From the LJ World, Boyda says she'll fund war no matter what.
Is anyone else dizzy from keeping track of Boyda's positions on the war?
She was against it. Then she was for supporting our troops. Then she was for winning the war. Then she was for a timetable to withdraw the troops. Then she was for the Baker Commission. Then she said she would do whatever the Commander-in-Chief wanted. Then she voted for a timetable. Now she says she'll vote to fund the war, period.
Last year Democrats were energized against the war and a lot of independents and moderate Republicans went for Boyda because there were ready to wind down the war. My gut tells me a lot of the independents and Republicans who voted for her are now feeling buyer's remorse. At least Jim Ryun had a consistent position.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"At least Jim Ryun has a consistent position" ... meaning he'll vote for whatever GOP leadership tells him to vote for. That's the reason why we're in this mess.
I'm very disappointed that Boyda 't(and Democrats in general) can't offer plan for Iraq. However, I believe that anything is better than GOP/Bush strategy.
Boyda tapped into public frustration over Iraq. I don't thinks there's anybody out there who still believes war was a good move. The Republicans seriously screwed up.
It's time for the Democrats to start offering real leadership.
As opposed to Nancy Boyda who votes with her leadership 97% of the time . . . yep, that's a lot better.
i think the first poster was calling ryun stupid, and not able to figure out postions on his own
and, well, also that nancy was voting correctly, regardless of how leadership voted.
this is kind of a silly fight...Dems vote with Dems and Rep. votes for Reps.
so your saying that Democrats think it's bad if Republicans vote regularly with other Republicans, but if Democrats do it, then it's ok. i.e. we're right and you're wrong. you're right, silly fight . . . first poster, you're silly!
The difference is that Republican leadership is the bunch that lied about the war, mismanaged the war, broke the budget on the war, then finally lost the war. How much worse could the Democrats possibly do? So long as the Democrat Party doesn't invade a country based on a mistake we're going to be in better shape. Anything is an improvement of what we've got from Bush.
During time of war (even a BS war), the country needs strong sound leadership. Bush and the GOP cannot provide this type of leadership. The GOP is geared toward cultural war and ideological fights. They don't do well in running the country in time of crisis.
How quickly people forget Ryun's votes against leadership on some pretty big bills-Medicaire, No Child Left Behind, bankruptcy, etc. People need to do their homework before they post.
Republicans don't do well running the country in a time of crisis? How about Reagan, bringing us out of the Carter stagflation by cutting taxes dramatically and what he did to end the cold war and free countries smothered by communist rule.
Say what you will about the decision to go into Iraq, Hillary voted for it based on what she knew at the time, but the Republican tax relief turned our economy around after 9/11, and it's hard to argue that President Bush's leadership in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was bad.
Bill Clinton did virtually nothing after the world trade center was bombed the first time and many in Democrat leadership in Congress at the time tried to CUT funding for intelligence community after that bombing when they should have been expanding it.
Kennedy really did great things for us with the Bay of Pigs, and Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam with absolutely no plan for success.
Bottom line, broad generalizations about who would do better are pointless.
The fact is, Nancy Boyda campaigned against the Iraq War, and now she's funding it. She campaigned against Jim Ryun voting 90+% of the time with Republican leadership, now she's voting 90+% of the time with Democrat leadership. If nothing else, it makes her extremely hypocritical.
Post a Comment