Are democrats playing a game with their voting base knowing they wont look at things objectively?

Question

putting a withdrawal date and 20 Billion in pork on a bill to fund troops as well. Knowing their base will point at the veto coming saying Bush wont fund the troops. Its so obvious it cant be anything but a slap in the face of their base...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgYQz59cksXVEv3r5Tz0yxvY7BR.?qid=20070327203832AATdUdz

Answer 1

They included all the pork so that they could try and sway members of congress to vote for it. The peanut storage money? Ya, that's in there to sway one person. If he votes against it.... His constituents will throw a fit. It is foolish.

The list goes on and on.

Answer 2

If 43 hadn't precipitated this madness, your points would be moot. The Democrats had nothing to do with the situation as it is now. He bungled so much and the misleading(lies) to Congress(Republican dominated - so he would have been able to start it anyway) led the Congress to ok going to war. Then W. became a 'dictator'. The prez can wage a war any way he(she) wants once Congress gives the ok.
Get off your Republican butt and admit this guy's a sorry excuse for a president. He never had the mental acuity for the job in the first place. His brother, The Supreme Court, and Al Gore's mistake of not using Clinton will haunt the USA forever!! He was never truly 'elected'. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. He is a good example of 'power' in the wrong hands. He attacked a helpless country - not wanting to confront the Saudis whose people flew those planes into the WTC. G**Z!!! 'Nuff said from a concerned Canadian, and we stayed out for all the right reasons - we're in Afghanistan though and that isn't much better. Our people are dying there for something that will eventually go back to what is was. The Russians couldn't bring them to there knees!!
BY THE WAY - YOU'RE STILL LIVING IN A DEMOCRACY - THAT IS HOW IT IS DONE. THE 'STOPPING' OF THIS MADNESS HAS TO START SOMEWHERE. HILLARY WILL DO THE REST - MARK MY WORDS!!

Answer 3

That is exactly the game that is being played. You can't tell me that either Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid has any thoughts that this withdrawal date will actually become law. Even if it is passed in the Senate (I believe the vote would be 50-48), there is absolutely no way on Earth they could round up the 16 extra votes needed to override a Presidential veto. The whole withdrawal date in the war funding bill is nothing more than a political game.

Answer 4

The voters spoke, Congress did the will of the people just as they are supposed to do. If the President vetos it he is telling the people that he doesn't give a damn about what voters want. He has a 27% approval rating. This act may lower that.

He is pretty well screwing things up for his party in the 2008 election. Democrats will not hesitate to remind voters who got in the way of the will of the people in this great democracy of ours. I see a Democratic landslide in 2008. And finally on January 20, 2009 we will sing Happy Days Are Here Again.

Answer 5

HAHAHA... awww poor innocent republicans...

it's politics... this is what always happens? it's how the game is played...

do you realize the number of times the Republicans have pulled the same games... or do you just not look at things "objectively"?

I mean my goodness... the AG's aides won't even testify to spite the congress... that's nothing more than a poltical game either...

the truth is... they all treat it like a big game.. and maybe it's a slap in all of our faces? but, here we are all the same...

Answer 6

Of course they are. I've been saying that for a month now. Did you stop to ponder just why they set the arbitrary deadline at right before the next Presidential election?

Answer 7

Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It's what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it's a strange and limited kind of freedom.

Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.
The origins of our contemporary, narrow idea of freedom.
shows how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom. This model was derived from ideas and techniques developed by nuclear strategists during the Cold War to control the behaviour of the Soviet enemy.

Mathematicians such as John Nash developed paranoid game theories whose equations required people to be seen as selfish and isolated creatures, constantly monitoring each other suspiciously – always intent on their own advantage.

This model was then developed by genetic biologists, anthropologists, radical psychiatrists and free market economists, and has come to dominate both political thinking since the Seventies and the way people think about themselves as human beings.

However, within this simplistic idea lay the seeds of new forms of control. And what people have forgotten is that there are other ideas of freedom. We are, in a trap of our own making that controls us, deprives us of meaning and causes death and chaos abroad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap

Answer 8

No, it's the republicans that don't look at things objectively. It isn't pork unless it's wasteful spending like a two bridges in Alaska that go to nowhere or a restoration project on a museum.

Answer 9

Demos recovering from Bush headache

Answer 10

Of course. They might as well just call them stupid. But that's the way the Democrats work. They think their base is stupid.