"Political correctness" is often ridiculed as 'liberals want you to say "vertically challenged" instead of short' or some such nonsense. However, the most restrictive form of political correctness is the idea (which emanates from the right) that no wrong can ever come from the military.

It makes sense to be disappointed by democrats only if you still think they are an opposition party. They hardly are that. At best we have a 1.2 party system. We can choose between exxon-mobile and archer daniels midland.

25 Democrats voted against the measure, 3 didn't vote. No Republicans joined them. They aren't the opposition party I want, but they're all we've got.

That said, Harry Reid should have been cracking some skulls over this. I'm particularly disgusted with Leahy, Feinstein, Mikulski, and Kohl. Those four have no excuse whatsoever. Completely safe seats and experience enough to have known better.

I will note that Hillary Clinton, despite my many beefs with her, is not on this list. Good for her.

What a crock. Even in this blatantly meaningless excercise in pr*** waving, there are Democrats caving in like the milquetoasts that they are.

But really it's like fighting for shay's lounges on the deck of the Titanic, iceberg dead ahead. Like this matters.

chaise lounges

Oh okay, thanks. I kant spell 2 nite.

Hi,

Ads are back-firing in a big way...

America Votes: Petraeus Didn’t Betray Us

Gen. David Petraeus Better Known, Better Liked After Last Week
Sixty-one percent of Americans rate the general favorably in new poll

by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ — A new Gallup Poll suggests that last week’s intense schedule of congressional testimony and media appearances by the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, enhanced his image among Americans.

Not only did Petraeus’ name identification increase significantly in a matter of just a week, but his image also became more favorable than it was just before the week’s activities. This occurred in a contentious environment that included the publication of a full-page ad in the New York Times criticizing Petraeus, and much commentary on the truthfulness and accuracy of his testimony.

The new poll also shows that Americans are not nearly as familiar with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who also testified before Congress.

According to the Sept. 14-16, 2007 poll, 61% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Petraeus, while 22% have an unfavorable opinion and 18% are not familiar enough with the general to rate him.

In early August, just 47% of Americans rated Petraeus favorably, with 21% rating him unfavorably and 32% having no opinion. Now, after last week, his post-testimony favorable rating has jumped up 14%.

Petraeus’ name identification — the percentage of Americans who know enough about him to have an opinion — also jumped from 69% in early September to 83% this past weekend.

Republicans — who as a group are solidly behind the war effort — are much more likely than independents or Democrats to rate Petraeus favorably. Eighty-three percent of Republicans have a favorable opinion of him, compared with 59% of independents and 43% of Democrats.

Peace!
Dan
General David Betray Us

Assumes facts not in evidence, Dan. You'd have to know what percentage of those folks are even aware of the ad. The polls also show that support for the war dropped 4% after his testimony. But none of that matters. The guy is a hack and a liar who, like, General Powell before him, is willing to throw his honor and decency in the toilet in the service of this sorry excuse of a president.

You keep right on eating that shit sandwich, though. You seem to be enjoying it.

6: chaises longues.

chaste lozenges

As I understand it, his boss, Admiral William Fallon, referred to him as an 'ass kissing little chickenshit'. Works for me.....

Chez longitudes

Uh, any chaise longues the Titanic may have had would have been inboard. Perhaps you meant "deck chairs?" [/off pedantry]

(Btw, could someone share a link to a report that conclusively refutes Petraeus' testimony? Thx)

You could start here and here. And the Army's own numbers contradict him.

Crooks and Liars has Olbermann's comment from last night.

The President is a weak and beaten man, and exhibts all signs of this.

Read Sid Blumental's latest in your friendly neighborhood Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/20/bush_draper/index_np.html?source=whitelist

The Democrats, with blood in the water and empowered with big majorities, still do not go in for the kill when it could be so. damn. easy.

empowered with big majorities

Um, that big Senate majority is 51-49, if you count Lieberman. Which you oughtn't.

Throw in Hagel (R)--while you still can--and probably Snowe (R).

That, along with the majority seats in the House and all the committee leadership.

House + Senate + a lame ass lame duck President, plus a few good whores with hidden cameras to take pictures of the minority Party cavorting in places where they shouldn't be.

I'd call that big.

Hagel and Snowe? They talk, but check their voting record. They've yet to vote against the president on Iraq, just like Lieberman. So what you have, at best, is a 50-50 tie. And a lame duck president still has a veto that requires 67 votes to override, even if you peel off enough Republicans to end a filibuster.

What you have in the Senate is a tie, with the executive branch holding the tiebreaker. Don't get me wrong: a big bunch of the Democrats are utterly craven, but there's no realistic way you can say they hold big majorities.

That is to say, they hold a medium-sized majority in one chamber, and not the one that really matters.

The tide is turning. The Republicans know that their party is sunk if they stay anchored to the President, a war criminal with more bodies to his name than the Rhwandan massacre.

All they need is someone to show them the way out.

Those people are the Democrats, who were elected on a mandate of putting an end to the war and occupation, and restoring competant governance.

22: The problems, Jon, is that the Dems (like the Republicans) have simply no interest in "restoring competent governance" or in standing up to put an end to the war and occupation.

They just want to replace the Republicans as the controllers of the great federal pork spigots, and aren`t particularly interested geting themselves exercised to defend the Consitution, our liberties or their own prerogatives, or our national interests.

That`s why they keep rolling over. They don`t have the stomach to begin with, but also see a political risk in standing up to Bush/Cheney. They see the path of least resistance, with occasional grandstanding to make make sure voters continue to blame Republicans for the war, is the best way to win the Presidency and greater Congressional control in 2008.

And that`s all it is - they want more control. But why? There`s no objective, other than to continue to what Republicans proved ruthlessly efficient at - to fleece us.

Interesting, isn't it, that the current Democratic Congress is more popular with Republicans than with Democrats.

So if you have a war hero record (or even remotely commendable military file) you are absolved from all further indiscretions in your life? Huh. It's like Catholic priests.
Meanwhile, if you're a black teen in Louisiana, you're charged to the fullest extent of the law, irregardless of the truth of the situation. This country is so ridicously screwed up. Some days I just have no hope for it.

24: Indeed. I'd like to see lots and lots of primary challenges the next few cycles. First priority is removing the current GOP from office. After that, taking back the Democratic Party.

22:

I am opposed to the Warfare-Welfare State.

First take away the Warfare state. Then take away all the welfare for rich people. This would entail slowly dismantling most of the federal government as we know it.

I can still sleep okay if there is still welfare for poor people, although I am opposed to the income tax and other forms of government theft.

Republicans want none of this. They are too dependent on government welfare to ever want genuine free markets.

Same goes with most corporations. If they truly liked free markets, billions of dollars would be pouring into the coffers of the LP.

26: Because of all the gerrymandering, primaries have largely been campaigns to satisfy the loudest/most influential voters in the respective party, though certainly Republican mismanagment and scandals have created opportunities to run to the center. What we really need is for the Supreme Court to step in and decide that there are equal protection limits to redistricting (and similar decisions under state constitutions).

That`s why they keep rolling over. They don`t have the stomach to begin with, but also see a political risk in standing up to Bush/Cheney. They see the path of least resistance, with occasional grandstanding to make make sure voters continue to blame Republicans for the war, is the best way to win the Presidency and greater Congressional control in 2008.

Yes, the Dems have been ineffective, but they're trying. Step one in a (re)conciliation is to stop demonizing the other side and to humanizing them - to recognize commonalities rather than focussing on differences. The Dems should get credit for that at least.

But far be it from me to let that get in the way of your demonization of the current Congress. As we know, politicians are evil, and not regular people like us.

29 gets it right. Let's not fall into the trap of saying Democrats are subhuman. Shame on you, TokyoTom.

I don't think that the Democrats in Congress are subhuman. They are simply afflicted with mental illness, and need medical care.