I got a call from democratic congressional fundraisers...here is what I told them

[greenbriar]

my phone rings

ME
"hello"

them

"is Mrs. X home"

ME

"This is she"

them

"I am xxx calling from the congressional democrats"

ME

"IS IMPEACHMENT on the table?"

them

"what"

ME

"unless I see proof that impeachment is on the table, My wallet is closed"

them

"of course its on the table, but we have so many issues more important"

ME

"yea, like caging lists, nsa wiretapping, this war for oil, my gasoline prices being 4 bucks a gallon, my mom losing health benefits because she is now 78 and needs a nursing home, all the corruption that this bush administration has committed. I want to know if impeachment is on the table if not, my wallet is closed"

them

"now is not the time to give up, we may lose congress..."

ME
"hell you can't even keep lieberman in line"

them

"we have him "

ME

"yea, that is why you caved on the Iraq vote"


(by this time I am tired of dealing with them)

Me
"Look, until I see proof in the right wing media that IMPEACHMENT is on the table, don't call me"

I hang up

[Amy6627]

1. Wonderful! I will use that next time. n/t

[liberaldemocrat7]

7. I would tell them as soon as the Democratic congress repeals Medicare Part D and replaces it

with a real middle class prescription drug benefit I will consider contributing. Until then I give nothing.

SHOP AT ZAZZLE.COM FOR MUGS, STAMPS, BUMPER STICKERS AND MORE.

[Bobbieo]

2. I ask if they accept food stamps, Then, tell them that is all I can offer for the time being.

Then hang up!

[whistle]

3. Very good, I'll use that also

[Caution]

4. You realize the person was a volunteer who has absolutely no say whatsoever

and that they don't then turn around and give your message to Nancy Pelosi right? You know they read from a script and are taking time out from their day to stop Republicans from retaking congress?

You might want to consider sending a letter to your congressperson or to Nancy Pelosi rather than berate some poor person who most likely shares your opinion.

[Egnever]

10. What in the world?

Of course they have a say. If they are getting a lot of negative feedback when making these calls you better bet your bottom dollar that fact is communicated to people that do have a say.

I agree letters are great but it doesn't mean that is the only feedback you should give.

[pat_k]

23. Challenging anyone who promotes the bogus excuses. . .

. . .for refusing to impeach is critical if we are to make impeachment a reality.

Volunteers are important targets. They are active people. They are people who sustain and spread the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1020996&mesg_id=1023341">false memes and irrational excuses for refusing to impeach.

The establishment's resistence to impeachment is not limited to our elected officials. That resistence is supported by all the people who volunteer for, work for, and defend the establishment's refusal to impeach.

Breaking down that resistence is the key to making impeachment a reality. This is precisely the kind of simple and effective action that can do it.

[Duppers]

25. yes, but they have supervisors who have supervisors

who are on a payroll. They report callers comments, at least some of 'em.

[NMDemDist2]

26. see post 24

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3295578&mesg_id=3296780

[Carolina]

28. if they have the audacity to call

to troll for my money, then they should expect to get an earful. And I don't give a shit who or what the status of the caller is.

You better believe that enough negative responses and NO $$$$$$$$$ will get back to Nancy Pelosi!

[PADemD]

42. I volunteered on a phone bank for the 2004 election.

I think they'll get the message, even without a personal letter to Nancy Pelosi.

[enough already]

44. You think those volunteers aren't telling their bosses what feedback they are getting?

Wake up.

[calimary]

53. Bingo!

You hit it straight on the head. Look, they're all REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLL sensitive at the moment. They're having their heads handed to them by the folks at home who are mostly outraged that they caved to bush on Iraq. And you better believe there are republi-CONS hearing from THEIR folks at home who are equally angry that the war drags on so pointlessly and tragically. They are EXTREMELY sensitive to public opinion at the moment. ANY input is better than none. And yes, by all means register your feelings or demands for IMPEACHMENT with the front-liners on the phone. You better believe they're telling their bosses what they're hearing. They're probably asked to. Hell, they probably have reports to fill out about voter input/reaction. It could be as simple as putting check marks behind certain key words that keep coming up - a list with items like IMPEACHMENT, stopping the war, stop funding the war, immigration reform, stem cell research, abortion, etc. They check one of 'em off every time there's a mention. Then the supervisors count up the check marks and know what's getting the fiercest reaction and resonance with voters.

YES. Weigh in. With everybody and anybody. People talk. Word does get around.

[bdamomma]

5. bravo!!!!!

now if they called more people that had the same responses as you we may be getting somewhere.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

6. Yep. You whipped that poor volunteer into shape.

I'm sure s/he just gave up on the Dems too.

[greenbriar]

9. oh give me a fucking break

we must make a statement

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

12. Sorry I can't give you a 'rah, rah' for beating up

on someone who is volunteering their time to help the party.

[pat_k]

19. To make impeachment a reality, we must "beat up on" . . .

. . .the wrong-headed and self-destructive beliefs that stand between us and impeachment.

And those beliefs are not abstract things out there. They are held by PEOPLE. You debunk beliefs by challenging the people who buy them.

Volunteers are critical targets. These are active people. These are people who sustain and spread the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1020996&mesg_id=1023341">destructive memes and bogus excuses for refusing to impeach.

That volunteer is more likely to wake up to reality. That volunteer will be talking to others. These are the people we need to be waking up. I sure hope this is not the first time the caller has heard "call back when they impeach."

That volunteer is not just some employee taking guff for the acts of a corporation. The establishment's resistence to impeachment is not limited to our elected officials. That resistence is supported by all the people who volunteer for, work for, and defend the establishment's refusal to impeach.

Impeachment is not being blocked by 'the other side. It is rank and file Democrats who stand in the way. If we want to make impeachment a reality, we must "beat up on" those who stand in the way.

[TankLV]

14. If not now, when?

When, WHEN then exactly is a "good time" to voice our displeasure or insist on doing what's RIGHT?1

I think you did GREAT.

When they are ASKING FOR MONEY from us is the PERFECT time to voice our displeasure...

If we don't, then don't expect any changes for the better...

[pat_k]

20. . . .and more than that. . .

As I pointed out in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3295578&mesg_id=3296721">my response to wakemeupwhenitsover, we must do some "beating up on" the people who promote the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1020996&mesg_id=1023341">false memes that stand in the way of impeachment. The more politically active the person promoting the false memes is, the more critical a target. (Yep, that means going after "the good guys.")

Your act is precisely the type of simple but effective action that's going to make impeachment a reality.

[NMDemDist2]

24. I'm pretty sure the DCCC isn't using volunteers for fundraising

I think they use 3rd party commercial companies to make the fund raising calls.

If it had been a call for the OP's personal representative that would be a different story.

:hi:

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

29. If you're right & it wasn't a volunteer then I take it back.

If it was a volunteer, then I stand by my statement. If people want to vent then they can call the offices & vent (politely) to a paid staffer.

:hi: back atcha!

[burrowowl]

8. Good on You!

I hope his check sheet ahd a space for comments!

[Totally Committed]

11. Awesome...

I hope more take your courageous example.

TC

[ChiciB1]

13. I Called Them Right After The Vote & Told Them To "Get MY Name &

My Phone Number" off their lists! Don't call, don't write letters or even acknowledge me in any way.

Did the same thing to DSCC! I'm still with Howard Dean, but didn't contribute to the latest letter/poll that was sent to me!

I'm giving NOTHING until I see SOMETHING! I had been planning to find some way to get to D.C. this month and help out, but nixed that idea too!

[alfredo]

15. Fuck impeachment. War crimes charges or nothing. Being fired from

a job means nothing to a sociopath multimillionaire. The only way to stop him is to put him in a cage away from society.

Mitch McConnell will keep the Senate Republicans loyal to him no matter what. Mitch controls the RNC purse strings. Cross him and the campaign funds dry up.

[pat_k]

18. Declaring official acts intolerable to our Const. means everything. . .

Removal from office is NOT about "them." It is about US.

It is our declaration that "We Shall Not Tolerate This in Our America."

Prosecution for War Crimes is absolutely necessary for justice/retribution.

But impeachment is NOT about retribution. It is about enforcing our collective sovereignty over officials who betray our trust or attempt to usurp our authority.

[alfredo]

30. We can impeach, but removal will stall in the Senate. There are still

enough true believers that see bush as the Messiah and will block removal. Anyway, bush will run out the clock like he is doing with the war and global warming. Better idea would be going after his lackeys, put them on the spot, let them help build the case for war crime charges.

In many ways, bush has been neutered. We've gotten him in a corner. Sure he can still do a lot of damage, but that will only further damage his party.

We need to position ourselves as the party that will undo the damage done by bush and the republicans. I wish we could remove him today, pull our troops out immediately, but that's not how things work in DC.

[pat_k]

46. There can be no "undoing" by surrendering without a fight.

Bush Neutered? Are you kidding? Or has their criminally insane "Middle East policy" been transformed when I wasn't looking? Did they stop claiming unitary authoritarian power to break our laws at will? Did they repeal their War Criminals Protection Act? Are trading partners who have moved their business elsewhere coming back? (Nobody likes doing business with war criminals. As long as the USA is a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens, we aren't just morally bereft. The financial costs of being an international pariah are enormous.)

Each day Members of the House refuse to accuse they legitimize the lie of an all powerful unitary authoritarian executive that can violate our laws at will to "protect us." Each day they refuse to impeach they are complicit in everything Bush and Cheney do with the absolute power they are allowing them to exercise unchallenged.

Accusing/impeaching is the only way to break the bonds of complicity -- whatever happens in the Senate. Each Member who votes to impeach (House) and remove (Senate) will be saying "This is intolerable in a True America."

Impeachment isn't about "getting" them. It's about us. OUR rejection of them. It's about reclaiming our self-esteem as Americans.

The Congressional oath is not an oath to win; it's an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

Impeachment isn't just the RIGHT thing to do, it is the WINNING thing to do. By refusing to impeach, they exacerbate the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party when they could be solving them.

Their Number 1 problem is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to pea-shooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.

Their Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their violations in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" They have trapped themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

BTW. Articles of impeachment probably won't make it to a vote in the Senate. No Republican Senator wants to be forced to defend the outlaws in the WH against very specific and very grave charges. No Senator will be keen to defend the Pariah in Chief's "right" to spit in their faces and nullify the laws they pass as with the stroke of a pen, as he has done with hundreds of provisions, including McCain's anti-torture amendment which they passed 90-9. The Republican Senators who are already scrambling over each other to "distance" themselves from Bush will be parading up to the WH to do whatever they can to force Bush and Cheney to resign and hand the keys to Danforth, or some other Repub acceptable to the House and Senate.

What Bush and Cheney are doing is no different than what squatters do -- i.e., claim property though openly hostile possession. If the owner doesn't make any attempt to evict, they surrender their property. As long as some attempt is made, successful or unsuccessful, the owner has a case for retaining title.

Surrendering your house to squatters without a fight is nuts, but that doesn't compare to surrendering a nation without a fight.

More on that here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22">Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open.")

[pat_k]

49. P.S., on "bush has been neutered"

From Friday's Newshour:

There's also one fact about the Bush administration which underlies a lot of things that have happened. He is, as one staffer told me, liberated by unpopularity, that he is so low, "What the heck? Do whatever."
-- David Brooks, New York Times (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/sbimmigration_06-01.html">link)

Rather than being "neutered" Bush apparently feels "liberated."

Regarding "that will only further damage his party."

Since Republicans are running the other way and beating up on Bush themselves, the horrors Bush inflicts on the nation over the next 86 weeks are unlikely to take much of a toll. They are already gearing up for an all out rebellion at the end of the summer. They could even beat the Dems to the impeachment punch and get all the points for having the strength to fight with their big gun.

"They want to see Bush and Cheney dangling so the election is a referendum on them."
-- Tim Carpenter, Director PDA http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/NEWS07/706030669/1009">link)

A "referedum on Bush" is what the last election was about. Democratic wins had almost nothing to do with Democratic policies (i.e., almost nothing to do with "getting things done"). The election wasn't even "all about Iraq" or support for specific Democratic proposals for how to escape the quagmire. It was "all about" opposing Bush. It was about tossing out the Republicans enabling him. (Newsweek, http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">Reasons for Democratic Success)

Now the Democratic Congress is doing the enabling. Americans had high hopes that they would stop Bush and Cheney. Of course, impeachment is the only one way to stop an authoritarian who rules by signing statement. But the Democrats refused to run on impeachment and unfortunately the nation bought the pretense that they could somehow stop him in some other way.

America is now disillusioned. They'll be more disillusioned as the Dems take one empty gesture after another. Many will not be clear that it is the Democrats' refusal to impeach that renders the them impotent. But the reality speaks loud and clear -- the Dems are proving themselves to be too weak to stand up to Bush. If they are too weak to stand up to Bush, how can they be trusted to stand up to the "tirrists"?

With Bush heading out the door, there's no worry about enabling him. Election 2007 will certainly be a referendum on Bush's war, and for the racists in his base, his immigration policy, but since both Republicans and Democrats will be "running against Bush" leaving Bush and Cheney to steamroll the Democratic Congress as they wag their fingers and complain does Democratic candidates far more damage than good.

[alfredo]

50. The Reps may be "running away" but the fall in line when they

cast their votes.

Yes he may feel liberated, but he always felt he could do what he wants. He made it clear several years ago that he doesn't feel that he needs to explain himself to anybody.

[pat_k]

51. They haven't "fallen in line" on torture

Even assuming the omniscience of prognosticators who predict certain defeat in the Senate, so what? We've charged Members of the House and Senate with independent duties. When an official in the executive or judiciary abuses their power to betray the public trust or subvert the Constitution, the House has a duty to accuse. The Senate has a duty to judge charges brought by the House.

Whether the Senate as a body fulfills their duty by rendering a judgment that is consistent with the facts is irrelevant to the House. The only question that concerns Members of the House is whether or not they will carry out the duty they have been charged with.

To elaborate:

1. "Falling in line" to rescuse Bush and Cheney from removal means casting a vote that unequivocally puts them on the record
   
   
   • affirming torture (making them directly responsible for war crimes); and
   
   
   • affirming the Unconstitutional and Un-American fascist fantasy that the executive branch has absolute and unlimited power "to defend us;" a lie that strips them of power and makes the laws they pass irrelevant. (Cast a vote for unitary executive Hillary? Anyone? Anyone?)
   
   As I pointed out in the previous post, too few may be willing to do this to save Bush and Cheney. This not a vague assertion of belief, it is grounded in an examination of their past actions.
   
   They did not "fall in line" with Bush and Cheney on torture. They did the opposite. They "fell in line" to repudiate Bush and Cheney by voting 90-9 for McCain's anti-torture bill.
   
   They did not "fall in line" with White House demands on the War Criminals Protection Act either.
   
   Parties to Geneva are compelled to enact the conventions in their own laws. We met this obligation by enacting U.S. Code Title 18, Sec 2441, War crimes.
   
   The criminal Bush White House demanded a bill that "redefined" the statute to include torture. Some in the Senate were apparently bright enough to realize they were being asked to violate Geneva by codifying torture into the letter of the law; an act that would be in itself a war crime. They refused to do the dirty work, removed the offending definition, and left it open for the Office of the President to define (let him do the dirty work). Unfortunately for them, when they left the definition open, they were still committing a war crime by gutting the statute.
   
   These past actions demonstrate they the do not always "fall in line when they cast their votes." They also demonstrate that, to date, when it comes to torture, they have not fallen n line with the war criminals in the White House. It follows that they may not "fall in line" when called on vote to confirm our status as a War Criminal nation.
   
   Because the alternative -- voting to remove and hand the keys to Pelosi -- will also be repugnant to Republican Senators, it is reasonable to conclude that they are likely to go to extraordinary lengths to escape having to vote at all by forcing Bush and Cheney to resign and hand the keys to a Republican like Danforth -- somebody acceptable to the Democratic House and Senate, and who can give the party a "new face."


2. Far more importantly, ones beliefs about the outcome in the Senate are completely irrelevant to question of impeachment that confronts each and every Member of the House.
   
   The single moral tenet on which the US Constitution, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed. With each violation of our laws -- violations so abhorrent that violators are subject to the penalty of death under Federal law -- Bush and Cheney declare the principle of consent null and void.
   
   Members of the House are sworn to "support and defend" the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend us against threats that come from within the halls of power. Their oath is an individual oath. Whether they stand alone or with a legion, if a Member believes an official's abuse of power threatens the constitution, their oath demands they move to impeach.
   
   There is no greater threat to our constitutional democracy than a White House that arrogates unto itself absolute power. Members of the House have a duty to accuse and call on the Senate to remove. Not only is the outcome in the Senate irrelevant to their duty to impeach; it is not their place to divine the mind of the Senate.

[alfredo]

52. The question is: What do they fear more, the law or having

Mitch McConnell withhold campaign funds and/or back a well funded opponent in the primaries. Falling in line may not have anything to do with believing in or protecting bush.

[applegrove]

16. Just think how low * will be in the polls come 2008 if we don't impeach.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. heck, he might even lose re-election in 08 at this rate, huh?

sheeesh.

[applegrove]

47. What I meant was thousands upon thousands of repukes are taking

a second look at the GOP and beginning to think for themselves. That is what the 28% means. We are cutting into Bush base of voters. They are learning not to buy the marching band that the republicans are.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

48. I know. mine was a not so subtle

complaint that with this spineless congress, and with this neocon Supreme Court, I would NOT put it past Bush to declare martial law in 08.

[Dr Fate]

56. Just think how much GOP political capital would be destroyed if we were not too chicken to fight.

But I hear you- we all know the DLC and conservative types either side with Bush om impeachment, are frightened of him, or both.

Some of the "strategists" have even delluded themselves into thinking that FOX News watching Republicans will vote for Hillary.

What a joke.

That is why those spineless conservatives have more EXCUSES for NOT fighting Bush than they have WAYS to fight him.

[pat_k]

17. Cheers! Returning mail with "I pledge to give X when you Impeach Bush and Cheney"

. . .is another way to poke them.

[Nightjock]

21. Bravo!!!!!!

That was awesome.

[BrklynLiberal]

22. YES!!!!

[marlakay]

27. They are going to take a deep hit

I cancelled my democracy bond the day after the vote. My husband had told me 6 months ago to do it as he was angry at our government. I had been paying since they started 2 years ago.

I wonder how many others have done this. I had been putting off stopping it and after the vote it was easy.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

31. And withholding money & not volunteering is going to

accomplish what, exactly? Dems losing the majority? Is that a good thing? Are we going to hold our breath, stomp our feet & threaten to take our ball home if we don't get our way?

Look, I'm as pissed off as the rest about the funding bill. I'm also against impeachment, but I'm not going to try to censor anyone, or argue that point. But at this point, Dems are all I've got. I ain't voting green, I ain't staying home & I sure the fuck ain't voting repug.

[struggle4progress]

32. Thank you! Anybody who gives a damn should be busting butt to get rid ...

... of the criminal gang that has taken over our country -- even if the potential replacements aren't perfect.

[noamnety]

33. withholding money is necessary

If they vote for the occupation, and their contributions go up, they get the message that they will be reelected if they continue to fund the war.

If they vote for the occupation, and their contributions dry up, they get the message that they'd better find their spines and make a stand, or they'll lose their jobs.

Ditto with impeachment. (I tend to think in terms of ending the occupation, but that's not to diminish the OP's equally critical issue.)

If I had an employee who drank coffee all day and refused to work, I wouldn't be giving them a bonus if they requested one - even IF my only other candidate was an employee who drank coffee all day, refused to work, and played accordion polkas while I was trying to conduct business.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

34. I understand your position.

Unfortunately, what I think more likely to happen is that the Dems will lose their majority. After 6 years of no accountability I am happy to just be seeing some progress. And the way the repugs have fucked everything up, nothing is going to be fixed over night. The Dems have been in control for barely 6 months. I think that some have their expectations too high. And some have also failed civics classes & poly sci 101.

[noamnety]

35. It's a Hail Mary play

Option 1: We lose the country with the republicans.
Option 2: We lose the country, albeit at a slower pace, with the DLC.
Option 3: The Hail Mary. We blackmail the Dems with election funds in an attempt to force them to do what's right, and make it clear to them there IS no other option.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

36. I'm unwilling to risk it.

I see too many scary scenarios with this plan. I'm also pragmatic enough to read the polls & know that most voters are against impeachment. And I know how the Dems have struggled to get indies back in our corner. Now that we've got them I can't see doing anything to turn them off. (I doubt at this point many would go back to the repugs. At least, not right away.)

[noamnety]

39. I can understand that

and it's the logic many of my anti-dem friends used, when they were campaigning for dems at the last presidential election.

It comes down to your assessment of where we are, as a country.

Will the dems leave Iraq - even if they are elected? Or will they end up staying, because anyone who leaves will receive the political blame for leaving - as long as we stay, the disaster can be called "temporary" and blamed on the war "strategy." Hence all the political bs about how the war was "handled badly" - as if there was a good way to handle it.

If you think the DNC has pulled the party far enough to the corporate right that any of their candidates will continue to extend the war, then there is nothing to lose there.

If you think we'd leave Iraq if ONLY we had enough dems elected, then your strategy would be right.

Unfortunately their voting record and explanation leaves me believing we have nothing to lose.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

40. Here's my likely scenario:

In Sept it will be obvious that the surge didn't work. Repugs will be looking to pull out & cover their sorry asses & will vote with the Dems to limit funding & start troop withdrawal. Of course, the criminal part about this is that more soldiers will be killed/maimed. I wish that the Dems had at least sent the bill back to dumbya once more & forced him to veto it at least twice before they caved, but hopefully they had a good reason. And I'm thinking that they're waiting for repugs to join them. There was nothing that the Dems could have done to get the troops out right now. Not without a veto proof majority. And they had to twist arms & offer concessions to get the anti-war Dems to vote with them.

There is also no good way out of this Iraq nightmare. We've destroyed their country. I haven't heard of one half way decent solution. Electing Kerry when there was still a chance of correcting mistakes was our only hope. Now we're left with the knowledge that we'll leave a country to civil war. Until another dictator seizes power.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

38. if they don't further democracy, the their label is false advertising.

Rahm Me-animal is the perfect DLC example. internally, he beats on dems. externally, he caves to the GOP.
if he, as he tries to tell us every day, is the face of the democratic party, well, fuck them. Their being in the majority is no better than having a neocon in office. with one exception. Rahm's DLC will break our hearts a hell of a lot faster than the GOP fascists. They will only break our bones.

[NotGivingUp]

41. Excellent! nt

[enough already]

43. Well done

Frankly, it sounds like you were calmer than I would have been. God help the next one that calls here.

[greenbriar]

45. thank you

I tried but at the end, I was getting pissed, that is why I ended it. I had more I could have said but...

[Vidar]

54. Well done.

[Dr Fate]

55. I agree with the way you handled the call.

The last thing we need is DEMS thinking that letting Bush off the hook is a good thing.

No wonder team Bush wont respond to any congressional inquiries- they know the DEMS are "running out the clock" as much as the pukes & the media are.

Great answer- I wish they would call me so I could tell them the same...