<?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: Policy and Process</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2006/08/13/policy-and-process/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/08/13/policy-and-process/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mikkel</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/08/13/policy-and-process/comment-page-1/#comment-61120</link>
		<dc:creator>Mikkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/08/13/policy-and-process/#comment-61120</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m tired of people calling Lieberman a centrist. Sure he is a centrist if you just add up all his specific issues, but he completely fails in the questions you say you look for. If he were truly a centrist, he would be over at the White House getting them to accept that the majority of the country is against the war, the Iraqis themselves think they are in a civil war, and instead of painting such positions as the fringe minority they should actively embrace them and try to persuade a change. He should realize that he is now free from political burden (if even temporarily) and use that freedom to speak the truth. If he were truly a centrist he would have accepted his defeat with grace and said &quot;You know, I respect the democratic process. I think I still fit in with my party on most issues, but they are wrong on the War. I will now spend my time trying to persuade them otherwise while creating a better dialogue between the White House and Congress and Military in a way that only a non-politican could.&quot; He would convince the White House to admit that they have made terrible strategic mistakes and lay out a plan with specifics on how strategically they expect to prevent the disinnegration of Iraq not only militarily, but civicly and politically as well. The war has lost the American people who believe we won&#039;t win, the Iraqis who have lost hope anything will change, and the military who is getting hung out to dry. Saying in generalities that voting against him will cause the downfall of the Democratic party and using Rovian rhetoric won&#039;t change anything on the ground, and he should realize that sometimes the best way to effect change is to not have any direct power, so you are totally free to put things together without any fear of reprisal. Even if he does win, he&#039;ll just be one vote out of one hundred and a pariah to both sides for not helping advance their agenda, which is far less influential than he (suppossedly) has.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m tired of people calling Lieberman a centrist. Sure he is a centrist if you just add up all his specific issues, but he completely fails in the questions you say you look for. If he were truly a centrist, he would be over at the White House getting them to accept that the majority of the country is against the war, the Iraqis themselves think they are in a civil war, and instead of painting such positions as the fringe minority they should actively embrace them and try to persuade a change. He should realize that he is now free from political burden (if even temporarily) and use that freedom to speak the truth. If he were truly a centrist he would have accepted his defeat with grace and said &#8220;You know, I respect the democratic process. I think I still fit in with my party on most issues, but they are wrong on the War. I will now spend my time trying to persuade them otherwise while creating a better dialogue between the White House and Congress and Military in a way that only a non-politican could.&#8221; He would convince the White House to admit that they have made terrible strategic mistakes and lay out a plan with specifics on how strategically they expect to prevent the disinnegration of Iraq not only militarily, but civicly and politically as well. The war has lost the American people who believe we won&#8217;t win, the Iraqis who have lost hope anything will change, and the military who is getting hung out to dry. Saying in generalities that voting against him will cause the downfall of the Democratic party and using Rovian rhetoric won&#8217;t change anything on the ground, and he should realize that sometimes the best way to effect change is to not have any direct power, so you are totally free to put things together without any fear of reprisal. Even if he does win, he&#8217;ll just be one vote out of one hundred and a pariah to both sides for not helping advance their agenda, which is far less influential than he (suppossedly) has.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

