 |
 |
   Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
June 26, 2009
THE AD WRITES ITSELF.... For several years, Democratic opposition to blank-check spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the single most popular area of attack for Republicans. To vote against "funding the troops," the GOP said, was to betray the nation and those who wear the uniform. It was the basis for countless speeches, ad campaigns, and attacks. Whether a lawmaker was fully satisfied with individual provisions in the spending bill was irrelevant -- the troops are fighting wars and they need the money. Excuses won't protect them or give them the resources they need. In fact, just a year ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) argued, "[T]here is a clear distinction between saying you support the troops and backing up those claims with genuine action. [Obama] once said 'we shouldn't play chicken with our troops' when it comes to funding our troops in harm's way, and [Hillary Clinton] urged General Petraeus at the start of the surge to request 'every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary' to keep our troops safe. These words turned into little more than empty rhetoric when both proceeded to vote against funding our troops last year." Last week, of course, the situation was reversed, and it was House Republicans "voting against funding our troops." This week, the DCCC is unveiling a series of 60-second radio ads targeting seven vulnerable GOP incumbents on their votes. This one, for example, goes after Rep. Lee Terry (R) of Nebraska.
Republicans did make this easy for Dems. Indeed, all the DCCC had to do was pull up the same kind of radio ads Republicans used before and insert GOP names. As a substantive, policy matter, lawmakers can have completely legitimate reasons for voting against military spending measures, and opposition to these expenditures does not make one an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer. But Republicans opened this door. It's hard to blame Democrats for walking through it. —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)Comments
No. "Everybody does it" is not a good excuse for hypocrisy. No wonder people don't trust "anybody", and that benefits Republicans, since they promise less government. Posted by: Danp on June 26, 2009 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINKi know it's just shit-stompin' politics, but it makes me smile of a friday morning... Posted by: neill on June 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINKPolitics is a full contact sport and I for one am glad that Democrats are finally taking the gloves off. Hell I never want to be a part that did faux poutrage as much as the GOP did in the Bush years but sometimes when they stick their chin out there you just HAVE to throw the damned punch! Posted by: sgwhiteinfla on June 26, 2009 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINKRepublicans opened this door. It's hard to blame Democrats for walking through it. But the ad isn't so much bashing Republicans for not voting for the troops as their unabashed hypocrisy in doing so. That's a big difference. Posted by: Gregory on June 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINKIt is kind of sad that the Dems pretty much have to do this. They were on the correct side of the issue during the Bush years, having substantive rationales for their actions. The problem is that they hoped for a populace that could recognize nuance, who were informed, and who could see beyond the wired-for-Republicans establishment media. But that has not proven to be the case, with voters responding to the Republicans' tactics. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. Gloves off, knuckles bared. Posted by: terraformer on June 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINKThe ad writes itself, but will oft' spineless Democrats have the balls to aggressively market it? Posted by: Neil B ♠ on June 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINKThe people who understood the hypocrisy of the original Republican position understand that this is the just and even enjoyable hoisting of Republicans on their own petard. The add may bring some few to the realization that they were previously being manipulated, so that's to the good. As for the people who still do not understand that they were being manipulated by the GOP, they thereby prove themselves to be just inert matter in the electorate that can only be directed by blunt manipulation, so there is no crime in doing so. Do you argue with the shovel full of dirt you displace to dig a well? Posted by: Jon on June 26, 2009 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKThere's nothing wrong with pointing out Republican hypocricy on the subject. In fact, it's a service to voters to do so, since they likely won't get that information from the msm. The real question is whether the Democratic Congressional leadership is willing to fight to win. Given that in the Senate at least, the driving force seems to be a desire to get as close to GOP positions as possible, it does not seem likely. Oh, they may give it a like and a promise, but I'd be very surprised to see any kind of sustained effort. Posted by: zak822 on June 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINKLooks like Rep. Terry voted for funding the troops before voting against it. Which vote was hypocritical? Perhaps both?? Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 26, 2009 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK"You can support the troops without supporting the president." "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism?"
Why are the republicans refusing to cancel the plane (f22 I think) that Gates said is no use, is obsolete They'll just turn it around and say the Dems are the hypocrites for voting against funding the troops while a Republican was in office, but for funding the troops now that a Democrat is in. War and police actions only become "Holy" when led by a Republican or RepuGlican President. Although, there are many a realtively recent convert to RepuGlicanism who still believes Jeff Davis was the first Holy Warrior Commander in Charge. Posted by: berttheclock on June 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINKPolitico, which ran the story, attracts a gaggle of GOP chicken hawks crying and trying to defend the repulsive two faced hypocrites who care more about their ideology than about our troops or our country. "...As a substantive, policy matter, lawmakers can have completely legitimate reasons for voting against military spending measures, and opposition to these expenditures does not make one an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer..."-Benen Ain't that just like a liberal...always explaining the side of truth in spite of the opposition willfully failing to mention it when it brings political gain. But liberals already know this. Let's see if conservatives will admit they did too and were just being hypocrites. Posted by: bjobotts on June 26, 2009 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINKbtw...why is politics always referred to as competitive sport...that should be a side effect not the main tactic. Tends to make politics degenerative and is only reactionary with liberals but with conservatives it's the main purpose. No wonder conservative policies never change...they're secondary. Posted by: bjobotts on June 26, 2009 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINKExcellent site. It was pleasant to me. Posted by: tramadol online span on July 24, 2009 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINKGreat work, webmaster, nice design! Posted by: tapering off tramadol on July 25, 2009 at 5:22 AM | PERMALINKenhance reymonta groundwork classmates bold uptake kabily zveza Posted by: Ambien on September 14, 2009 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINKPost a comment
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
