Original post made
on Sep 15, 2007
This story contains 255 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
A statement is a way of deferring action. I think she and other representatives should organize a coalition of constituents who are willing to take a stand and then push that stand in Congress.
Rather than a Gallup poll, she needs a list of contituents (including high-profile as well as rank-and-file) who support her position. Currently, she is persuing an anonymous exercise in futility.
Eshoo has never in her political life paid any attention to my concerns. She just phones in to pick up the latest Soros bullet points.
Everyone who says that Bush is not listening forgets that he was elected twice to do what he said he was going to do, not put his finger up to the winds of polls of people who are home to answer the phone and have the time to answer polls.
Bush is listening to those who elected him more than those who didn't..sort of.
He and other Republicans DIDN'T listen to those who elected him in how far to the right to be, actually. They are too far left in expanding government, too far left by being weak in illegal immigration, too far left by not addressing the root causes of the coming Social Security defunct, and too far to the left in being too "soft-footed" in Iraq. Not to mention a horrible communicator.
The sooner Republicans wake up and hear that this is why they are losing power, not because they aren't "to the left enough"..the sooner they get the power back.
When Dems complain Bush isn't listening to the people, they are really saying he isn't doing every beck and call of the Dems.
Excuse me "I want...", but W was NOT elected twice -- maybe not even in 2004 (with the paperless-trail voting machines, I guess we'll never know about that). By your logic, he should be listening to the Supreme Court majority that appointed him. And go ahead, tell me to "get over it" -- the typical pathetic refrain. It won't alter the reality that the person who has assumed the most powerful position in the world is a fraud.
ExcuseMe, you can continue to wallow in the past, or you can work to change the votes in Congress now and in the 2008 presidential election. Focusing on 2000 and 2004 is not very productive.
It is interesting that this congressional district has many nationally respected people, but how many of them have taken a public stand on the war in Iraq?
Walter, is that you boy?
Why don't get outside.
Get some fresh air.
Run around the block.
Ain't nobody listnin' anyway child,
just like that political gal you was talking bout.
Excuse me, ChrisK, but I'm not wallowing. I may have had to accept having a clown in the White House for 8 years, just like everyone else, but I will always oppose misrepresenting history. When someone says he was elected twice, that's misrepresenting reality. Read the posting I was responding to.
And excuse me again, ChrisK, but I can assure you that I DO work to change the votes in Congress, vigorously, and your assumption that I don't is insulting. It's not an either/or situation, this insistence on truth. Don't be so quick to indulge in sanctimony.
To Excuse me: you need to understand the Electoral College, and how our elections have always worked. For you to STILL believe that Bush wasn't elected is a show of ignorance for how our system works. We have never been a pure democracy..we are a REPUBLIC, which means our electoral college gives an extremely slight advantage to the smaller states in an election which has less than a ..forget the actual precise number, but something like .05% difference in votes between the candidates. This happened in 2000, has happened before, and will happen again. Get over it. To deny a massive majority of the vote went to Bush in 2004 is hilarious! No point in even talking about it.
When are you guys going to stop harping on historical reality?
Why can't people like Anna Eshoo realize that the quickest way to end the war is to win it? She makes these damaging statements just to score political points. She is telling the enemy that all they have to do is keep fighting a little longer since we are about to give up and go home. We are finally making real progress in Iraq. It doesn't matter whether you think the war was the right thing to do or not, if you want end the war then you have 2 choices:
1. Show the enemy that we are serious about winning.
2. Wait until 2008, and elect somebody that will surrender.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stewart Mill
The war hawks see such a clear picture - win or surrender.
Meanwhile, how long is the list of former generals, current soldiers, and REPUBLICANS who are now saying what the war's critics have been saying for years? And yet, the hawks tell us that the criticism is just partisanship.
"This war policy - where we are today and the continuation of this policy - is the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country and we're going to pay a very high price for it" - Sen. Chuck Hagel -(R), Nebraska
I'm not saying the critics are 100% right. Many people on both sides take an overly-simplistic view. But clearly, we're not getting anything Bush/Cheney et al. expected out of this war, and we're spending billions each week with nothing much to show for it. The political situation in Iraq is now further from functioning than before the surge, and even the statistics about the surge working have been twisted (maybe you've heard that they're very selective about which murders count and which ones don't depending on the bullet entry point). And even if the surge is "working," that's relative - things are better now than a year ago - maybe, since it was a really bad year - but better than two years ago, or three years ago?
So if accountability and leadership mean anything, it would be nice to hear Our Fearless Leader express more than the same general idea time after time after time, regradless of actual events in Iraq. At least now he's stopped talking about victory. But what the heck is "return on success"? I've heard of return on investment, and at least I can measure that, but this is just hot air. Commander "Mission Accomplished" can't define any of the abstractions in real terms, so it won't be hard to "return on success." More likely, we'll "return on necessity" when our budget and enlisted personnel can no longer hold up, when the costs approach $1 trillion and the stop-loss orders pile up and the recruitment of even less fit soldiers becomes impossible. "Return on success" indeed - George Orwell would be proud.
And yet, not-war would have had far worse consequences. A nuclear Saddam and Norks with an oil angel and a complicite Europe and Russia would make the current costs peanuts and the current casualties miniscule. It does not elimimate a threat just because you don't want to acknowledge the peril.
Oh, Good Grief. Good grief. I'm not even sure WHAT you mean by that last comment about "harping on historical reality" -- are you saying that understanding historical events isn't important?
And please don't be so patronizing in telling me I don't understand the electoral college. Of course I understand it. You don't seem to understand what happened in Florida in 2000. Gore won the majority of votes in Florida, GG. Therefore, he SHOULD have won the electoral college votes, and if the democratic process had been honored, he would have moved into the White House in January 2001. Go back to the recount that was done by a number of groups, including the NY Times, the results of which were underplayed when reported in October or November 2001 -- underplayed, I'm sure, because of the mood of the nation after September 11. I point this out not because I'm wallowing, not because I can't "get over it," but because I think it's important to remember the past so we don't repeat our mistakes.
I recoginize W as the president (gulp), but I can't abide hearing people claim that he was elected in 2000. He was appointed. For the record. (By the way, I'm also aware of the fact that at least two other presidents in the history of our country didn't win in fair, democratic elections. For the record.)
Excuse Me - You need to stop reading the lies fed to you by George Soros and the like. There have been recounts of the 2000 election results and George Bush won. PRESIDENT BUSH RECEIVED MORE VOTES. HE BEAT GORE FAIR AND SQUARE. Stop spreading lies that Soros dreams up. It bad for the country and national security.
Yes, every newspaper trying so hard to confirm that Gore actually won did just the opposite..some even found that Bush got more votes than they thought..and let's not forget that Gore tried hard to recount ONLY a few of the areas, and throw out any absentee ballots from overseas..ie military people.
So, that myth is dead, except in a few minds.
WELL SAID!! Hurray! Love the quote.
Yes, the better men and women are clearly in the military...
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]