Hardball: Is President Bush Holding Democrats Hostage?
By Logan Murphy Monday Oct 22, 2007 7:14pm
Download | play 
Download | play (thanks to Heather for videos)
On Tuesday's Hardball, CBS contributor Nancy Giles and the NY Times'** Paul Krugman discussed the Democrats' inability to stop the occupation of Iraq and their apparent fear of confronting the worst president in our history.
Giles thinks the Democrats suffer from a kind of battered politician syndrome and are just taking baby steps, but Krugman says that while it's unforgivable, some party members say they don't need to worry about not ending the war immediately because Democratic voters will never vote for Republicans who want to expand the disaster in Iraq into Iran.
**corrected, thanks to all who called it to our attention
Login or Register to post comments.
Can someone please tell me why Pelosi and Reed should keep their job?
ANYONE?
They are pathetic and spineless.
Small typo:
you have both "don't" and "doesn't" towards the end of your first paragraph
:)
Bonkers @ 2:
Pardon me:
Second paragraph.
The Dems can instantly stop US military involvement in Iraq by simply de-funding the war. The Dems will never do the right thing. The cowardly Dems are scared to death the Republicans will brand them...Soft On Terrorism.
Not to nit pick too much, Krugman is on the NY Times Op-Ed page.
Paul Krugman works for the NY Times, not the WaPost.
Just shows what spineless, worthless pussies the Dems are. You'd think they were challenging a popular president who was riding a wave of sky-high popularity. Instead, the Dems are getting boned by a borderline retarded coke head who lied this country into a costly war. This is someone the Dems can't beat??? WTF???
Pelosi, Reid and the others need to go away. They are merely obstacles to real change.
On the plus side, the Dems continued scew-ups have forced me to become an Independent. Best move I ever made.
Dems may not switch to vote for rethugs, but there's nothing to keep them from voting the Dem bums out of their state and district jobs.
The current Democrats in Congress better start leading with policy. While Krugman is probably right about most Democrats not voting for a Republican because all the front runners would definitely support continuing the war into Iran, Democrats might get a rude awakening when Democrats decide to not vote at all. I don't support not voting ever, but the Democratic leadership's failure to answer the call of the people to put an end to this occupation further diminishes the people's faith in government.
If the Democrats won't lead and Republicans would lead us off a cliff, the temptation to say the hell with it all increases every day.
It really is too bad they didn't just come out and tell us they were spineless when they were running for office..they need to stand up and do something. So what if Bush vetos every damn thing they put through, expose him for the criminal prick he is.
Bushco has completely broken the Constitution and have meant to do so since taking office. I wish the AT&T debacle that was brewing BEFORE 9/11 was the straw to break this administration's back, but it seems the Dems don't have the stomach for this war to regain our democracy. Terrorism is the convenient Big Stick for Bush Tyranny.
Becoming an Independent and declaring it on your voter registration make a person unable to vote in the primaries here in Oklahoma. You only get to vote in the general election choosing between what others have chosen. How are your laws written regarding this?
if Krugman worked at the Post we might not be in this mess.
Krugman is right. Pelosi and Reid are just as happy to be the lesser of two evils and to "lead" on that. Well I'm sick of them. The only difference that I can see in the two congress's is that with the democrats you get whining as well as the rubber stamp. What have they stopped Bush from doing??? NOTHING!!!! They cave at every point and then whine. At least with the beligerent, obnoxious, odious republicans, I didn't have to listen to whining. Not only that, any time one of the democrats has the guts to stand up to the republicans, its the other DEMOCRATS who cut him down and make him apologize!!!!
Screw them. Maybe they will win, but not with my vote. A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil. They have betrayed us, and then blamed us for expecting too much.
"..because Democratic voters will never vote for Republicans..".
The fly in that ointment is that some voters will also refuse to vote democratic. This "where else are they going to go?" mindset is as insulting as it gets.
If the TelCom amnesty legislation passes, I'm finished with the democratic party. Forever.
Seems like they (the democrats) are all scared to death. Republicans wouldn't kill their political opponents would they? Or threaten them with death? I sure as hell hope not. Is that what this world has come to. Is that the way its always been. Is that what it takes nowadays to stand up and be a good responsible politician? You have to stare down and face your own death.
I want the Dems to stop the war too, but without GOP support it cannot be done. Cutting off the funds only hurts the Troops, not Bush and not the GOP. The troops shouldnt be made to suffer more.
cheesesauce
I know you were asking another person, but here in South Carolina, you don't have to declare for one or the other, and you can vote in any primary you wish. I think it is wrong for the government to force citizens to declare their alegiance to one party or another. It isn't their business. You should be able to keep your opinions to yourself and to vote in any primary or election that you want. I have never thought it was a good idea for any citizen to declare to be affiliated with a party. I see no benefit in it whatsoever. That is for politicians. Citizens should just have to be Americans and that is all.
Doubledeus
I don't think it hurts the troops. Billions that have been sent to Iraq, have never been seen again. The money isn't getting to the troops. The White House has admitted that they have no idea where the money is going. Until they can account for the money they have already lost, they don't need anymore. It is just going to go down that rabbit hole too.
I saw this segment on Hardball and was filled with loathing for these so-called liberals, Giles and Krugman. Krugman said, and Giles agreed with him, that it is simply terrible that the Democrats do not defund the war but that if they did, it would be "spun" to their disadvantage. What someone should tell both Giles and Krugman is that the Democrats can work this to their advantage by getting in front of the mainstream media and explaining that the Democrats, by cutting off the funds, are supporting the troops, since that would mean that the occupation would end and no more American troops would have to remain in that quagmire in Iraq [I almost typed in the word Vietnam in place of Iraq]. Also, as Kucinich has repeatedly tried to explain, apparently to little avail, there is already sufficient funds available to make sure that the needs of the troops are taken care of while they are in a combat zone in Iraq. So much for the Democrats framing the issue to demonstrate that they [allegedly] want to bring this idiotic occupation to an end and are concerned that no more Americans return to this country in coffins and maimed and crippled and disfigured and dismembered.
The Republicans want to expand the war and the Democrats want to be their servants.
Nancy makes a great house slave for Bush.
So, in this next election, if Dennis or Ron don't win, then does it matter who is elected? With anyone else in the House Senate and White House, won't we just race to as fast as we can to WWIII?
foolme1ns @ 19:
Right, the bulk of the money seems to funneled to Dubai to build the world's tallest skyscrapers.
Democrats want to keep the powers; illegal wire tapping, etc, etc.
They will do nota.
They're not spineless. They're doing exactly what they always intended to do.
They would have ended the war if they had the votes. Why? Because it was right and good? Well, maybe, but ultimately because it would have bitchslapped the other party and gotten the base all excited.
But faced with the fact that they CAN'T stop a filibuster or override a veto they have thrown us under the bus. Instead, they've turned back to the red and blue pie and are looking for slight edges here and wedges there in this county or that that might give them a little edge down the road so they can have more power...for the sake of having power.
They are simply unwilling to fight for a cause unless it plays into that game. The only option we have is to make it politically expensive for them to be so fucking weasely.
We'll never get out of the power game, that much has been apparent since before Marcus Aurelius. But what we can do is become an actual factor in their thinking.
Traditional political thinking says "the base is always with us and all we have to do is energize them to get out the vote." Energizing the base can be a 100% negative operation: just get them pissed off enough at your opponents.
Problem is, that only works if you don't appear to be working WITH your opponents for the express purpose of pissing everyone off.
We're not going to vote for the goddamn Republicans and the Democrats know it, so they take us for granted and treat us the way the Bushies treat the Fundies: give us a little condescending "access," throw us a bone every now and again and if we bitch about it remind us that we'll never get anything better from the Republicans.
As though that's our only choice: servility to one master or another.
Walk away. Stop playing. Give your support to someone who deserves it, not just because they seem to oppose what you oppose or because they're willing to support what you support so long as it doesn't cost them anything, but rather because they will FIGHT for what you believe in.
Support those who support you. Don't run from one plantation to another looking for the least evil master.
Take the goddamn land back.
It's yours.
Nothing the Democrats do from here on in has the power to disappoint me. They could rise in unison to praise Bush and declare him king for life and I'd just call it another Friday.
The Republicans have their foot on your neck. The Democrats are the boot. Don't lick it anymore hoping it'll taste like candy. It never will.
Correction to comment #20. In my anger over the pusillanimous behavior of the alleged peace party, the Democrats, I fouled up the subject verb relationship in the penultimate sentence. It should read "... there are already sufficient funds available to make sure that the needs of the troops are taken care of..."
I want to write my rep, let her know that my intent is to break the law and then I expect that she will be able to absolve my sin and I go scott free. And on top of that I divulge an illegal scam that needs funding and expect her to divert tax dollars for that purpose, since after all, my profits will trickle down to others by the way of me being able to buy more stuff.
If I were serious she would stop me, but she and her party are the ones who are not serious.
You seriously need a third party. I can't understand your system. Never have been able to, not fully.
So, the Dems need two more Friedman units to win? Is that basically it? In the meantime, their lips are sealed, they're "neutral observers"? Sit on the fence; don't make waves; don't offend anyone (-- cave of necessary)?
Damn. I was misled by the title of the post. I thought they were finally getting around to talking about members of the legislative branch being afraid of things like cities being blown up or receiving more anthrax letters.... Instead it's just more whining about being "rightfully" timid, when in fact they are being treasonably perfidious in a filthy and murderous political bid for more power. I am so angry I could NOT be trusted in the same room with Rahm Emanuel... or Nancy Pelosi... or....
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't like the ambiguous word "some." How about naming some names. Which party members? Only in Congress, or somewhere else someone is pulling strings?
Ms. Giles is also correct about the scalding the Dems get. Look at the overinflated outrage toward Stark. Until the Dems control the message, until Repubs stop playing attack-and-obstruct, nobody's going to get anything productive done. I am pleased that both Giles and Krugman are stressing that the Dems don't have the votes, and the Repubs are not listening to the majority of Americans.
Well, the Dems have a chance now to show their spine and not give in to GWs request for another $46 billion more for the Iraq war. Enough is enough. No more money for this war unless it is to fund a redeployment.
Reason why DNC refuses to impeach and refuses to stop an invasion of Iran: The DNC is hoping the backlash "in the future" will mean more votes for the DNC. Talk about malfeasance:
Rather than asserting their oath to defend the Constitution now, the DNC -- despite the power to block funding for illegal activity -- plans to [a] blame the GOP for what happens; [b] do nothing about the activity, as it could; and [c] hopes to use the defense, "We did nothing because inaction was good for our party." That, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of having a "mental reservation" about one's oath of office, an alleged violation of 5 USC 3331. American voters in November 2006 did not vote for a DNC majority to do nothing, but to assert power, end illegal warfare, and bring the criminals to justice. Malfeasance, inaction, and refusals to assert one's oath "in the name of politics" is not doing one's full duty, nor fully asserting one's oath. It is a violation of one's oath of office.
The issue isn't what the voters -- during an election -- will do or say; but what a grand jury -- during a trial -- will indict: Did the Members of Congress not fully assert their oath; and did they, through inaction and failure to use all lawful options, remain complicit with FISA violations, illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, and other Grave breaches of Geneva? The voters may be fooled to "support" those who refuse to act; but prosecutors, thankfully, are not voting. They are charging people with crimes. Members of Congress who refuse to defend the Constitution can be forced to face the Judicial Branch. Time to strip Members of Congress of their legislative immunity. When immunity is abused, as is the case here, that immunity is not something the court is required to recognize.
I don't know how either can speak for any Dem.
The great mystery of Dem inaction. Did the admin put a J. Edgar on them? Nah. The leaders (of both parties) are working towards the same end that they will not justify with anything but lame excuses. What reality are these politicians afraid to address in the open? We the people want leaders with integrity and transparent govt. We get BS because they think we can't handle it or the truth is political suicide.
The Dems vs. Bush:
Bush reminds me of the pathetically inept football team that goes 1-11 every year, with his only victory and success coming repeatedly against the same opponent; the Dems. Everybody else on the schedule gives him a major league but whoppin'!
JasonS @ 24:
The problem with this assumption is reality: The GOP, not the DNC, is required to pass amendments. The DNC could, if it wanted:
1. Zero-out funding in committee, and force the GOP to pass an amendment to add money back.
2. Agree, before sending a bill to either th eHouse or Senate, to common language; and make the "GOP threat to block a conference committee" meaningless. One does not need a "conference committee" when the bill has been introduced to both the House and Senate committees with identical language, marked up the same, and no allowance for Amendments.
3. Block all funding/appropriations bills, until the President provides information.
This US government -- under DNC and GOP control -- has jointly agreed to rubber stamp illegal FISA violations, war crimes, and grave breaches of Geneva. The DNC is not required to introduce any bill. There is no need for a "filibuster" if the bill never starts, which the DNC allows. More of the "oh, lions, tigers, and bears. . ."
Time to have a serious discussion: What is going to be a solution to this mess -- where the DNC refuses to assert all lawful options, plays victim, and pretends "it has no choice." If the DNC "has no choice," why -- when the GOP was in the majority -- did the DNC not do what the GOP is doing; but how was the GOP able to "assert a choice" to ignore the Constitution? The DNC's excuses aren't making sense. They have their mandate. they took the oath. They aren't doing their job. Prosecute them.
Crystal @ 8:
Indeed, Miss Nancy, 'The Rabbit', Schumer et. al. don't realize that 'the base' is after their asses. If they are percieved as 'running out the clock' for partisan gain or as is more likely
to keep the $$$$ flowing to their MIC buds they will be shown the exit. It will take thru 2012 but it will happen.
Giles thinks the Democrats suffer from a kind of battered politician syndrome and are just taking baby steps, but Krugman says that while it’s unforgivable, some party members say they don’t doesn’t need to worry about not ending the war immediately because Democratic voters will never vote for Republicans who want to expand the disaster in Iraq into Iran.
With an approval rating of 11% their thinking is totally illogical,
Strip,
I agree...that's my point. The only weapon they're willing to use is a straight vote and for that they need 67.
They have made the calculation that the tactics you outline (which I agree would be effective) would be politically costly as the Republicans would accuse them of "using parliamentary tricks to not support the troops."
They're simply not willing to take that heat...hence they have thrown the whole anti-war agenda under the bus and turned back to looking for divisive advantage in the (increasingly thin) margin of the body politic. They've decided collectively that that will give them more advantage in the next election.
And they'll be right...if we stay asleep. If we accept the "oh, well, Nancy had no choice, she had to dance to Bush's tune" argument and go on supporting them like sheep, then they'll be validated.
If, however, they see that such apparent spinelessness actually for reals for really really reals puts the base at risk, then they will have to modify their tactics to appease us.
And that's all we'll ever get out of them: appeasement. I have no further illusions that there's any honor or character involved here, but SOMEONE has to govern and I'd rather that that SOMEONE felt the need to actually, you know, follow through with their promises.
So, yes, defunding is an option, putting everything egregious on the GOP is an option, tying S-CHIP to war funding is an option that they motherfucking better take, etc.
But those are only options to people who actually put the interests of the nation ahead of their political strategies. That's not who anybody up there is.
So, our option is to withdraw support and offer it back only on the condition that they meet certain benchmarks and timelines.
And not to believe that we'll see "good progress" in another six months...another six months...another six months...another six months...we have top men working on it right now...top...men...six more months...
Time to break the goddamn Friedman political snooze alarm.
The Dems are doing a fine job of holding themselves hostage they don't need TWPE's help.
Hostage?Could be.. in a manner of speaking.Whatever the cause....they've been a dissapointment.But I do predict a overwhelming voter turn out for the Dem nominee.Then we'll change things.Or we'll give her/him hell.
all you folks up there are absolutley right.If the dems aren't carefull they'll lose everything (seats) they've gained......which right now ..isn't much.
OK, so beings it is now apparent that Bush/Cheney started the illegal wiretapping/domestic surveillance right after they got into office, what if they pulled a J. Edgar Hoover and started files on everyone in Congress and is using what they have gathered to strong-arm them all to keep them in line and docile while they romp over the Constitution and ram their stuff through... Just a thought. It worked for Hoover and it would explain a lot..
Democrats and Republicans are both holding American hostage. The war profiteers will redistribute their war profits back into Repub campaigns and the Dems know that if the war is still going on next November that will only help elect more Dems. All the while Americans are dying and the American taxpayers are being robbed of taxpayer dollars.
Steve Everett
http://www.JustAThoughtThatsAll.com
America, the land of opportunity where former draft dodgers can go on to be commander in chief of the military or vice president and send tens of thousands of Americans to risk their lives fighting wars, something they themselves wouldn't do.
The original question implicitly speculates whether the "November 2006 mandate-DNC win" ever occurred: "Is President Bush Holding Democrats Hostage?" No, the President isn't holding anyone hostage:
Time for the country to stop playing "woe is me" with the President. he's not holding anyone hostage: The DNC is holding the American public hostage: "Be silent, or we will permit the President to commit more crimes against you." Time for We the People to remind the DNC and GOP leadership that We the People -- the sovereign -- are the source of all power:
This Congress is holding the American public hostage: Put up with our malfeasance, or we will appropriate more money for violations of the Constitution. Legitimacy means respecting written law. This Congress is no longer legitimate and can be lawfully replaced -- with a new system of governance -- with one that dares to assert its oath, not make excuses like these alleged war crime-enablers in the DNC and GOP. Tell your friends to put its loyalty not to the DNC, Congress, or the US government, but to the Supreme Law: The US Constitution. We're not required to remain loyal to those individuals, institutions, or entities that are domestic threats to the US Constitution. We can put our loyalty elsewhere: Directly to the Constitution, and nothing else.
mudshark @ 40:
I don't know about you but, I don't want to see the repugs in charge ever again. They have stolen the elections and our freedom all in the last 15 years.
nwmuse @ 41:
Made to many mistakes to let that go by..
"..started files on everyone in Congress and are using what they gathered in order to strong-arm members of Congress, to keep them all in line and docile, while they romp over the Constitution and ram their stuff through". (Better..)
Ron says:
Giles thinks the Democrats suffer from a kind of battered politician syndrome
We can learn a little here from the life of Caligula. He grew up in an environment of extreme political danger. His mother, father and brothers were all killed, forced to commit suicide or died under suspicious circumstances.
To survive, he allied himself to Tiberius. Tiberius persecuted and bullied every true friend or ally Caligula might have had.
When Caligula finally took the throne, he went mad. Could have been a brain fever, could have been syphilis, could have been organic dementia.
But whatever it was, his madness manifested itself in the bloody, vengeful, capricious exercise of not just supreme executive authority, but supreme spiritual and physical authority.
The bullied do not make good leaders unless THEY THEMSELVES put a stop the bullying. Waiting for the right historical mood and the proper political fortune will put scoundrels on the throne.
Scoundrels with Ds after their names.
Think things are bad now? Wait until these bullied cowards actually get the power the DNC insists we must give them. Get ready to hear many progressive hemming, hawing and rationalizing the same abusive nonsense we've been criticizing all these years.
The great delusion of our moment is that Bush alone is somehow the fountainhead of all our misery. Once removed, everything will pop back into place nicely. The Democrats will be greeted as liberators.
Perhaps. Perhaps.
But only if Bush is replaced by people of character and integrity. Not just at the presidential level, but throughout the administration.
So, you tell me, how does the current crop look to you?
nwmuse @ 41:
if we assume this is true, then Members of Congress -- for to be understood reasons -- are not fully asserting their oath. That is a violation of 5 USC 3331. Time to prosecute. The American public has been treated as if it is guilty until proven innocent. Why are Members of Congress demanding a standard of evidence-proof that they will not let American citizens enjoy?
When they put themselves above the law, they cannot enjoy the protections of the law. Their immunity can be stripped when it is abused, as has been clearly established. This "stripping of immunity" can be applied to GOP-OVP-DoJ-WH legal counsel and to counsel in Congress working for both the GOP and DNC. If illegal warfare against Iran starts, and is not defunded, then We the People may treat all 535 members of Congress as unlawful combatants; complicit with war crimes; and incapable of self-governance. Judicial oversight is warranted.
Separation of powers does not mean each branch of government is silent to tyranny; it means the Constitution is asserted as a loud horn. Illegal warfare, FISA violations, and continued funding for war crimes is clear evidence the Members of Congress remain complicit with war crimes. Time to strip them of their immunity and charge them all -- all 535 of them -- with war crimes. Time for a wakeup call: We the People are not required to assent to a government that defies written law and remains illegitimate.
.
.
.
The Pelosi / Reid apologist is full of crap.
The dems had every opportunity to stop this administration. The fact is -- the dems are either useless or complicit. Your pick.
Scared? My arse!
.
.
.
Matthews astutely pointed out that the Democrats don't need a super-majority to defund the war; they only need a simple majority, but they're afraid to spend the political capital necessary to do it. Holding on to power is more important to them than ending the war. So what if the Republicans demonize them. At least the war would end. Some things are worth losing power for. Back during the civil rights movement, Georgia Senator Richard Russell warned Lyndon Johnson that if he continued to push this "n----r loving" legislation, he and his southern colleagues would rally the whole South against him and cost him the election. Without hesitation, Johnson got in his face and said, "If that's the price I've got to pay, I'll pay it gladly".
This is such bullshit: if Democrats can't move to file war criminal charges, then they are aiding & abetting,...
Instead of crapping on the democrats in congress, let's realize that in congress laws are passed and vetoes overridden with majority votes. That is something, a majority, that the democratic congress does not enjoy. The democrats will not be able to negotiate with the minority republicans to pass meaningful legislation.
The republican minority is and will continue to be just a bunch of obstructionists. They won't pay at the polls for it, because most of the districts these republicans come from are deeply republican.
Where the democratic congress is wrong is in not talking about this. There should be a hard press effort from Democrats painting the president, pursuing failed and dangerous policies affecting Americans and our country. Most importantly; this hard press should paint the republican congress as a bunch of obstructionists interested only in continuing the war in Iraq and in aiding and abetting the president's other misguided and failed policies.
The Democratic Congress should keep passing meaningful legislation over and over and most likely keep the president vetoing it. Then democrats should keep attempting to override these vetoes which in most instances they will be unable to override. However, this tactic will keep the minority republican congress on record as obstructionists and working against Americans.
The Democratic Congress does have the power to Initiate and Pass legislation to present to the president. Democrats should take advantage of that power. Democrats should take the initiative and not let the president do it. Not doing that is what is killing them. It is not rocket science, so I do not know what is keeping them from doing it more often.
Instead of groping and complaining, we should be working to ELECT more Democrats to make their work for America easier.
Haven't voted for a Repug in many decades and would never consider doing so; but, it doesn't mean that I will, once again, vote for a Dem candidate I was not that happy about. This trio of "leading" Dems pleases me not at all; in fact, that includes most of our current Congressional Dems. I'm sick of them all and am seriously considering not voting for any candidate for President that they put up (unless someone new pops up...doubtful), and I've voted in every Presidential election for the past 50 years. It makes me ill to admit these thoughts, but . . .
Time for a change. Pick an antiwar candidate and recruit a new breed of candidates to contest each spineless blue dog.
Fuckin' Tweety taking a shot at Jim Webb? Has anyone seen what Webb has tried to get done? He has tried to keep his word but the obstructionist Republicans and the spineless Democrats aren't backing him up.
why would i vote for a VICTIM?????
This is baloney:
Thutmosis @ 51:
Bills can only start -- get out of Committee -- if the DNC approves. The DNC controls all the Committees. To suggest the DNC majority cannot do something is bizarre. This is just apologizing for the decision of the DNC to continue funding FISA-Geneva violations.
Congress is not required to "pass" anything. It can sit on the sidelines and do nothing. This is an excuse:
The GOP cannot "block" something when there is nothing to block: If there's no funding, then the GOP "blocking" that "zeroed-out bill" gives the President nothing.
No, stop calling the GOP -- as a minority in 2007 -- obstructionist: Turn it around: Where was the DNC, when it was the minority; and why didn't the DNC minority "obstruct" (your word) the FISA violation-funding, illegal warfare? Can't have it both ways. GOP as a minority cannot 'obstruct something"; but then argue that the DNC is above challenge for their failure to obstruct what is illegal.
Why is anyone concerned about "new" legislation" when the existing laws aren't getting enforced? This is a sham distraction from today's certain violations; and changes the subject form whether the President should or should not be impeached -- for refusing to enforce the law; to whether the Congress is or isn't passing new laws the President will ignore, violate, not enforce, or rewrite.
Baloney: The DNC should do one thing: Find new leadership -=- now -- in Congress that will support impeachment. Once the focus is taken off the DNC and put on the President -- and his illegal conduct -- the Congress will have its priorities straight. A sitting President can be prosecuted by any of the 50 State Attorney Generals. What's their excuse for inaction? Quit wasting time with "new legislation": Pelosi and Reid have no credibility when they say there is "no time for impeachment" but then they turn around and debate whether or not to grant immunity for illegal activity without gathering facts. This Congress has time to do stop, illegal, and unconstitutioanl things; but "no time" to defend the Constitution. This Congress is s disgrace and illegitimate. It deserves to be lawfully cast aside and non-violently replaced with a system of governance that imposes the rule of law without favor or political deference.
Baloney. Not going to play the game of "wait until the next election." The DNC has subpoena power, and refuses to enforce contempt of Congress; the DNC has the majority and can sit on bills in Congress/committee, but still rubber stamps. The Congress has the power to shut down funding, but refuses.
The DNC has the power they wanted, and they refuse to use it. Why would anyone want to trust anyone in the DNC or GOP? We're not required to choose between two sets of incompetents; rather, the burden is on the DNC and GOP: Are they going to enforce this law; or are they going to have this law enforced on them? Do not wait until 2008. Start direct prosecutions of Members of Congress and the President-VP now.
i feel like Reid & Pelosi are counting on "sympathy votes"
We'll see if all this "cautiousness" pays off November 2008, because either way, we're screwed!
let us hope all this foot-dragging isn't just about arrogance.
We really need a Parliamentary system in this country. since the founding fathers didn't want political parties, we're stuck with this system that's developed, but it isn't outlined in the Constitution.
I will not vote Republican. But I'm not too likely to vote Democrat either if this keeps up.
John W @ 38:
exactly, i was going to say the repubs dont even need to smear the dems, they are smearing themselves.
#56-Strip Immunity
Well said. As Kucinich has said, time and time again. whenever it comes time for Congress to provide more funds for this unnecessary occupation, they simply can choose not to vote for the funding. When that happens, no more funding is provided for the occupation and the troops can finally come home. When I was in Vietnam, I wondered when the leaders of this country would finally get me and the rest of those who were in Vietnam out of that hellhole. Undoubtedly those troops in Iraq are wondering why the [alleged] peace party, i.e. the Democrats, are not doing that by cutting off the funding so that they can get the hell out of that quagmire as quickly and as rapidly as possible.
giles is an apologist for the dems
sorry, but they ran on stopping the war
so they cant vote to get us out??? ok
they can vote to stop funding the occupation
but they care more about keeping power and winning the wh than doing what is right
eff them and eff giles
Exactly redratio1. Democrats won't vote republican but they sure can vote for a new Democrat. Vote the splineless Dem's out! Vote for Dem's with the balls to rule by the constitution and not apologize for it!! Out with Reid and Pelosi!!
redratio1 @ 1:
While Democrats will not vote Republican, many of them will stand on principle and sit on their hands. The Dem leadership better start factoring in that part of the equation.
Krugman's really kicking ass on all his radio and tv appearences
Enough have said it, the powers that be better face this fact, the masses are angry and hungry for change. They sit in their offices, shielded from the public by high cost, high powered "consultants". Do they EVER listen to the common man? I don't think so and neither do a lot of Americans.
For months now I have said the 08 election is NOT in the bag.
Chris Mathews is so bloody annoying to listen to. I wish he would let people talk for once!!!
Do you think that the REAL power structure in this country would change tomorrow, if we voted out every Republican (assumed neo-con), and every Democrat with shady liberal credentials?
I don't want to sound like too much of a cynic, but our government has already borrowed a half trillion dollars to wage this war in the Middle East. It's safe to say that even if the Republican party has used up ALL it's political capital to start and maintain this war, the Democrats, even if they could gain control of all three branches of the government today, would be incapable of simply turning away from the TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS worth of fossil fuels sitting in the ground under the Caspian Basin and Northern Iraq.
And that's twenty trillion dollars at todays prices.
Oh no. The prize is within sight. Or at least they think it is.
mrogi @ 4:
it appears that the democRATs are more cynical. they let all this go on so that they can pick up a veto-proof majority!? that sounds like hillary(DLC), schumer(DSCC) and rahm(DCCC) are jerking the party around along with the american people.
Alecia @ 65:
the dems are counting on desperation. they are cynical phucks.
They are afraid of the wire taps of them calling their favorite DC hooker.
They are afraid of being suicided or dying in a small aircraft accident.
They are afraid of not getting a seat on the last plane out after they finish trashing the dollar and selling anything of value to foreign creditors.
They are afraid of getting a letter full of military grade anthrax in the mail.
They are afraid of the crazies striking Iran with thermo nuclear weapons.
They are afraid of losing the bullet factory in their district.
They are afraid of dying.
They are afraid to be Cynthia McKinney and have AIPAC run multiple well funded candidates against them.
They are afraid the voting machines won't work correctly in their elections.
They haven't gotten where they are by being courageous people.
grover nerdkissed @ 57:
not from me. I registered democratic to rid myself of incumbent dems with no spine.
E Ryno @ 72:
I am afraid you are right.
DoubleDeus @ 17:
yeah youd think death would be enough ,perish the thought they run out of beans!
cetylovx @ 58:
Bush will pull some troops out around February, then some more in the summer. He'll be able to, since the ethnic cleansing is pretty well complete.
His numbers will go up, and the election will be very very close. A direct result of not fighting back. Americans like people who stand up, not lie down.
Just my 2c, and I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. Hopefully some of the domestic shenanigans will get traction, and people will stay pissed.
This Machine Kills Fascists @ 76:
Is that when we'll have the ticker tate parade?