Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu
  • sheknows

    Well, one would like to say that they truly thought this through and decided on the side of caution, but of course I can’t. It is as I have always stated. It’s partisan induced. Either you believe in the principle of your statement or you don’t. These guys, and others have made many statements that contradict their original beliefs on the U.S. role.
    A blind man could see with a cane that these R’s are the same ‘groupies” they have always been. The only ones who have remained true to their beliefs have been Boehner, McCain, and Lindsay. They may be hawks…but at least they don’t cluck and squawk on the ground with the chickens.

  • JSpencer

    Saying “the hypocrisy reeks” when describing GOP positions anymore is like saying, “the water is wet”. I’m glad I can still find it a little amusing, but the humor is black, black, black! The more challenges we face, the less less responsibly the political right behaves.

  • slamfu

    Oppose any idea Obama has and try to make him look bad. That is the GOP position, it always has been since 2009, and it is their only position. If Obama said self immolation is wrong, the entire GOP would douse themselves with gasoline and light up.

  • petew

    I also seem to remember that George W. Bush ran against Gore on a platform which included, a vow to never engage in “nation building” if elected President, and, also a promise that he would “reach across the aisle” in a display of true bipartisan spirit.

    Of course the worth of these promises, first became clear when TIME magazine (I believe) or Newsweek, called his first 100 days in office one of the most contentious bi-partisan governments in history, and shortly after, we all remember how he hyped and lied in order to convince Congress that we must engage in a war with Iraq, to prevent a member of the Axis of evil from using WMDs on the rest of the world. Of course, Saddam Hussein was not even remotely religious and considered Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden to be a clear enemy. But, Bush was given the go ahead to establish an island of democracy in the middle east, and oh—that included liberating an oil rich nation like Iraq. So as a texas oil man, no doubt Bush’s intentions were obviously pure—pure political poison!

    While it is true that all presidents must endure criticism from all sides, and two-faced politicians are nothing new, one can’t help but observe the long,extreme and concentrated effort, to make the culprit behind providing health care for the poorest among us, pay for anything at all that he says and does—he also happens to be a black man with an arabic sounding name—but that would be playing the race card!

    It is a wonder how the GOP has been so two-faced for so long, distorted every last bit of the health care bill, tried to shut down the government by holding one of its normal functions hostage, and successfully fought off thousands of dedicated scientists who warn us of an impending ecological crisis…but oh, that might involve accepting science and admitting to reality. How special interest oriented can Republicans get! Its a wonder that Americans haven’t been able to see through their hypocrisy till just recently—just a little bit anyway. Criticizing Obama by leaning whichever way the political wind blows, won’t work forever. so, I hope the era of blatant GOPO deception will end soon!

  • DaGoat

    The flip flops on Syria, the rhetorical U-turns, the hubris and the hesitance…but this time, I’m not referring to Team Obama.

    It’s heartening that Dick Polman realizes the hypocrisy and inconsistency isn’t just confined to one side. The GOP have become doves and Democrats have become hawks. Really this whole Syria controversy spotlights the level of blind partisanship in both parties. Who’d have thought we’d see Democrats so gung ho to blow up some Syrians? I guess after they escalated Afghanistan and bombed Libya I should have predicted it.

    Face it, when it comes to war Democrats and Republicans are all for it when their guy is in charge and all against when he’s not. There are a few that stick to their principles – Dennis Kucinich, Rand Paul, a few other Democratic Senators and Congressmen – but most just side with their party and against the other. If Romney were president and wanting to bomb Syria most Democrats would be against him (and they would be right).

  • sheknows

    Petew, a thoughtful response and I agree 100%.

    I think everyone believed that the GOP wanted to change their image, or change their colors…or some such nonsense after they lost the election, but that was a story I now believe the R’s themselves perpetuated with the media.
    Amidst the stories, here at TMV and elsewhere, of their supposed “rebranding”, it was obvious they were not concerned with any of it.

    They were not looking to gain minority votes….ever. They were looking only to block them in the future. ( TRUE Christians) Hence the VRA decision, and the immigration bill, and the immediate redistricting and voter ID law implementation. The Republicans don’t like Hispanics or blacks or any other darker skinned minorities and want to keep them not only out of their party, but prevent them from voting against it.

    The Republican party is a disagreeable lot of many elements that conflict not only with each other, but with American and humanitarian values. If Democrats do not get out and defeat them in 2014, I truly feel our country will head down a path of change that only can be described in a nightmarish science fiction novel about a corporate run society where people can’t afford medical care and elderly and poor live in “segregation cubes” or just an Ayn Rand novel so beloved by Paul Ryan. ( I wonder if, being such a faithful church going Christian each Sunday, he knows his favorite author and one who he makes REQUIRED reading for his interns…is an atheist). There is that hypocrisy again…..

  • sheknows

    DaGoat…if Romney were president, we would have been involved in military action a long while ago since that is what Romney and his buddies favored a while back. AND, he wouldn’t have consulted congress either…….

  • DaGoat

    Sheknows you may well be right but that doesn’t have anything to do with my comments. Most GOP and Democrats are hypocritical on this issue. Democrats seem to feel that because Obama ponders and anguishes before he blows people up there’s a big ethical difference.

  • StockBoyLA

    What will be interesting is how this affects their political fortunes in future elections. The Republicans could very well be portrayed as flip floppers who aren’t hard on international terrorists and won’t protect American interests.

  • petew

    Da Goat,

    Both parties sometimes change their stripes to appeal to voters, but I feel compelled to once again, point out that Obama, is not typically a hawk or a war President. If he were, he would not only have continued escalating the number of troops in Afghanistan—above the level of a minor surge, and, he would have signed on to the Republican philosophy that it would only be aiding the enemy to include a date for troop withdrawals. Because he did not do so he took an enormous political risk and attracted sharp criticism from the GOP and some Democrats as well. And, justs as he did in Libya, he has promised not to commit American boots to the ground—do any of us ever think that his reason for these policies might simply be due to the fact that he doesn’t want to place American soldiers in harms way?

    I know that on some issues Obama seems to do the old flip flop with the best of them i.e. he announced that his opinions on gay marriage had evolved. However, I don’t think he has been flip flopping or wishy washy about his military policy. Why else would he risk asking Congress to help decide, or even to acknowledge the American peoples wishes at all?

    He personally doesn’t have to risk re-election, but, many of his fellow Democrats are kind of left up in the air and blowing in the wind, if they decide with him or against him. Although every political decision involves a price to pay, Obama seems much less swayed by popular opinion than many of his predecessors. While a true hawk would be determined not to contradict his own red line statement, wouldn’t a hawk have immediately ordered air strikes in Syria? And if he felt that such lone authorization was already considered completely within his powers, why didn’t he immediately bring on those air strikes?

  • slamfu

    I don’t think its even remotely true that parties only want their own to be doing war and whatnot. The democrats were on board with the invasion of Afghanistan, and also voted to authorize Iraq based on the information they were given at the time. It was only after the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent discovery that any evidence of WMD’s existed solely in the minds of the Bush admin, and also after the gross mishandling of reconstruction there that the Dems started tearing into Bush. The backing of a President to use force in the furtherance of American foreign policy is nothing new to Congressional democrats. It is merely the GOP that back one president then not another along party lines.

  • JSpencer

    The GOP have become doves and Democrats have become hawks. Really this whole Syria controversy spotlights the level of blind partisanship in both parties.

    I think that’s an oversimplification. The right is still hawkish at heart and the left is still skeptical of hawkish behavior (at heart). The dovishness on the right now is rooted in anti-Obama anything, whereas the left is clearly willing to embrace non-military alternatives. In addition the causes don’t compare well. For one thing the civil war in Iraq started well after the invasion destabilized the country. In Syria the uprising has been going on for quite some time, with the anti-Assad people asking for US help right along.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com