If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats

The Republican Party has proven during the Bush administration that it is bad for America.

 

If it is politician from either party, or a special interest group, it is bad for America.

 

Typical Prager rubbish. People act like Democrats aren't Americans, that the flag doesn't belong to them too, that Democrats didn't buy our liberty with their blood as well, that their children don't have a stake in our future. What polarizing junk, and this type of thinking is hurting our country.

 

If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats

The truth of that statement was never more apparent than it was during the 2004 election.

 

Democrats are also wary of getting good news from Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html

EXCERPT

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

 

I think it is more true for the far left than it is for the Democrat party in general...sadly the party is under the thumb of the far left.

 

It would be a "problem" only in the sense that it might cause the federal government to continue with what will ultimately be a failed policy initiative that started in March 2003 - a failure if one is looking for more success than having deposed Saddam Hussein and giving the Iraqi people a representative form of democracy.

 

And sadly the GOP is under the thumb of the far right.

Demcrats or Republicans - it's pick your poison.

 

The Republicans are under the control of inability to govern. The machinery might be under control of the far right, but George Bush is no more conservative than a moderate Democrat.

On top of that, what difference does it make? The Republicans dug their own grave. Their chance of election next year is near zero. There is nothing more I dread than four years of a Democrat, but the Republicans got exactly what they deserve.

 

Considering how bad the Bush administration has been and the Republican Congress was, I doubt that a Democrat administration could be any worse.

 

Mr

The 2004 election like the 2000 election was stolen by the Bush forces. The Democrats actually won both.

 

It is my sincere hope that neither party wins next year. That is the only way we will get competent leadership.

 

To you.

It's clear that Clyburn was referring to democrats and their defeatist agenda when he referred to "us".

Another clear cut case of what's good news for America being bad news for democrats and vice versa.

 

Yeah, right, carpro. Only right-wing Republicans care about their own country.

 

Someone has been tipping the tea again I see.

 

If you say so. (shrug)

What is absolutely certain is that democrats love power, even if it takes bad news for America to get it. If it doesn't happen by itself, they'll help it along.

 

As if that's not equally true about Republicans.