Hit Me Again. I Like It!
May 22nd, 2008 | by Craig |Remember 2006?
Remember how all the Democratic victories promised us lower gas prices, flowers, rainbows and withdrawal from Iraq?
Remember that?
So, how are we doin’ with the Democratic leadership?
Gas prices up? Check!
Still in Iraq? Check!
Inflation climbing? Check!
Well, ferchrissakes, just give ‘em a listen:
Unemployment is at its highest since Katrina. The nation has lost more than a quarter of a million jobs since January. The housing market has collapsed, credit and financial crises have collided to imperil the financial security of millions of Americans, and energy and food prices continue to rise.
And that’s just in the two years that they’ve been in charge!
And this is the argument they’re giving you to go ahead and vote ‘em into office en masse.
Ummm…how about no, you crazy Dutch bastards?
21 Responses to “Hit Me Again. I Like It!”
By Erica on May 22, 2008 | Reply
Oh, you. Why would anyone want to make the effort to blame an entire Democrat Congress when it’s so much easier to just blame Bush? Why, in fact, everytime I get an ingrown toenail or a zit, I blame Bush, too. Hell, somebody’s gotta take the fall for all the pandemic FAIL, right?
By Chad on May 23, 2008 | Reply
In the spirit of this post (I’m racking my brain here, do hyperlinks not work in your comments, or is that just my site — can’t remember), I’m compelled to point out that your fellow travellers spun the 2001-2002 economical hiccough on the preceding administration. I remember you actually making this argument on a long-dead blog of mine or in a chat we had one night or somewhere, but my memory is notoriously faulty and I could very easily be mistaken — but whatever, I really seem to think that it was you, somewhere that pointed it out to me, the despondent unemployed Bush-hater. Whomever it was, the point still stands that it’s convenient to blame whomever you want for whatever you want whenever you want, and to paint an entire swath of political America with that brush while feigning great indignation (okay, maybe moderate indignation) is something along the lines of hypocrisy.
I’m especially amused by this line, “…and withdrawal from Iraq”. As if that’s something you would be interested in, at least as much as lower gas prices, flowers and rainbows.
By Craig on May 23, 2008 | Reply
Chad, what I’m getting at is that the things that were high priority and campaign promises in ‘06 have pretty much gone the other way.
The Democrats didn’t deliver then, so I don’t see why anyone should expect them to deliver now.
Frankly, I don’t expect either party to have to stones to do what it will take to solve many of these problems.
“Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”
By Chad on May 23, 2008 | Reply
“Chad, what I’m getting at is that the things that were high priority and campaign promises in ‘06 have pretty much gone the other way.”
Yeah, well, that’s like saying the sky is blue (except here of course, where it isn’t).
I wasn’t trying to tweak your nose too badly there, Craig, but it was a, “hey… wait a minute” moment for me this morning.
To tne whole campaign promises thing, it’s interesting to note that a not-insignificant number of people that I see supporting Clinton are doing so in the full expectation that she is more likely to throw some of her primary campaign promises overboard the first chance she gets.
By Steve T. on May 23, 2008 | Reply
I hear that thrown around all too often: “The Democrats promised to end the war…”
Actually, they didn’t. I said it then, and I’ll say it now. The Democrats had no intention of ending the war, and they were making it pretty clear before the ‘06 elections too. Some on the left seem to put their hopes and aspirations in the Democratic Party even if the Democratic Party doesn’t say anything of the sort.
Even when Barack Obama talks about “ending the war,” he means leaving 40,000 or so troops in Iraq.
As it turns out, politicians aren’t always honest. How’s that whole pro-life movement going for you guys?
By Walter Greenspan on May 24, 2008 | Reply
But, why are you slamming the Dutch (”Ummm…how about no, you crazy Dutch bastards?”)?
Remember, it was the Dutch that gave us bowling, semi-attached houses, the front stoop, the word “boss” and Brooklyn (Breuckelen).
By Dave on May 24, 2008 | Reply
Allow me to quote my Grandad;
“I’m a little Dutchman … I drink lots of beer … see my belly? … it sticks way out to here … Tee Hee Hee Hee …”
Yup, my Grandad, worked in Anaconda for years.
And you know what?
He indeed was a “crazy Dutch bastard” … and he was proud of it.
By Mark T on May 25, 2008 | Reply
I’m conflicted when I read a post like this. It is wrong because 1) you don’t understand Democrats, and 2) you’ve mangled the events of the last two years. Conflating the two leads to confusion, in evidence.
One, the Democratic Party is a coalition of forces, some liberal, some right wing, most soft on issues. There are only a few Democrats who have fought for the issues of the 2006 campaign. Most have been content to let things go on as they have, funding the war, refusing to end the tax cuts, confirming radical justices and other administration officials, giving the OK to attack Iraq … as I have said many times, having Democrats defend you is like living atop a bowl of jello.
It’s the problem with our two-party system when both parties are funded by the same wealthy patrons.
But there are good Democrats, and they, when public pressure is applied, have passed some good legislation, or fought for it. Telecom immunity is an example - that deal should have been fixed months ago, but some Democrats have held it up. The few, the proud …
When they do manage to take a stand, Bush vetoes.
Much more to this than meets your eyes. One of your more shallow posts.
By Mark T on May 25, 2008 | Reply
By the way, 60% of our crude supply is controlled by five companies, leading to monopoly pricing. Speculation is rampant - it’s Enron all over again. How you get from that to Democrats being responsible for $4 gas … I suppose you could blame it on failure to act. But that’s your Democratic party for you - they are not about to take on big oil.
By Walter Greenspan on May 25, 2008 | Reply
By the way, Mark T, the United States doesn’t have any big oil companies.
The largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies — all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies — that dominate the world’s oil supply, and are the source of most of the crude oil that the United States needs to import because of domestic restrictions on drilling for crude oil.
This graph tells the story; you can barely see the American oil companies as minor players on the right side of the chart. The chart was presented to the House committee by Chevron.
For the complete article, “Big Oil”, that includes a full-sized version of the above chart, go
here.
By Walter Greenspan on May 26, 2008 | Reply
Here’s the URL for the chart that was supposed to appear immediately before the last paragraph in the preceding comment:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/OilChart9-thumb.jpg
By Steve T. on May 26, 2008 | Reply
Umm… Walter… you may want to look at that again.
Your chart doesn’t show which oil companies are the biggest, it shows which oil companies have control over the most reserves. No matter how much of America gets raped to drill for more, you’re still going to find those pesky Middle Eastern countries at the top. That’s why we’ve got so many soldiers over there, remember?
Exxon isn’t just the biggest oil company in the United States, it’s the biggest oil company in the world, based on revenue. Oh wait, scratch that… it’s the biggest corporation OF ANY KIND in the world.
You just found the chart that looked the way you wanted it to and assumed that it was actually showing what you wanted it to. That’s some pretty ridiculous stuff right there.
By Walter Greenspan on May 26, 2008 | Reply
Ridiculous, huh? Steve T., did you actually read the article that included the chart?
By Steve T. on May 26, 2008 | Reply
Yes, Walter, I did. And again for good measure. You said that ExxonMobil is not a big oil company. That’s still bullshit, Walter, no matter what the article says.
The bigger point made by the article as far as tapping the resources within this country is another topic entirely, one which we disagree on as well, I’m sure. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the obvious falsehood in your comment. That simple.
And still ridiculous.
By Walter Greenspan on May 26, 2008 | Reply
” … (N)o matter what the article says.”
How can anyone argue with such logic?
By Steve T. on May 27, 2008 | Reply
Wow, that’s one of the more infuriating examples of willfull ignorance I’ve seen in recent memory.
Are you really that obtuse? Really?
By Steve T. on May 27, 2008 | Reply
And, I repeat again… Exxon is the biggest company OF ANY KIND… IN THE WORLD.
And you’ve said nothing to refute this fact. And neither does the article.
By Moorcat on May 27, 2008 | Reply
Craig,
For once I have to agree with some of the comments to your post. The Democrats have hardly “been in charge” for the last two years. Yes, they have a majority in congress, but it certainly isn’t enough of a majority to overcome the the very loud minority and it certainly isn’t enough to overcome a rogue president. Had that been the case, I think things would have been a little different - for better or worse. As it is, Congress seems at best stagnant and at worst a complete cluster. Under the current situation very little is getting done to address the problems facing the country - including the ones you mentioned.
The problem right now isn’t a Democrat or Republican problem - it is a problem with a broken system failing to actually represent the citizens it was designed to represent. Can you honestly say you are pleased by the way the Republican Congresspersons have represented you? I can’t.
You usually rise above petty partisan arguments and tend to point out the more astute and pressing issues. This post was a step back in my opinion.
Moorcat
By Jay Stevens on May 27, 2008 | Reply
Charge? The Democrats are in charge? Do you really believe that?
By Gman on Jun 18, 2008 | Reply
George Will once wrote, “Gridlock is not an American failure; it is an American achievement.” Sure, it doesn’t solve problems too fast, but it also doesn’t creat them too fast either….