.
Second, Pelosi once again "emphasized that Congress would not cut off funding for U.S. forces now in Iraq." The one tool at her disposal for ending this war is the one tool she refuses to wield.
Third, Pelosi said in response to Bush's plans to send more troops, "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it." Justify it? What's to justify? Is she suggesting that if he gives a justification, she might go along with it?
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Another skirmish in the class war, and guess who's winning
The CEO of Home Depot is apparently pushed out the door after the company had a period of poor earnings. The sum of his severance package is worth $210 million.
The prevailing capitalist mythology is that high executive pay is necessary in order to attract competent managers. Isn't it funny then how incompetence gets rewarded as much as competence does? If executive salaries were really tied to competence, then CEOs would not be rewarded like this when they were pushed out the door.
Clearly, it's all about the ruling class grabbing all that it can for itself; the "competence" ruse is just a cover for the promotion of ruling class interests. The marketplace pressures that make these obscene payouts possible benefit the interests of the ruling class as a whole.
Ah, life under capitalism.
The prevailing capitalist mythology is that high executive pay is necessary in order to attract competent managers. Isn't it funny then how incompetence gets rewarded as much as competence does? If executive salaries were really tied to competence, then CEOs would not be rewarded like this when they were pushed out the door.
Clearly, it's all about the ruling class grabbing all that it can for itself; the "competence" ruse is just a cover for the promotion of ruling class interests. The marketplace pressures that make these obscene payouts possible benefit the interests of the ruling class as a whole.
Ah, life under capitalism.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Reality sets in
As an AP article from today points out, "Recent polls show Americans remain frustrated with Bush's handling of the war, but don't think Democrats have offered much of an alternative." The article, written by Anne Flaherty, suggests that the Democrats were able to avoid being associated in the public's mind with Bush's war (despite the fact that many Democrats have been cheerleaders for it) as long as they were the minority party. But now that they are in power, it is their war too.
In other words, reality is finally about to set in, as the Democrats now assume majority control of both houses of Congress. The problem is that the Democrats refuse to do the one thing that could end this war--cut off funding for it. Last month, Marc Sandalow of the San Francisco Chronicle reported this lame answer by Nancy Pelosi to the question of whether she would vote to cut off funding for the war:
As Flaherty points out in her article,
In other words, reality is finally about to set in, as the Democrats now assume majority control of both houses of Congress. The problem is that the Democrats refuse to do the one thing that could end this war--cut off funding for it. Last month, Marc Sandalow of the San Francisco Chronicle reported this lame answer by Nancy Pelosi to the question of whether she would vote to cut off funding for the war:
"Absolutely not,'' Pelosi responded without hesitation. "As long as our troops are in harm's way, we will be there to support them."Uh huh. As long as our troops are in harm's way, "we" (meaning the Democrats) will continue to vote to keep them in harm's way. Or something like that. You figure it out.
As Flaherty points out in her article,
Biden and other Democrats agree that Iraq will dominate much of their work next year, but contend they must not be blamed for a war run ultimately by the president. "This is President Bush's war," Biden said.And it is that leadership that is lacking. The reality is that the Democrats continue not to offer any real alternative to the Bush policies in Iraq. They refuse to cut off funding for the war. Now that they have the purse strings in their own hands, the war has stopped being just Bush's war. It is their war, too.
But political experts say the public might not agree.
"When you're in the minority, you don't have to do much more than criticize the status quo that wasn't working," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. "When you're in the majority, people will look to you for leadership."
Search
Last posts
- Democrats would sustain US involvement in Iraq
- Democrats avoid the issue of impeachment
- Pay to play
- When corporate interests trump religious conservatism
- Germany issues arrest warrant for CIA agents
- Bush's approval rating at a new low
- Pelosi proves once again that she's full of crap
- No comment
- Justify?
- Another skirmish in the class war, and guess who's...