Sunday, November 26, 2006

Democrats Setting the Stage, déjà vu all over again?

November 26, 2006

As January looms before us, newly elected Democrat party members are outlining their plans and strategy’s for the take-over of Congress. Appearing in print and on media TV, step by step they are revealing to us what they are all about and it appears to this aged Veteran, we are in trouble!

First, we had the stunning setback where incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi suffered her first embarrassment when members of her own party selected Steny Hoyer over Jack Murtha for the second spot in the House. They can downplay it as much as they wish, but this shows an already divide within the party.

Next, with promises of the returning ethical values to the Halls of Congress, Pelosi supports impeached federal judge and current Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings to head the House Intelligence Committee, over the more experienced California Democrat Jane Harman.

On today’s Foxnews Sunday program, 3 prominent Democrat leaders appeared with host, Chris Wallace. Charles Rangel (D. NY), John Dingell (D. MI.), and Barney Frank (D. Ma.). In a mildly confrontational interview, something Democrats seem to feel they should never have to face, all 3 laid out their plans for the next two years.

Asked about a “push for a strong liberal agenda,” Congressman Franks replied,

…raising minimum wage has become an issue identified with liberals. I think it's very popular. I think a lot of issues that people are talking about are indeed quite popular. Giving the federal government the mandate to negotiate drug prices as part of the prescription drug program I think has great majority support.
In my own committee, the biggest difference you're going to see is we're going to return to try to help deal with the housing crisis that blights so many parts of our country socially and economically. And again, I think reversing these attacks on housing for the elderly and other forms of affordable housing I think it will really be quite popular.

What he doesn’t address is how he intends to pay for it all. At a time they are complaining of increased jobs heading overseas, imposing a minimum wage increase, which is nothing more than a pandering for votes and really doesn’t help any wage earner, increasing employee costs encourages them to send even more jobs overseas to offset their costs.

Next, Congressman Dingell was pressed about raising taxes on the wealthy, abortion and gay rights, He replied,
We'll do what makes good sense on Iraq, what makes good sense on tax policy, what makes good sense on the environment and on energy, and we'll come up with a package that the people will like and that will make good sense in the middle.
A good vague non-answer, if you ask me.

Chris Wallace, in addressing his call for a return to a Military Draft, then asked Congressman Rangel, “Congressman, in fact, contrary to what you've been saying, isn't the volunteer army better educated and more well-to-do than the general population?”

Rangel replied,
Of course not.” After admitting none of it actually comes under his Ways and Means Committee, he goes on to say, “ If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq,” and “…once we are able to get hearings on this, everyone will see what they already know, and that is that those who have the least opportunities at this age find themselves in the military…

Seems to me another recently made a similar statement and was taken to the Democrat woodshed for the remark, “ You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” Is the above Rangel’s “botched joke,” as was claimed by John ‘F’in Kerry (who I once heard a rumor served in Viet Nam)?

Asking openly gay Congressman Frank about gays in the Military and President Clinton’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy elicited the response of,
One of the things I do want to address, yes, is discrimination based on sexual orientation. In fact, what we have is a shortfall in the military. And I think when you have people being fired who can read Arabic and understand Arabic because of what they do when they're off-duty, that that's a grave error.

Misleading viewers, Frank makes a case that gay linguist are being shoved out at an alarming rate. As is shown at Stop the ACLU and at Don Surbers, editorial columnist at the Charleston Daily Mail, this simply isn’t the case.

In defense of impeached federal judge Hastings, Congressman Dingell said, “He was tried later and was acquitted. So — and the people of his district have elected him to serve in the Congress.” He does not state that all 3 of today’s Democrat guests voted for the impeachment of Hastings back in August of 1988. This defense also never stopped Democrats from calling for the ouster of and going after Republicans, Bob Packwood, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and others.

On another recent occasion, Dingell, indicating the investigations he wishes to see listed some as;
• The new Medicare drug benefit. “There are lots and lots and lots of scandals,” he said, without citing specifics.
• Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
• An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It “was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies.”

Let me assure you that is just for openers.

We also have Rep. Henry Waxman (D. Ca.) calling for his own investigations stating, “"The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose. ” He then says, “ We want to return to civility and bipartisanship. Legislation ought to be based on evidence, not ideology.” This is that same Waxman who desires a Smoking Ban in the Speakers Lobby of the House, based upon the unscientific notion of Secondhand Smoke being responsible for cancer in non-smokers and the last place members of both parties that smoke may do so without having to leave the building.

In revisiting old news, we also have Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D. Vt.) demanding classified material to rehash “detention of terrorism suspects, abuse of detainees and other matters involving government secrecy.”

We also see Senator Carl Levin (D. Mi.) calling for 58 Documents on pre-war intelligence from the Pentagon in a bid to reopen investigations into the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq, in spite of the findings of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2004.

Is it any wonder so few believe the Democrats call for “civility” and “bipartisanship” are genuinely sincere? At a time we have men and women in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for the very principles our society is formed on and threatened with destruction by a heinous enemy, Islamofascists, all we can see coming is Democrats returning us to a Viet Nam era of snatching defeat from victory as once again, they prep to pull any stunt they can and embrace any call they can to undermine the first President to take the needed steps to combat terrorists and end their menace in 28 years.

They were voted into office, so nothing we can do for another two years, provided Al Qaeda doesn’t succeed in smuggling a dirty bomb into New York or Los Angeles next.

Democrats, here is your chance, let’s see you stop terror while you are blindsiding the very ones fighting to protect your insane childish games of payback over the House voting to impeach B.J. Clinton.

Lord help us



Canuckguy said...

--Regarding the drug prices and housing issues comment you made: "What he doesn’t address is how he intends to pay for it all."
--Just think of all the money being spent/wasted in Iraq. A huge amount. That could pay for it. That would be better then lining the pockets of those Republican moochers and other assorted fat corrupt porkers feeding at the trough.
--Down the road, you will see what a huge waste of money and lives the whole Iraqi adventure was.

LewWaters said...

canuckguy, my comment on not addressing how they intend to pay was intended for more than just the prescriptions program.

As for the expense of Iraq, what is the cost of freedom? How much do we say is enough and give in to terror?

What is most shameful is that with Democrats in control, I fear it will be fought even more half-assed than it already has been. But then again, they have been making waves and causing much of the half-assed effort by their undermining.

I don't mean our troops are fighting half-assed, incidentally, just those at upper echelons.

Down the road, as anyone should have already seen, since were well down the road from 1979, terrorists will not learn to sing kumbaya and prctice live and let live. They haven't in 28 years and won't know.

So, what you may see down the road from now may just show all the folly of opposing the fight, much like Neville Chamberalin discovered during the Battle of Britain and his calls for appeasement with Hitler.

As for "porkers," is any worse for them, and the Bush administration has gone after them, than for the Democrat "porkers" who add pork for useless state projects named after themselves? To me, pork is pork and all of it needs to stop. But, don't expect to see the Democrats tackle that any time soon either.

Canuckguy said...

--First of all, all parties have 'porkers', I certainly don't disagree with that unassailable truth.

--On the other bigger question, Iraq. I believe that invading Iraq was a huge mistake to begin with, badly thought out by the neo-cons in their total arrogance.

The USA was on the right path to overthrow the Taliban but made a fatal mistake of diverting to a trumped up invasion of Iraq before finishing up business in Afghanistan. So inspite of NATO and USA troops there, totalling I believe 20,000 American and 10,000 NATO, these numbers are much too small to put that country on the right track. If there was no Iraq mess, another 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan would no doubt tip the balance to establishing a strong fairly democratic friendly country. Then walk away "Mission Accomplished" If that would have been done, by now, the USA would be free to deal with the whatever real Middle East problems without Afghanistan bubbling in the background.

LewWaters said...

Obviously, canuck, we disagree on this matter of Iraq.

But, allow me to ask, since the left is so adamant that Iraq be responsible for their own security, demanding a timetable for withdrawal and all. Why is it they propose sending more troops to Afghanistan? Shouldn't they also be held responsible for their own security and we announce a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan as well?

As I see it, we "neo-cons" swarmed over Saddams forces and deposed him in record time. Mission Accomplished. However, in the post war matter, with the constant undermining coming from the left and emboldening of the enemy we face there, no one could do more to help them secure their hopeful freedom.

So many forget, we are not fighting a country in this war, but an ideology of hatred and oppression. It isn't a video game we can turn off and come back to later.

Canuckguy said...

--Yeah, I agree, we will never agree on Iraq.
--Don't blame the current Iraq mess on the commie bleeding heart leftist liberal types. Blame the arrogant knuckleheaded neo-con Bush Republicans for badly handling and under-estimating the aftermath of a very successful invasion of Iraq.

--However I do agree with your statement "we are not fighting a country in this war, but an ideology of hatred and oppression."
--That is a world wide threat. No doubt about it.

--I have no suggestion for a successful conclusion of the current Iraq mess. I was just dissing past bad mistakes that lead to a seemingly hopeless situation.

--As for what you said about Afghanistan: "Shouldn't they also be held responsible for their own security and we announce a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan as well?"
--Sure, but only if the right thing was done in the first place like I suggested, not walk away to Iraq and leave a too small force behind to try and set things on the right course in Afghanistan. Come on, one bite at a time would have been the right course to follow in this case; now the USA has bitten off more than it can chew. If you want to chew more, you will need the draft and probably 500,000 additional boots on the ground to stamp out that cancer.

LewWaters said...

canuckguy: I have no suggestion for a successful conclusion of the current Iraq mess. I was just dissing past bad mistakes that lead to a seemingly hopeless situation.

Personally, I'm of the do whatever it takes to win, crowd. We cannot afford to let terrorist roam freely killing for pleasure and over religious differences. Their goal is the same old goal of previous despots, world domination.

If it becomes necessary to return to a draft, as some Democrats are currently calling for, I'm for it. Why should right winged conservatives like me be the only ones fighting terror?

My question on Afghanistan was actually more tongue in cheek than serious. I see a disparity from the left concerning Iraq and Afghanistan and wonder why, that's all. Especially considering within days of invading Afghanistan, the left was calling it a quagmire in the fashion of Viet Nam.

Of course, prior to that the left was demanding Bush take immediate action to retaliate for 9/11. Wonder why they never called on Clinton to take immediate retalitory action for the first World Trade Center attack, Khobar Towers, Somalia, Kenya Embassies and the USS Cole?

With their return to power, I expect to see many things all messed up. Hopefully, we will get a real conservative from somewhere elected next time.

Canuckguy said...

Lew, you stated "With their return to power, I expect to see many things all messed up. Hopefully, we will get a real conservative from somewhere elected next time."

That's rich, Lew. Now that is a statement loaded with irony. You already had 6 years of neo-con knuckleheaded Republican rule and I think they did a jim dandy job of messing things up. The Demos will be hard pressed to match that.

--I realize off course that you gave yourself an 'out' by not considering Bush a 'real' conservative, but come on, don't try to blame that failing on Bush alone. He is surrounded by so-called 'real' conservatives, whatever the hell that is. I see them as I call them, knuckleheaded neo-cons.
--Well we are beating a dead horse here with each of us trying to get in the last word. Due to my exquisite arguments, you should be ready to throw in the towel just about now.

LewWaters said...

Canuck, you said: You already had 6 years of neo-con knuckleheaded Republican rule and I think they did a jim dandy job of messing things up.

Sorry, but again, you are mistaken. Bush, like every President before him, is only one person. They do not "rule" as do leaders in other countries.

In this case, while there are several matters I disagree with Bush on, I was speaking of what we call "RINOs" like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lincoln Chafee and some others.

McCain and hs "gang of 14" worked diligently to undermine Bush and run the legislature from their centrist position and making behind the scene deals with liberals.

My "out" as you call it is hoping for true conservative candidates for Congress as well as a strong conservative candidate for President. Bush cannot run again.

Canuckguy said...

--I fully realize Bush is just one guy albeit a guy with a lot of power but I made it clear that it was him AND his gang of neo-con knuckleheads that created the mess.
--I don't have a problem with your wish for "true conservative candidates for Congress as well as a strong conservative candidate for President". As long as they are intelligent and not knuckleheaded like the current gang.
--And with that, I consider that you really had the last word.

Canuckguy said...

BTW, speaking of Afghanistan, another two Canadian soldiers got blown up recently by a suicide bomber.

One(29 years service with 3 children) was from my small town(pop 12,000). He's the first.

LewWaters said...

Canuck, first of all, my sincere condolences on the loss of the two soldiers. Canadian troops have a long history of standing up for what is right and placing themselves in harm's way for others. If you are a Bible believer, they showed the greatest love, giving their lives for another. John 15:13

On to the rest.

An argument can be made that Bush inherited this mess because several before him did not face up to it and let it grow to the size, scale and strength it has today. This is a new kind of war, unlike others, as we have both said, we are not fighting a defined country with a uniformed service.

Still, we are fighting an enemy hellbent on total world domination.

I fid it ironic the left says terrorists were in every nation, except Iraq.

As far as I'm concerned, the real "knuckledraggers" are those that keep trying to pretend if they ignore the terrorists, they will just go away or leave us alone. Not going to happen.

Al Qaeda isn't the only group desiring world domination. Several loosely aligned groups are working both together and independently to accomplish their goals.

I think Bush and Rumsfeld's initial plans were adequate but faced serious opposition for no real good reason, other than political gain. That really irritates me as the leftists in the Democrat party used the lives of our troops, not for fighting for freedom, but to gain political points and be elected.

Watch as they assume power in January what they will try to do. I expect they will fight amongst themselves, most wanting to just pack up and leave and otehrs wanting a gradual withdrawal. Another Viet Nam style snatch defeat from victory, again. Once they do that, as well as dismantle the programs being used to intercept the terrorists, it will only be a matter of time before the suicide bombers are operating freely within our countries.

We are in for some really rough days ahead. Maybe then, as happened back the late 1930s, people will wake up for at least a little bit.

LewWaters said...

Well, so much for the demand to "stop special interest earmark" and "pork barrel projects."

Democrats Want to Keep Pork