I Favor Divided Government
Don Surber is on fire with a column on the Democrat Congress. Here are some excerpts:
Democrats keep challenging the weakest administration since Jimmy Carter, and incredibly, prove to be even weaker.I was under the impression that democrats held a majority in both houses. Doesn't majority + Republican support = bigger majority? Or is this some kind of new Democratic math? Not that I'm unhappy about it mind you. I favor divided government.
Reid and Pelosi failed to get a timetable placed on withdrawing troops from Iraq, even after larding up a vital defense appropriation with $20 billion in pork-barrel projects.
Next came the Amnesty bill (or as proponents called it, the Immigration Reform bill), which failed to garner more than 45 votes, even with Republican support.
Finally, on Monday, the Senate tried for the first time ever to have a no-confidence resolution against Alberto Gonzales, the Mike Brown of attorneys general.
And the Senate failed. Even with Republican support.
Don has some more:
The Los Angeles Times released a poll this week that showed only 27 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 65 percent disapprove.H/T Instapundit
Last April, the same newspaper poll showed a Republican Congress with 28 percent approval and 61 percent disapproval.
It took Republicans 12 years to dissolve. Democrats have done it in less than six months.
I congratulate them on their efficiency.
Posts
4 comments:
Two things: 1) Much of the discontent with Congress stems from dismay among antiwar Democrats at the recent approval of Iraq war funding without timetables for withdrawal of U.S. troops; and 2) When are you Republicans going to quit using the word "Democrat" as an adjective ("Democrat Party," "Democrat agenda," "Democrat candidate," etc.)? Such usage is ungrammatical. It's the "Democratic Party." This use of "Democrat" as an adjective dates back to the McCarthy era of the 1950s and stems from the silly notion that "Democrat" sounds more pejorative than "Democratic." Wake up, Publicans, and quit setting a bad grammatical example for your young 'uns.
rascal,
I'd suggest for your first item you could add dismay among mainstream Democrats at the recent leftward tilt of the party's leadership with respect to the feckless stampede toward a defeat at all costs policy in Iraq. There are other factors, not the least of which is blatant corruption, a bipartisan affliction. Another factor is the whole bipartisan immigration policy boondoggle in which a new law is foisted on the country under the false premise of fixing an existing law. It's a false premise because the existing law(s) haven't been enforced, largely due to Congressional meddling.
Since you're obsessed with grammatical form and rhetoric, it would be appropriate for you to preface your first remark with the fact it's only your opinion.
Regarding your second item, aside from the fact it's an old and stale liberal seminar talking point, there's a certain useful quality that attaches to the use of Democrat as an adjective form, whether it's pejorative or not. It does separate the current crop of moonbats and their leftist policies from the old Democratic party which many Americans could take pride in associating with. If, as you say, the usage is over fifty years old, you'd best accept it as, alas, one of those unfortunate idiomatic lapses of English that afflict us all, and as you Democrats are fond of doing, move on.
I use Democrat purposely to differentiate it from democratic.
I mean nothing pejorative. Others may have different ideas.
I once was a Democrat. Now I'm a reluctant Republican.
In fact had the Ds run Lieberman he would have had my unequivocal support. Mr. Kerry and I have issues going back to 'Nam. No way I would vote for him. No way I would be silent.
I Favor Divided Politicians.
Let's do this the American way and bid for the rights to divide politicians. Spectators to the politician divisions can vote for the cutting plane: horizonal, sagittal (left-right split), or coronal (front-back split).
Post a Comment