Re: Copper theft

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1159166521.159188.287390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1158892775.404315.113180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
At some point you have to stop being against everything and propose
credible alternatives. That Democrats haven't offered any is doing the
country a great disservice--the Republicans need a worthy
counterbalance.

What makes you think that the Democrats haven't offered any alternatives?

A quick google search shows that you are incorrect in this:
http://www.house.gov/waysandmeans_democrats/press_releases/

These are, at best, statements of problems, not solutions; at worst
they're assertions or innuendo.

You need to go back and read the site again if that's all you found.
There very first item I looked at had this:

**** Begin quote ****
"I would urge [...] [E]mergency continuation of trade benefits to Haiti,
African and other developing countries is more important than politics.
****
Note that he is suggesting an action and refering to the lack of a
previous action.

Urging a particular vote on an obscure measure is not the same as
articulating a lucid policy and the need for it to the American people.
The press release is a series of assertions urging the action Rangel
proposes should be taken because, he asserts, 'it's good'. That's not
very satisfying.

I'm sorry, but trade incentives to Haiti just isn't one of the
defining issues of our time, where the Democrats are conspicuously
absent.

Today's press release from that site, "America's Shrinking
Competitiveness Illustrates the Need for a New Direction (September
26, 2006)," suggests that increasing our trade regulations will somehow
make foreigners buy more of our stuff.

"Tax Policy Should Unite, Not Divide America" is rhetoric,
ironically, intentionally divisive rhetoric.

[...]

create more oversight for the overseers, without specifying what the
heck they're supposed to do, or how this will help.

Since everyone already knows that the reason you put overseers on
something is because the people are not doing what they were told to do, I
guess they felt no need to state this.

But I need to hear it, because I don't see how adding more overseers
will reduce our trade deficit, which, although not clearly stated in
this rather murky prose, was the real topic of the release. And, more
oversight is not a credible solution; it instead suggests either a
profound lack of understanding, or cynical chicanery--rabble rousing.

In short, this list of picayune "accomplishments," these appeals to
emotion, just underscores my impression that Democrats today have no
answers to offer. Or, at least, haven't offered any yet.

[...]
Democrats oppose the war, but offer no reasonable alternative except
helping the Iraqis to help themselves, then leaving, which is what
we're already doing.

They want to fire Rumsfeld. That would be a big step forwards.

But we don't need to "take steps forward" or "build bridges to the
future" or blather other platitudes then tack on "for the children" for
good measure. The question is: once you've fired Rumsfeld, what is it
that you'd have his successor do? Democrats need to explain *that*.
Propose what we should do differently, if anything--that would be most
helpful.

Selecting a whipping boy fixes nothing. Is the logic "We're in a war
so--let's fight with each other? Fire Rummie and the insurgents will
quit? Encourage the enemy by telling him we're fickle, undisciplined
and impatient, and will leave when the fancy passes?" That makes no
sense.


Murtha
made a suggestion some months ago about moving the US troops over the
horizon so they would be less visible.

I didn't hear it, but it sounds like a constructive suggestion.
Good. Maybe not a good strategy--I leave that determination to the
military--but a decent idea to consider.

The know nothing press spun it as
"cut and run" when it was nothing of the kind. It was a good idea at the
time but I'm not sure if it could work today. The situation has degraded
from that point. The Murtha redeployment idea may still work but there
would now be a lot more blood shed.

I understood Murtha's position to be that Iraqis should be abandoned
to their own fate. That's immoral. He thinks it's taking too long.
That's silly. These things take time. MacArthur occupied Japan for
*seven years* after WWII--essentially a dictator--to help them on their
feet, and this was after Japan had been bombed into submission--i.e.,
thoroughly pacified.

Most Democrat candidates will do their best if they keep their speaches
short like "I am not a Republican". Right now the Republican party is
busily shooting its self. Why would anyone interfere?

Yes, that's the Democrat's strategy. Doing nothing is safe because
it's immune to criticism.

No, you and all the neocon spinmasters are criticizing them for "doing
nothing" even though they have been doing a great deal.

Maybe, but I sure couldn't tell you what. What I see is Democrats
spuriously criticising the President for gasoline prices (which he
can't control), for the economy (calling it bad when it isn't), and for
the war, without offering alternatives. Nitpicking, and much of it
cynical.

I see a determination to resist the President in everything, which is
too bad. Resist when he's wrong, but concur when he's right, or you
lose credibility. Don't waste it.

Meanwhile, government spending is increasing at a compound rate
greater than 7%. I've heard Democrats complain about this (rightly),
except their criticism is that it isn't enough!

Have you seen the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) scores from New York
city? They're appalling -- we're in danger of becoming a dumb-ocracy.
*This* is a real problem that needs real solution--and not just more
money. Dumping money won't fix it--we've been doing that.

Now retired, former Federal Reserve chief Greenspan warns that
Medicare, not Social Security, is the greatest threat to our economic
future. Let's do something about that, not gripe about the price of
gasoline!

Right now the
Republicans have control of all three branches and Bill Clinton is too far
in the past. It is time for them to stop blaming others for their
blunders and start trying to fix the mess they've made.

I see no mess. The economy is great. The war is expensive, but
militarily brilliant. It *is* an experiment in a more limited warfare,
wherein innocents are spared the brunt of their fate in more usual
wars. That may be ill-advised, but the criticisms I see from Democrats
is that the war isn't limited enough, that it's too cruel. So, to that
extent, they've bought into and endorsed the approach.

I repeat: we *need* a credible, civil, reasoned opposition party.
The Republicans need a counterbalance, and the Democrats are sorely
missed.

Best regards,
James Arthur

.

Quantcast