Harry Reid vs. Nancy Pelosi (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

This is very interesting. We all know about the great Republican divide that now exists, but are the Democrats also splitting? A case in point has just popped up. While Harry Reid has indicated he may propose cutting off funding for the Iraq troop surge, Nancy Pelosi has stated that she will not. How does every one else see this? Is this a future problem for the Democrats, and could this weaken the party sometime in the future if not resolved now? IMHO, I believe this is something that could snowball into something ugly for the Dems if not handled right.

Note to mods: While the rules for posting in breaking news state that the title of the article must be used, this post is based on 2 separate articles. Moreover, the main point I am making here is the disagreement between Pelosi and Reid, which I believe could lead to a major divide between Democrats. This point cannot be resolved by posting the title of one article or the other without this train of thought being unduly diluted. Accordingly, I am concentrating on that aspect of the relationship between the 2 of them, and this is why I believe that posting the title of either article as the title of this thread would detract from the intention of this thread. I know that the rule exists, but with every rule, sometimes there is an exception. IMHO, this is one of those times, and I hope you will bear with me. In addition, both sides of the Democrats' dilemma have been linked to the appropriate article. The idea of a Democratic divide comes from Raw Story, but there is no article to that effect, just a link to both stories.

 

[jujuman13]

Apparently there is one rule for you and another rule for others.

 

[danarhea]

Apparently there is one rule for you and another rule for others.

Things cannot be in black and white all the time. This is why Bush is in so much trouble. He thinks in black and white, and it shows. In addition, I explained my reasoning very plainly to the mods, and it seems they agree. Now this has nothing to do with there being one rule for me and another rule for others. Had you been the one to post this thread in the same way, the results would have been the same. To insinuate that there is bias towards certain posters is extremely disingenuous and dishonest. I am no different than anyone else, and yes, I have run up my share of warning points too.

So, now that we got your petty attempt to divert the thread out of the way, let me ask you, what do you think of the divide between Reid and Pelosi?

 

[Binary_Digit]

I don't know about the democratic divide, but I'm with Pelosi on this one. Cutting off funding for the Iraq war would disadvantage our troops, and that's the last thing we need to do.

 

[danarhea]

I don't know about the democratic divide, but I'm with Pelosi on this one. Cutting off funding for the Iraq war would disadvantage our troops, and that's the last thing we need to do.

My thanks to you for bringing the thread back on track.

My feeling is that cutting off funds is not the right way to proceed at this time, so I am in agreement with you.

However, I believe that Pelosi's decision is more political than anything else. To me, it looks like she wants to give Bush a free hand because she believes it will fail, and that would look very bad for the GOP. Rather than doing what she is doing for reasons beneficial to America, she is being just as Machiavellian as the Bushneviks. And this is the problem with today's politicians. They are in it for politics, not America.

 

[Kandahar]

Denying Bush MORE money for this ill-conceived "troop surge" is not the same as cutting funding. If Bush doesn't have enough money, he doesn't have to send more troops. It's really that simple.

And why shouldn't they cut the funding for this war? That's really the only recourse Congress has left, to stop a war that the American people realize is a terrible mistake but our president does not.

 

[danarhea]

Denying Bush MORE money for this ill-conceived "troop surge" is not the same as cutting funding. If Bush doesn't have enough money, he doesn't have to send more troops. It's really that simple.

And why shouldn't they cut the funding for this war? That's really the only recourse Congress has left, to stop a war that the American people realize is a terrible mistake but our president does not.

I agree with you to an extent on that, with a couple of caveats. If funding is to be cut, it should be done gradually, so that our troops may safely be redeployed. However, what I am trying for in this thread is to generate a discussion on Reid vs. Pelosi, and whether this is going to lead to a divide which would hurt the Democrats. Don't get me wrong. You have brought up a good point, and I am not knocking you for it. Would just like to see more discussion on what I intended this thread to be. I believe that this will be a big issue soon.

 

[Goobieman]

I agree with you to an extent on that, with a couple of caveats. If funding is to be cut, it should be done gradually, so that our troops may safely be redeployed. However, what I am trying for in this thread is to generate a discussion on Reid vs. Pelosi, and whether this is going to lead to a divide which would hurt the Democrats. Don't get me wrong. You have brought up a good point, and I am not knocking you for it. Would just like to see more discussion on what I intended this thread to be. I believe that this will be a big issue soon.

Its not like the Democrats were all that unified in the first place. Some support the war some oppose it, some want troops out now, some want to stay until we're done -- some want to reduce the size of the military and cut spending, some want to reinstate the draft.

On just about any issue, there's division in the party -- the ONLY consensus in the party is that they rather be in power than not, and so to that end many of them are willing to temporarily put aside differences in order to gain that power.

The 2004 primaries were illustrative of this, and the 2008 primaries will be no different.

 

[Kandahar]

Its not like the Democrats were all that unified in the first place. Some support the war some oppose it, some want troops out now, some want to stay until we're done -- some want to reduce the size of the military and cut spending, some want to reinstate the draft.

On just about any issue, there's division in the party -- the ONLY consensus in the party is that they rather be in power than not, and so to that end many of them are willing to temporarily put aside differences in order to gain that power.

The 2004 primaries were illustrative of this, and the 2008 primaries will be no different.

And what, pray tell, is the unified Republican viewpoint on the war?

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Well I don't think that this move by Pelosi is completely just political, but I don't think that Dems should be sayind that they support the troops but then wont give them more funds to keep fighting in Iraq.I know a lot of them wnat them out, but you shouldn't try to screw them over into leaving like that.

 

[Goobieman]

And what, pray tell, is the unified Republican viewpoint on the war?

Goobieman <--- looking for where he said there was a unified Republican viewpoint on the war.



Goobieman <--- wondering why Kandahar didnt address what Goobieman said

 

[danarhea]

Goobieman <--- looking for where he said there was a unified Republican viewpoint on the war.



Goobieman <--- wondering why Kandahar didnt address what Goobieman said

I can answer that.

1) You didn't.

2) He didn't.

You and I might not get along, but I gotta stand up for you on this one. Just don't tell anyone. OK?

 

[Goobieman]

I can answer that.

1) You didn't.

2) He didn't.

You and I might not get along, but I gotta stand up for you on this one. Just don't tell anyone. OK?

:rofl

I won't tell a soul!

:rofl

 

[Kandahar]

Goobieman <--- looking for where he said there was a unified Republican viewpoint on the war.



Goobieman <--- wondering why Kandahar didnt address what Goobieman said

On just about any issue, there's division in the party -- the ONLY consensus in the party is that they rather be in power than not, and so to that end many of them are willing to temporarily put aside differences in order to gain that power.

The 2004 primaries were illustrative of this, and the 2008 primaries will be no different.

If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

 

[Goobieman]

If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Why dont you actually address what I said?

Danahrea commented that Reid v Pelosi might bring disunity within the Democratic party; I responded that there isn't really any unity in the party to begin with.

So, is my description of the "unity" within the Democratic party accurate?

Why or why not?

 

[Cremaster77]

There is no such thing as absolute unity among any party. The general Democratic stance remains the same: that the war in Iraq is unwinnable and the troops should be brought home. How that is accomplished can be up for debate without there being a big divide in a party. Clearly, the divide among Republicans is much larger on fundamental issues, particularly with regard to government expansion. I'm not sure you can really say that the method of getting troops back from Iraq is a "fundamental" Democratic position like you can say that limiting government is a fundamental Republican issue.