Okay, on Keith Olbermann I hear the Dems are going to give Bush

[babsbunny]

the money he wants to continue this illegal war! There is only one way to explain what we have here, it is Blackmail! There must be some skeletons in the closet, and these people who are controlling OUR country have alot of shit on the Dems that we voted into office! There is no other explanation for the total disregard for what WE The People said in the last election!

[polichick]

1. It's so upsetting I hardly care about the election anymore...

Who the hell are these spineless people???

[ananda]

2. I'll tell you who they are..

Those people are scared or bought or both.

[Auntie Bush]

4. Maybe some of them are friends with Jeff Gannon. n/t

[polichick]

6. Who are they afraid of? nt

[cali]

35. That's simple. No need for complex theories.

They're afraid of losing in the elections next year.

[polichick]

56. But they're alienating the base with this cowardly stuff...

I've been a Dem all my life, but if Gore were to run as an indie I'd jump ship in two seconds flat. Spineless Republican Lite Dems are making the Democratic Party obsolete.

[Totally Committed]

58. Absolutely ditto! I wouldn't even think twice!

TC

[TomInTib]

3. You better believe it.

Remember when they were ramming through the Medicare deal and they had that Rep who just happened to be a doctor over to the WH?

When he came out on the steps to announce his support (which was very key to passage) his face was absolutely ashen.

There are damned few in Washington (or anywhere else for that matter) who wouldn't go to any lengths to keep certain skeletons in the closet.

[Beaverhausen]

5. Who said that?

I'm recording KO for later. Who said they are giving Bush the $$$?

[babsbunny]

9. Keith said it

[rodeodance]

43. There was an article in LBN about this yesterday

[valerief]

7. Unless the Dems, like the Rethugs and Neocon Gang, are personally benefitting

from the raping of the U.S. Treasury.

[billyoc]

8. They're afraid of losing elections in red districts by being accused of being

"soft on defense". They know they'll NEVER lose in blue districts, Democratic voters have nowhere
else to go, so they're playing to the red voters.

[Major Hogwash]

12. Bingo.

As Don Rickles would say, "You get a cookie".

I agree with your assessment totally.
Congressmen that are not in so-called "safe" districts have to vote for certain issues whether they are liberals or conservatives in heavily contested areas of the country.

People at DU think that just because they live in a liberal area where their Congressmen can vote liberally and get re-elected every single time, that everyone lives in such an area.

The Democrat that is running against Senator Larry Craig from Idaho next year is almost as conservative as Larry is, even though he calls himself a Democrat.

[rox63]

10. Maybe several of them have been wiretapped and are being blackmailed based on what was heard n/t

[cheddar99]

11. It is a pattern of coercion

used by the rethugs. Remember Nagin after Katrina? Swearing, cursing the president. Twenty minutes inside air farce one and he was a good little puppet. They use intimidation, threats, blackmail, and bribery in a very effective way. Very few are not vulnerable, and those who don't "play ball" are usually isolated.

[polichick]

13. They might as well all be Republicans at this point...

It's the Great American Sell-Out!

[brentspeak]

14. Oh, ok. So who was it who grilled Alberto Gonzalez before the Senate Judiciary Cmte?

Was it the Republicans?

:eyes:

[polichick]

15. And yet, when it comes to the most important thing...

...the lives of our sons and daughters, as well as Iraqi civilians, they fold. NOT ACCEPTABLE!

(The thing is, it didn't cost them anything to grill Gonzalez. That was a distraction from the difficult things.)

[brentspeak]

16. Thanks for your "concern"

You've racked quite a bit of "concern" in such a short time on DU.

[polichick]

18. What do you mean "concern"? nt

[Atman]

25. Brent is calling you out as a "concern troll." It's against the DU rules.

He's obviously not a DK supporter, and so he's taking a cheap shot at you.

It's the way of DU.

.

[polichick]

26. Ohhhh, lol

I'm hardly "concerned" ~ I'm disgusted, outraged and pissed as hell! There, that should clear up his confusion.

(Just for the record, I'll support whichever Dem gets the nod unless Gore runs as an indie. For now I'm just watching the players and commenting on what I see.)

[polichick]

27. And thanks for the explanation!

One more question, if you don't mind. Is a "concern troll" supposed to be a Republican in disguise ~ or what?

[Atman]

28. I think the theory is that fake supporters express "concern" about an issue

in order to bring negative attention to it. IOW, if I were a Hillary supporter, I'd shoot myself. No, wait, that's not it. :)

Seriously...the premise is that the supporter of a particular candidate or position pretends to support another candidate/position and posts about how much they'd like to offer support but that they're "concerned" about some negative aspect of that candidate/position. Supposedly as a means of pointing out the bad without having to actually come right out and saying "_______ sucks!"

Now that you have a star, you can search for more concern trolls.

:hi:

.

[polichick]

29. Thanks again...

What a crazy place! :)

[Forkboy]

33. Grow up

Stop trying to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as a fucking troll.

And what's worse,you don't even have the guts to come right out and say it,you hide behind the latest trendy code word.No wonder you support the cowardly actions of some Democrats...they reflect you perfectly.

[brentspeak]

37. Do you work hard at being intellectually dishonest, or does it come naturally to you?

Please demonstrate when I have ever labeled "anyone" a troll for the reason that they "don't agree with me", or otherwise shut up.

[Forkboy]

40. Please,don't play me or DU for being stupid.

Why else the quotes around "concern"? Talk about intellectually dishonest.You're providing Exhibit A.

Like I said,you don't have the guts to come out and say it,but anyone with eyes and the ability to read knows what you meant.

[sampsonblk]

20. Haven't you heard? We don't have enough votes to say no

Plus all of us liberals are stupid and selfish. We need to learn to compromise, and accept what we can get, like having our Reps say bad things about Gonzales.

Because the non-cave-in back in May was a clever way to put Bush in a no-win situation by September. We were just too dumb to realize the brilliance of it. And now, after the cave-in this September, he will be in an absolutely impossible situation by late 2009, when he's back in Crawford laughing at us. Yeah, that's it. We will have made him powerless!

[polichick]

22. Oh dear, please forgive my outrageous expectations...

I must've lost my true blue liberal head for a moment! :)

[sampsonblk]

19. That's nothing. I don't get your point.

[brentspeak]

38. It's "nothing"???

Care to explain whatever the heck that's supposed to mean?

[sampsonblk]

44. What does grilling Gonzales do for me or anyone else?

I don't see how that's a fair trade-off for standing up to Bush. It really doesn't amount to anynthing and it comes at no cost to the grillers. Its just talk, after all.

[brentspeak]

47. So, what you're saying is that Gonzales DIDN'T resign?

Do I have that correct? Alberto Gonzales wasn't forced to step down from office as a result of the Democratic-led hearings against him?

:crazy:

[sampsonblk]

50. Yeah. Exactly.

It was time for all admin employees who were leaving to go ahaed and leave. So he left. Rove left first. Tony Snow is leaving. This is not about Gonzales being 'forced' out. He was embarrassed, but he wasn't forced out of anything.

If none of this had happened, its likely he would have left at the same time.

In any event, even forcing out the AG wouldn't be a fair trade-off for standing up to Bush.

[AtomicKitten]

17. stunning

[sarcasmo]

21. We no longer have two parties, we have Corporate Whores to Lobbyists.

Politics has turned into, who can make the most illegal money without getting caught.

[IndianaGreen]

23. And how many of you bad-mouthed Kucinich for voting against funding bills?

Including those with benchmarks?

Dennis knows the bullshit dance that it is being played in Washington. Dennis knows that the Democratic Congress does not have a Constitutional mandate to act on a money bill. All Congress has to do is NOTHING.

Democrats have enough votes in the House to prevent any bill from coming to the floor, and back Pelosi if she chooses to not act on a war funding bill.

This war will go on for as long as the Democrats refuse to bite the bullet and defund it.

Bush had got all the Congressional Democrats figured out. Do you want the biggest moron in history to run circles around you? No? Then put impeachment back on the table!

[polichick]

24. imo they shouldn't have let any funding bills come to the floor...

...after they took office in January. I agree, it's the only way. This is ludicrous! The leaders could have chosen a couple of great speakers to explain it if they were worried people wouldn't get it.

[rucky]

30. What skeleton is so bad they'll sell out the Constitution and our military

over?

I mean, if the Secret service has pictures of Nancy Pelosi peeking through a bathroom stall, and she's so vein to hand over billions of taxpayer cash that we don't even have over it, then she doesn't care any more than the GOP does. There's no excuse. There is absolutely nothing powerful enough to hold over an individual. The best way to fight blackmail is full disclosure - what you did and how you're being blackmailed for it.

I'm not saying you're off base, I'm just saying...

[avrdream]

31. It sure makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I hate to be all doom-and-gloom but someone tell me why we worked so hard to get this "majority" in Congress please. Very frustrating, indeed.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Kleptocratic Duopoly & War Party Inc.

That is the simple reality of the system of government that has infested Washington.

[Supersedeas]

52. vested interests on both sides of the aisle....what's an aisle anyway

[DCKit]

53. Well, we could elect a crop of total outsiders/unknowns with a 50% turnover rate every 4 years....

And get our Congress back. You don't have to be a liar... err, lawyer, to be a Congresscritter, but it sure helps in raking in the corporate cash without getting caught.

As for the Senate, I have no clue. But I'll bet that Lieberman's constituents are a smarter bunch now.

Basically, we need to begin electing people who are interested in public service, not perks, money and power.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. If Congress gives permission to wage war and continues to fund it, is it actually illegal?

:shrug:

[Apollo11]

36. Not an illegal war since they got a UN mandate

Like it or not - the US and British Military are in Iraq right now with the approval of the UN Security Council, to help with "maintaining order" and training the Iraqi security forces.

Even if you think the original invasion was probably illegal (in some ways - it's a grey area), it's difficult to say that right now the US Military is fighting an illegal war in Iraq.

[sampsonblk]

46. Better to refer to it as an 'illegal invasion'

Yep. At this point, the war is legal.

[sabbat hunter]

39. he actually said

that the blue dog democrats will give bush teh money.

that between the blue dogs and the republicans there is enough votes to pass a spending resolution.

[jmp]

49. Except there isn't.

Don't bring the bill to the floor, and no amount of votes will pass anything.

[sampsonblk]

51. That's the ticket

Gonna take some guts though. There are appeasers and apologists (even on this board) waiting to vigorously support caving in.

[sabbat hunter]

55. I would prefer

it get brought to the floor so we can see who the blue dogs are, who really wants to get us out. The only way the money should be added is if there is a firm timeline for withdrawl.

We need to spend the money unfortunately, because otherwise our soldiers on the ground will suffer. But we MUT make sure that the spending resolution is tied to a withdrawl schedule. Then let * veto it and we can hammer him back that he doesn't support the troops because he vetoed the spending resolution.

Dare him to veto it. then use it against him

[polichick]

57. Exactly...

Just like Reps didn't bring the paper-trail bill to the floor before the 2004 election. The difference is Reps were trying to prevent a democratic election ~ Dems would be trying to end a false war. Unbelievable!

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. Or maybe this was part of the deal to give up Rove-Gonzo & Cheney?

[rodeodance]

42. He also has the NEW support of a few new Dems who NOW believe that

the surge just needs a little more time. yup.

[tridim]

45. Have any Dems actually said they'll support the $50b?

I've only heard speculation up to this point. It seems like the "Dems will support it" meme has been floated by the WH and nobody else.

[gasperc]

48. Protection money

fuck you pay me or I'm gonna let the terrorists get you

[windy252]

54. Something I've wanted to say on this topic.

While I certainly don't put it past Bushco to blackmail the Dems, I find it hard to believe that every single one of them has done something that terrible or that not a single one is willing to take a risk and say that they're being blackmailed and possibly saying what it exactly is they're being blackmailed with so Bushco no longer has that kind of leverage. I kind of think there's something else at work here, but I don't know exactly what it is.