<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Okay, Rahm Has Lost Me</title>
	<atom:link href="http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/</link>
	<description>Illinois, From Misery</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:34:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: leo</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/comment-page-1/#comment-8975</link>
		<dc:creator>leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/#comment-8975</guid>
		<description>Sorry: &quot;When I _heard_ &#039;immigration&#039; and Rahm...&quot;

Or maybe I&#039;m just full of mis-spellings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry: &#8220;When I _heard_ &#8216;immigration&#8217; and Rahm&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Or maybe I&#8217;m just full of mis-spellings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leo</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/comment-page-1/#comment-8976</link>
		<dc:creator>leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/#comment-8976</guid>
		<description>What SCAM said.  When I heatd &#039;immigration&#039; and Rahm, I immediately thought back to IL-06 in &#039;06.  Maybe he&#039;s thinking of districts with similar characteristic.

Or maybe I’m just full of crap.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What SCAM said.  When I heatd &#8216;immigration&#8217; and Rahm, I immediately thought back to IL-06 in &#8217;06.  Maybe he&#8217;s thinking of districts with similar characteristic.</p>
<p>Or maybe I’m just full of crap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lev</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/comment-page-1/#comment-8980</link>
		<dc:creator>Lev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/#comment-8980</guid>
		<description>I am sick to death of hearing the fake opposition Dems in Congress moan about not having enough votes to end the war in Iraq. They give lip service to the myth that the only way to end the war is to write a bill saying &quot;the war is now over&quot; and send it to Bush for a prompt veto, then override the veto. They then throw up their hands, saying &quot;Well, as you can see, we don&#039;t have the votes to override any veto, so there&#039;s no way to end the war. Sorry folks.&quot;

This is disingenious and vividly illustrates who the Dems are really serving: the establishment, not their constituents.

Here&#039;s how to end the war: No bill specifically ending the war is even necessary. Remember those supplemental funding bills the Cheney regime has to constantly ask for, to continue funding the Iraq war piecemeal instead of in yearly lump sums attached to the actual defense budget? That&#039;s the achilles&#039; heel of their war effort. The next time Bush asks for another $80 billion or whatever to keep the Iraq bloodbath going, all the Democrats have to do to end the war is to say: NO. To say &quot;We won&#039;t allocate one more penny for your illegal war&quot;. Last I checked the Dems have a wafer-thin majority in both houses. With no Dems voting for the next spending bill it won&#039;t be passed and thus it won&#039;t make it to Bush&#039;s desk for signing. Bush (and especially his puppetmaster Cheney) may have concentrated an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the executive branch, but even they can&#039;t send spending bills to their own desk. That necessarily has to come from Congress. If it never reaches his desk he can&#039;t sign it, and will have 2 choices: 1.pull the troops out while there is still enough money left in the pipeline so to speak to allow an orderly withdrawl (and anyone who has five or more brain cells knows that the money isn&#039;t going to run out the next day, that&#039;s a non-issue that the right wing tries to use as a scare tactic but it is ridiculously dumbed down and simply not true; they don&#039;t wait until they have $5 left before asking for another supplemental OK?); or 2.don&#039;t pull them out right away, and leave them to wither on the vine in Iraq until the money DOES completely run out and they have to withdraw from Iraq chaotically, burning their supplies and vehicles. Either way the war will end pretty soon if the Dems refuse to vote on supplementals. They don&#039;t have to write a bill saying they are cutting off funding; this is only a fig leaf so they can pretend to be doing something to end the war when all they are doing is purposely spinning their wheels. All they have to do is to NOT VOTE ON SUPPLEMENTALS. Pretty effing simple. The people NOW need to DEMAND in so many words that if the Democrats are a genuine opposition party that they will carry out the will of the people and NOT VOTE on supplementals. If they are a fake opposition party as I feel they are, and are acting not in the people&#039;s interest but playing for the same team as the Republicans, then continue with more of the same hand-wringing and impotent nonbinding resolutions that resolve nothing. Decision time Democrats. Which are you? Genuine? Or fake opposition? I think I already know the answer to that one but why don&#039;t you surprise me?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sick to death of hearing the fake opposition Dems in Congress moan about not having enough votes to end the war in Iraq. They give lip service to the myth that the only way to end the war is to write a bill saying &#8220;the war is now over&#8221; and send it to Bush for a prompt veto, then override the veto. They then throw up their hands, saying &#8220;Well, as you can see, we don&#8217;t have the votes to override any veto, so there&#8217;s no way to end the war. Sorry folks.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is disingenious and vividly illustrates who the Dems are really serving: the establishment, not their constituents.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how to end the war: No bill specifically ending the war is even necessary. Remember those supplemental funding bills the Cheney regime has to constantly ask for, to continue funding the Iraq war piecemeal instead of in yearly lump sums attached to the actual defense budget? That&#8217;s the achilles&#8217; heel of their war effort. The next time Bush asks for another $80 billion or whatever to keep the Iraq bloodbath going, all the Democrats have to do to end the war is to say: NO. To say &#8220;We won&#8217;t allocate one more penny for your illegal war&#8221;. Last I checked the Dems have a wafer-thin majority in both houses. With no Dems voting for the next spending bill it won&#8217;t be passed and thus it won&#8217;t make it to Bush&#8217;s desk for signing. Bush (and especially his puppetmaster Cheney) may have concentrated an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the executive branch, but even they can&#8217;t send spending bills to their own desk. That necessarily has to come from Congress. If it never reaches his desk he can&#8217;t sign it, and will have 2 choices: 1.pull the troops out while there is still enough money left in the pipeline so to speak to allow an orderly withdrawl (and anyone who has five or more brain cells knows that the money isn&#8217;t going to run out the next day, that&#8217;s a non-issue that the right wing tries to use as a scare tactic but it is ridiculously dumbed down and simply not true; they don&#8217;t wait until they have $5 left before asking for another supplemental OK?); or 2.don&#8217;t pull them out right away, and leave them to wither on the vine in Iraq until the money DOES completely run out and they have to withdraw from Iraq chaotically, burning their supplies and vehicles. Either way the war will end pretty soon if the Dems refuse to vote on supplementals. They don&#8217;t have to write a bill saying they are cutting off funding; this is only a fig leaf so they can pretend to be doing something to end the war when all they are doing is purposely spinning their wheels. All they have to do is to NOT VOTE ON SUPPLEMENTALS. Pretty effing simple. The people NOW need to DEMAND in so many words that if the Democrats are a genuine opposition party that they will carry out the will of the people and NOT VOTE on supplementals. If they are a fake opposition party as I feel they are, and are acting not in the people&#8217;s interest but playing for the same team as the Republicans, then continue with more of the same hand-wringing and impotent nonbinding resolutions that resolve nothing. Decision time Democrats. Which are you? Genuine? Or fake opposition? I think I already know the answer to that one but why don&#8217;t you surprise me?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Howard</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/comment-page-1/#comment-8979</link>
		<dc:creator>Howard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/#comment-8979</guid>
		<description>I had to revise the &quot;I am in receipt of your invitation to raise $______ for _____ (acronym for a Democratic Party committee). At this time, however, I will donate only to Democratic candidates with balls. When the Party grows some balls, I will again donate to the Party.&quot; emails to include a preference also for brains.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had to revise the &#8220;I am in receipt of your invitation to raise $______ for _____ (acronym for a Democratic Party committee). At this time, however, I will donate only to Democratic candidates with balls. When the Party grows some balls, I will again donate to the Party.&#8221; emails to include a preference also for brains.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: so-called "Austin Mayor"</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/comment-page-1/#comment-8977</link>
		<dc:creator>so-called "Austin Mayor"</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:53:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/#comment-8977</guid>
		<description>AP,

I&#039;m of the &quot;he&#039;s an asshole but he&#039;s [often] our asshole&quot; school when it comes to Rahm.

Here&#039;s my baseless theory on Rahm and the immigration issue: The 06 race for the 6th Congressional district was very important to Rahm.  It was his gal versus Denny&#039;s guy.  In that race, the wedge issue of choice for the GOP was immigration.  Rahm&#039;s candidate lost the 6th District race.  That loss was very painful for Rahm.

Now it seems that Rahm believes that the toxicity of immigration as an issue for Democrats is proportional to the pain of the 6th District loss.  But I believe that he has fallen for the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e. he has mistaken correlation for causation.

Just because the GOP effectively used the immigration issue in the 6th Dist, that doesn&#039;t mean that it will work for them elsewhere -- or even that it would work again in the 6th.

Or maybe I&#039;m just full of crap.

-- SCAM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AP,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m of the &#8220;he&#8217;s an asshole but he&#8217;s [often] our asshole&#8221; school when it comes to Rahm.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s my baseless theory on Rahm and the immigration issue: The 06 race for the 6th Congressional district was very important to Rahm.  It was his gal versus Denny&#8217;s guy.  In that race, the wedge issue of choice for the GOP was immigration.  Rahm&#8217;s candidate lost the 6th District race.  That loss was very painful for Rahm.</p>
<p>Now it seems that Rahm believes that the toxicity of immigration as an issue for Democrats is proportional to the pain of the 6th District loss.  But I believe that he has fallen for the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e. he has mistaken correlation for causation.</p>
<p>Just because the GOP effectively used the immigration issue in the 6th Dist, that doesn&#8217;t mean that it will work for them elsewhere &#8212; or even that it would work again in the 6th.</p>
<p>Or maybe I&#8217;m just full of crap.</p>
<p>&#8211; SCAM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael in chicago</title>
		<link>http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/comment-page-1/#comment-8978</link>
		<dc:creator>michael in chicago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.63/~archpund/2007/10/24/okay-rahm-has-lost-me/#comment-8978</guid>
		<description>Welcome to the club. I&#039;ll show you the secret handshake later...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to the club. I&#8217;ll show you the secret handshake later&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

