« She led three lives | Main | John Kerry's Real Opinion of his Own Country »

The Importance of The Pledge

A couple of days ago I wrote a post about The Pledge and asked those of you who were in agreement with it to sign it and if you are a blogger to link to it as well. Bruce Kesler of Democracy Project wrote a post yesterday about the importance of The Pledge and why everyone who agrees with it needs to take a stand and demand that the Republicans in the Senate stop equivocating and do what is right for our country. His post is eloquently written and right on target, and I recommend everyone read it:

Equivocations and divisions do not work on the battlefield.

They only encourage adversaries to be more resolved and deadly, as we dissolve.

There comes a time to stand up. And, if you don't, you are complicit with what happens.

The pledge to not support any Republican senators for re-election who vote for any of the weasely resolutions that to greater and lesser extent withhold full support for the surge is just such a time.

Some can try to justify such irresoluteness as politically expedient, in a time when many voters are either irresolute or opposed to winning, or as expressions of political conscience by senators who are unsure of results.

It cannot be justified. It is nothing less than completely irresponsible, as a senator, as a Republican, as an American.

Such resolutions have no other effect than to encourage our foes.

Sure, we agree with these senators on many other political issues, and would hate to see them replaced by even worse Democrats. But, the national security of the United States, and the defense of freedom, democracy and decency which the United States represents, are primary to everything else - taxes, education, roads. Primary, especially, to the comforts and powers of being in office, if this responsibility is not put above all others.

Read the rest of Bruce's post. Then go sign The Pledge.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Importance of The Pledge:

» Maggie's Farm linked with Sunday Links

» The Wide Awake Cafe linked with Freedom’s Stand

Comments (18)

These kind of shallow, empt... (Below threshold)
Lee:

These kind of shallow, empty threats are typical of conservative America. It must give Republican politicians a good chuckle to efforts like this empty "pledge." Remember this report?

"In the latest in a series of scathing criticisms of the Bush White House from its former employees, David Kuo, the former deputy director of the administration's office of faith-based initiatives, contends in a new book that the White House used religious conservatives for political purposes, but mocked them as "nuts" behind their backs. The Los Angeles Times reported:

In the book, Kuo, who quit the White House in 2003, accuses Karl Rove's political staff of cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain. It assails Bush for failing to live up to his promises of boosting the role of religious organizations in delivering social services.

White House strategists "knew 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness," Kuo writes, according to the cable channel MSNBC, which obtained an advance copy.

"Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were.... National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control.' ''

Be sure to wear your propeller hats when you sign the pledge wiznuts. Show those bad Republican politicians that your mean serious business!

Lee,Please assure me... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Lee,
Please assure me that you spend at least some time at Daily Kos or some such similar blog reminding those far left weirdos that the Dems do the same to them.

"...reminding those far ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"...reminding those far left weirdos that the Dems do the same to them."

Nope, I leave those tasks for jhow66 and LoveAmericaImmigrant.

Lee,The non-bindin... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Lee,

The non-binding resoloution is indefensible.
1. It certainly encourages the people who are killing our troops.
2. It demoralizes our troops by telling them that the operation that they are risking their lives for will fail and doesn't have majority support in the Congress.
3. The majority in the Congress do not support the war.
4. The majority in the Congress have the ability to put a stop to it and get our troops out.
5. The majority in the Congress apparently don't have the guts to do it.

So instead of taking action to get our troops out of harm's way, the Congress has chosen to issue a public statement that condemns our troops' sacrifices in a cause that the Congress doesn't believe in.

The pledge is not an empty threat. This is how representative government works. As DJ correctly stated in an earlier thead: "We have a Congress full of cowards." The Republicans, quite correctly, intend to correct this at the ballot box. And I must say as an independent, I have a lot more respect for them than I have for the gutless, brainless people who support their poltical party no matter what.

And by the way, Democrats and Republicans need to remember some recent history: this is how President Clinton got elected in his first term. A lot of Republicans withheld their support and stayed home when President GHW Bush ran for re-election because he broke his "No new taxes" pledge. Republican voters in 1992 showed that they are quite capable of following through on threatss like this.

I encourage you all to sign... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

I encourage you all to sign the pledge too. That will only help us knock more of these Republican Senators in 2008 anyway.

Meanwhile, just as I predicted, Bush's SOTU address bombed and his polls have dropped again as shown by the latest Newsweek poll:

The president's approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll's history--30 percent--and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over,

So, by all means, I encourage you to keep ripping the Republican Party apart while the rest of the country stands united against the President and this war. And please don't stop until we have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

So instead of taking act... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So instead of taking action to get our troops out of harm's way, the Congress has chosen to issue a public statement that condemns our troops' sacrifices in a cause that the Congress doesn't believe in.

Oh, and I'm sure you would suddenly support the Democratic Congress if they "took action to get our troops out of harm's way" and withheld funding for the troops, eh?

A lot of Republicans withheld their support and stayed home when President GHW Bush ran for re-election because he broke his "No new taxes" pledge.

It's good to see you admitting that Republicans lost because Bush broke his "success in Iraq" pledge.

Like I said in another post... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Like I said in another post,old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (resident turd polisher) is a lowlife America hating SOB piece of pig shit. Humans (but I dought that he or her is one) do not deserve to live in a country such as ours because they or so stupid or outright dumb that they believe the wild crap that they post. The only reason p'p' hangs around here is the kos kiddies and du barred him because of his stupidty. To believe what p'p' does you got to be ---hell there is no word to discribe such an idiot.
BTW glad I still get under your skin asshole.

The non-binding resolout... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The non-binding resoloution is indefensible.

The Republican administration's record of success in executing the war in Iraq is indefensible.

1. It certainly encourages the people who are killing our troops.

Yes, mismanaging the war in Iraq has emboldened out enemies, definitely.

2. It demoralizes our troops by telling them that the operation that they are risking their lives for will fail and doesn't have majority support in the Congress.

It lifts the spirits of our troops trapped in that quagmire by showing them that Americans will not turn our backs n them and leave their efforts to the whim of lying Republican politicians.

3. The majority in the Congress do not support the war.

The majority in AMERICA do not support the war, and for the first time in 13 years the majority in Congress matches the majority in America. Huzzah!

4. The majority in the Congress have the ability to put a stop to it and get our troops out.

Yes, but it won't be "cut and run" (that was another Republican lie) and it will take time. It took years to get us into this mess, and there are no quick answers getting out.

5. The majority in the Congress apparently don't have the guts to do it.

See above. It is time to debate, decide, and do. It isn't going to happen overnight, and ALL voices will be heard.

If you really want to suppo... (Below threshold)
sam:

If you really want to support the troops and feel that the mission is vital to our security, there is something that you can do. And I am not going to say go and enlist because there are many here that are too old.

Right now there are over 500 civilian contractor jobs that KBR can not fill in Iraq. These are jobs for Americans and they are simply basic jobs. There are also IT jobs that I am sure many wizbang readers could do.

The money is great and they provide transportation to Iraq and housing. You go over for a year. You can arrange for direct deposit back home in the United States, so your family will be just fine. That is what the troops do when they leave their families behind.

Just think of the message we would be sending to our enemies if all of those jobs were suddenly filled!!!! A year is not a long time and think of the message we would be sending.

http://www.halliburton.com/careers/kbr_careers.jsp

Kim,I ask this que... (Below threshold)

Kim,

I ask this question in all sincerity. Do you really believe the NRSC gives a hoot about individual contributions?

When the republican party sold out to big money corporate interests the individual became irrelevant. I believe this was a calculated decision on the part of the republicans. After all corporations have a lot of money and without money no one gets elected.

So by all means spread your pledge far and wide, but don't blame the 70% of us who firmly believe that a surge in Iraq will not work when your efforts fail. You only need look as far as our Commander in Chief.

>>The non-binding resolouti... (Below threshold)
kevino:

>>The non-binding resoloution is indefensible.
>>
>The Republican administration's record of success in executing the war in Iraq is >indefensible.
>
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the stupidity and cowardice of the Left. Now that they are in a position to actually DO something and have chosen to do something totally wrong, their only defense is to talk about the past.


>>1. It certainly encourages the people who are killing our troops.
>
>Yes, mismanaging the war in Iraq has emboldened out enemies, definitely.
>
Again: you cannot defend this action that your political party is doing. So instead, you talk about the past.


>2. It demoralizes our troops by telling them that the operation that they are risking >their lives for will fail and doesn't have majority support in the Congress.
>
>It lifts the spirits of our troops trapped in that quagmire by showing them that >Americans will not turn our backs n them and leave their efforts to the whim of >lying Republican politicians.
>
Lee, it leaves them in Iraq, and tells them that their sacrifices are a waste of time, energy, money, and blood -- their blood. By your words, this leaves them "trappen in the quagmire". Furthermore, if they were so against Republican politicians, why is it that the military vote even in 2006 is still heavily weighted in favor of Republicans. And, of course, you can point out letters from actual soldiers in Iraq who support this resolution? Right?

>>3. The majority in the Congress do not support the war.
>>
>The majority in AMERICA do not support the war, and for the first time in 13 years >the majority in Congress matches the majority in America. Huzzah!
>
Correct.


>>4. The majority in the Congress have the ability to put a stop to it and get our >>troops out.
>
>Yes, but it won't be "cut and run" (that was another Republican lie) and it will take >time. It took years to get us into this mess, and there are no quick answers >getting out.
>
First of all, I did not take years to get us into this mess. Bush "rushed" us into war. Remember? Furthermore, I can quote many Democrats who told us that they were going to "redeploy" in weeks/months. Can you quote two leaders of Congress on the Left who told us that this would take years or there are no quick answers?


>>5. The majority in the Congress apparently don't have the guts to do it.
>>
>See above. It is time to debate, decide, and do. It isn't going to happen overnight, >and ALL voices will be heard.
>
LOL. After years of bitching about Republicans, after a long 2006 campaign. after winning the election, after the celebrations, after the planning to take charge, and after the first 100-hour agenda, the great and powerful Democratic Party -- the knowledge-based community -- gives us: debate.
They believe that the cause is lost, and yet they are perfectly willing so send troops to die.

Here it is folks: the moral. intellectual, and spiritual bankruptcy of the Left.

They spend years convincing the American people that this cannot be won.
They have given us talk, and more talk, and more talk.
And now that they have the power to act, they will not act.
They will talk and talk -- for the next two years.
Because they have no ideas.
Because they are afraid.
Because they know that if they act, they will be blamed for an American defeat.
Because they know that over the next two years, thousands on American casualties will mean better odds for them in the 2008 elections.
Blood for oil? I give you: blood for votes.

I refuse.... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

I refuse.

Kim, shouldn't a conservati... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Kim, shouldn't a conservative be suspicious of the use of "Democracy" in Democracy Project? with its "mobocratic" connotations, and all? But of course, DP is ANOTHER neocon front group connected to the American Enterprise Institute, where former(?) Maoists, SDS members, and draft dodgers, now scribble for AIPAC and the new world order. They're attempting a charismatic laying-on-of-hands approach here, and I know it makes them sick. But it's RUBES they're dealing with! Hicks from the sticks! They'll lap it up(....maybe).

jhow66 can't spell because ... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

jhow66 can't spell because he was too busy on his knees in the boys bathroom during high school english class.

"The pledge to not support ... (Below threshold)
Hillary:

"The pledge to not support any Republican senators for re-election who vote for any of the weasely resolutions that to greater and lesser extent withhold full support for the surge is just such a time."

Sounds good to me, then I will have a veto proof majority in 2009.

I can hardly wait!!!

Now we know that "slingshit... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Now we know that "slingshit" really is a queer.

jhow66, you're an illiterat... (Below threshold)
bored:

jhow66, you're an illiterate piece of human debris. I know you're really old, but I'm pretty sure there were public schools wherever you grew up. You should have paid more attention, because now as an adult, you come across as an incredibly stupid person. And the "pucker-puss" moniker you affix to Lee is neither funny nor clever, and makes you look even stupider. You're a thirty percenter to the core, ignorant motherfucker that you are.

This pledge is hilarious. Does the wingnutospere ever get tired of embarrassing itself? Idiots. Go drive a truck for KBR and shut the fuck up.

bored: "jhow66, you're an ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

bored: "jhow66, you're an illiterate piece of human debris".... "HUMAN DEBRIS" I laughed out loud at that one!... What was shocking ,though, was his mentioning of a Wife AND Health Insurance a couple of days ago! I assumed he was 14 years old!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy