Excessive GOP partisanship hurting the national interest
Posted on Friday, November 19, 2010 at 08:23 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
41 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
- Boston man confronts Infowars conspiracy nuts over 'false flag' claim
Archives
According to former President George W. Bush's new memoir "Decision Points," in 2006 McConnell asked the commander in chief of the United States to draw down the number of troops in Iraq in order to help Republicans survive in that November's elections.
You read that right. At the time McConnell was pugnaciously defending the war effort in Iraq he was privately pleading with Bush to diminish that same effort in an attempt to save Republican seats.
Apparently McConnell's first concern wasn't the threat to life and limb confronting U.S. soldiers, he seems to have been more fearful that the mess in Iraq would cause the Republican Party to lose the approaching mid-term elections. Priorities, you know?
To date McConnell's office has not denied any of Bush's claims.
But there's a difference between partisanship and taking leave of one's moral center, or at least there used to be. The theme of tarring the opposition and preventing them a 'win', at whatever cost to the nation, has become the hallmark of the increasingly nihilistic GOP.
41 comments
Next
Page 1 of 3 pages
hollabackgurl | Nov 29, 2010, 05:44 PM EST
Nacy Regan should be the GOP's real mascot: The Party of Just Say No.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Nov 29, 2010, 11:52 AM EST
How do you compromise between food and poison? Just where is the dividing line? Many did not vote for McCain just because he is a compromiser, in spite of the voting day rallying cry coming from the McCain camp: "Slice a vein and vote for McCain". Many chose not to vote at all, rather than to let another rino lead us down the road to perdition.
Report abuse
AengusOg | Nov 29, 2010, 10:32 AM EST
Partisanship is hurting the national interest, and has been since Bela Abzug and her liberal cohorts used character assassination and innuendo against Robert Bork. Strident partisanship is destructive of the democratic process, which requires collaboration and compromise. John McCain was attacked by the 'Right' because he led a group of GOP senators who broke legislative stalemates. This may have cost him the Presidency, and the nation a far more qualified leader.
Report abuse
maloney | Nov 22, 2010, 07:59 PM EST
Just exactly what is it that obama, pelosi, reid, frank, grayson & crew actually represent other than taking my money & giving it to anyone who won't work?
Report abuse
mayoman | Nov 22, 2010, 02:23 PM EST
Politics over governing. The Party over the Nation. Mitch "Dr. No" McConnell is a bane to this country. He maybe the US Senator from Kentucky, but in truth he actually represents Wall Street. As do most of his GOP cronies in the Senate.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Nov 22, 2010, 11:58 AM EST
I could not think of a better word to describe obama, nancy pelosi, bernie sanders, sheilah jackson lee, henry waxman, alan grayson and most of the far left democrats with their kensian/socialist economc policies in the white house and congress: IDEOLOGUE. 1: an impractical idealist : theorist. 2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.
Report abuse
plasticpaddy | Nov 21, 2010, 04:46 PM EST
left-wing ideologues monsoonman - that is more than being disingenuous, it is misleading. Where do you come up with these things?
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Nov 21, 2010, 02:13 AM EST
Here ya go dennis me boy: For someone who had no interest in keeping the colonial status quo in Vietnam, Kennedy did a poor job of hiding it. On November 2, 1963, the president of South Vietnam Diem and his brother Nhu were assassinated on President Kennedys orders. Two weeks later, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. During Kennedy’s 3 year tenure in office the number of American military advisors grew from 800 to 16,700.....I would consider that quite an investment.
Report abuse
DennisQ | Nov 20, 2010, 08:10 PM EST
A Google search of "bouvier michelin vietnam" turns up nothing, Monsoonman. Your theory sounds pretty fanciful to me. You did better when you denounced the Tonkin Gulf incident as a phony. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's later admitted as much.
Anyone who's waiting for a similar admission from Bush about phony WMD's in Iraq has been disappointed by "Decision Points." Bush still dishonestly maintains that he was misled by faulty intelligence. At least McNamara had the decency to man up to his own misdoings.
Anyone who's waiting for a similar admission from Bush about phony WMD's in Iraq has been disappointed by "Decision Points." Bush still dishonestly maintains that he was misled by faulty intelligence. At least McNamara had the decency to man up to his own misdoings.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Nov 20, 2010, 01:34 PM EST
"Presidents (both Democratic/LBJ and Republican/Bush) tend to make military decisions on a non-political basis (thank God).".........Better read up on the Vietnam war. JFK's wife Jacqueline Bouviers family was heavily invested in the Michelin rubber plantations in Vietnam and were not about to even consider giving them back to the people of Vietnam, no matter how many people got killed....Then read up on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and see what political shenanigans were behind that in order to get LBJ elected....Then get back to us.
Report abuse
seamusmoore | Nov 20, 2010, 09:29 AM EST
hollabackgurl: Mr McConnell, just like yourself, didn't get what the 2006 election was about: Republicans spending money like Democrats (2001-6)give people no reason to vote Republican. Judging from Sen McConnell's agreeing this week to put a moratorium on earmarks, I think he may have finally gotten the message this past election day. See this country worked for over 200 years because there has always been a difference politically on fiscal governance. In the beginning, it was Federalists (strong central government) vs Democrats (states rights); today it is Democrats (big government) vs Republicans (less federal govt, more local). That's what separates the US from say Mexico (PRI Party ruled for 70 years) or Ireland (the only real difference between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael is where they stood on a civil war that ended 87 years ago). If you thought 2006 was about Iraq (like Sen McConnell), you are mistaken. Independents (40% of the electorate)ultimately decide elections and they vote more on economic issues than anything else. They tend to be fiscal conservative and socially liberal. BTW, the President is the commander-in-chief of US troops, not the Senate majority leader; regardless of McConnell's (misguided as it was) political advice to the President, Presidents (both Democratic/LBJ and Republican/Bush) tend to make military decisions on a non-political basis (thank God).
Report abuse
hancock | Nov 19, 2010, 11:54 PM EST
I am not A Republican and didn't support the war until troops were deployed. Anything else whinygirl?
Report abuse
Pittsburghkid | Nov 19, 2010, 11:01 PM EST
Mr. O'Doherty, I do not know where you find the time to concentrate on American Problem with the current Irish mess.
If America takes your advice, then we will be the next Ireland.
Let the Republicans be Republicans.
Report abuse
hollabackgurl | Nov 19, 2010, 10:58 PM EST
No one here has denied that Mitch McConnell put the good of the Republican party before the United States and the U.S. soldiers in harms way. Until conservatives admit that fact (and George W Bush makes it clear in his book) all their brave talk is just posturing and bluster. McConnell lied to the American people. He helped prolong a war he didn't believe in.
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 3 pages
Report abuse