About Pelosi bashing...DO THE MATH

[Highway61]

People do the math.

Fact is it does take 60 votes in the Senate to stop debate and bring a bill to a vote. Fact is the Senate breaks down as 49 Dems, 49 Repugs, and 2 Independents (one of whom is Lieberman...).

Ask yourselves, and be honest; how many times would Bushie had to use his vaulted veto if the Dems had 60 votes in the Senate?

Also ask yourselves, and be honest; how fast this illegal occupation would have lasted if the Dems had 67 votes in the Senate?

Finally we all know the political ramifications if the Dems were able to stop the funding? Wouldn't the Repugs and the corporate media have a field day with that one.

The truth is the only way out was if the country had elected 67 Democratic Senators in 2006. We didn't do that and are now living with the consequences.

Stop whining about the Dems and focus your wrath where it belongs on the Repugs!

[liberal N proud]

1. Pelosi is speaker of the House of Representatives

[Buzz Clik]

2. Now you're just playing semantics.

Picky, picky, picky.

[uppityperson]

3. shhh

[Captain Hilts]

6. In reference to impeachment numbers mean something. nt

[Highway61]

7. And what?

Last time I checked... bills don't go directly from the House to the President....they have to pass through the Senate....so here we are...Pelosi doesn't have a vote in the Senate....Ya with me yet? Perhaps you should have paid attention in 8th grade social studies class.

[kansasblue]

4. I did the math.

There have been budget disagreements in the past the government shutdown. We've got to play some brinkmanship here.

They could just refuse to fund. To send a bill that has what they want. Let it get vetoed, send it again. I'm not saying that is the best route when the troops funding are involved as that's very risky. But it is possible. We have enough votes to stop funding the war.

That's what makes me mad about Pelosi. She is a poorly educated speaker if she isn't aware of that option.

To pretend we don't have the option is irritating. It can be done. We have the majority.

[Kolesar]

9. And some Democrats who got elected in conservative districts in Indiana will get hammered next year

because they did not support the troops.

[Highway61]

10. I don't dispute that

So in other words do what Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress did in 1994....as for the results, take a look at the 1996 election. Do we want a repeat of that in this election...I think not.

[snappyturtle]

5. Who sets the agenda? nt

[Dukkha]

8. bullshit

Pelosi is just playing politics and trying to cover her own ass by cowering and consorting with the enemy. She clearly doesn't care at all about doing what is morally correct or representing those who put her on power. If that means virtually shutting down the government and starving out the war machine than so be it.

[Highway61]

12. Political suicide

Ok do it you way....shut down the government...DON'T fund the troops and then in 2008 the likelihood of a Republican President and GOP Congress ... Do we really want that?

[HereSince1628]

11. Remember the Alamo? That wasn't a tactical victory.

Sometimes a loss is more important than a victory.

11% approval for Congress suggests that the DCdems have lost support of the population. The Dems may NEED an Alamo more than a San Jacinto to win them back.

[Highway61]

13. So we want to go down like the Alamo????

Did anyone survive the Alamo? Helloooo? Besides the results of your tactical victory is the state of TEXAS!!!!

[HereSince1628]

20. We are talking about VOTES in congress, aren't we?

No body in Congress is gonna die over a lost vote.

But letting the vote count excuse keep the war going is damned sure to result in deaths every miserable stinking, smoldering, bloody day in Iraq.

What I am saying is that a defeat, even days of defeats on a vote that represents standing firm for a cause that 2/3 of Americans believe in can become a rallying point for the Demoncratic base, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans currently disillusioned with this Congress. Such a loss can actually serve the cause of the people and be a strategic win for the DCdems.

The problem is thinking that losing can only be negatively stigmatizing. That belief results in 11% approval ratings for Congress.

[sampsonblk]

14. No you didn't berate half the board with this dumb post

[Highway61]

15. Duh, What???

Am I over your head?

[JDPriestly]

16. When Clinton was president, Congress refused to pass a budget in protest.

He was forced to compromise with them. How about it, Pelosi? We control the House. Every time the Democrats get a little courage, the Bushies attack with one of their "There is noise of an imminent terrorist attack," threats, and the Democrats shake in their boots and pass the Bushies' laws. Democrats need to call them on it.

The Democrats need to realize that their only defense is to do what is right no matter what the threats. We are paying humongous amounts and relinquishing our civil liberties in order to defeat the terrorists. Enough is enough. If we can't defeat the terrorists with the tools that the Constitution puts at the government's service, then we are just going to have to realize that sooner or later we will not have the resources to fight them. We have to find some way to fight terrorism other than brute force (of which we will never have a sufficient supply if what we have now is not enough) and sacrificing the very freedom that we are defending. That is what we sent Congress to figure out. If they can't do it, we will replace them. Cindy Sheehan could be the first to unseat a "Democratic leader."

It is time. Bush's speech before the U.N. showed just how little actual influence and respect we now have after Bush's regime. Not one round of applause. It scared me. Bush has thrown away the leadership position of the U.S. in the world. There is now a void. Who will fill that void? I hate to think. There is the USSR, certain South American alliances, the European Union, China, India --- and some part of the Muslim world. Those are pretty much the choices unless we regain our international leadership position. It is a terrifying thought for those of us who believe in Western Enlightenment thought. What will happen to science? What will happen to human values? The thought is just horrible.

Those of us who oppose Bush have the support of the entire United Nations. The Democrats need to play that card. I know they will face criticism, but it won't be from their supporters. They are abandoning us. They are depriving us of our voice. Feinstein and Lieberman are the worst. Feinstein is betraying us out of self-interest which she convinces herself is patriotism and caution. I am a strong supporter of Israel, but I'm afraid that Lieberman is betraying the United States out of a mistaken idea that he has to do that to support Israel. I disagree with him about what is good for Israel. I do not think that lethal conflagration spread across the Middle East can possibly be good for Israel.

[Baby Snooks]

17. Thank you...

Pelosi could bring Congress to a screeching halt. The way the Republicans did. So why doesn't she?

The real terrorists, the real threats, are in the Senate and the White House. Impeach and removed Cheney, then Bush. If not, well, let the Bushes pull out their very big checkbook and pay for it all themselves.

The only way to stop this is for her constituents to recall Pelosi and put whoever succeeds her on notice. Impeach or face the same.

This "we need more Democrats in 2008" approach is insane. Does anyone realize what can and probably will happen in the next 15 months?

Does anyone really think the Democrats in the Senate would stop confirmation of another Nazi to the Supreme Court?

Does anyone really think the Democrats in the House would move to stop funding for a war with Iran?

Does anyone really believe in the ability of the Democratic leadership to lead? They are not leading. They are being led.

And we are being lied to.

[Highway61]

18. Reality is

I think there are a lot of Repugs in disguise here....just bashing...don't have the gonads to come clean. We have two choices in 2008 ...would you rather have more Dems in Congress or more Repugs? I don't care if Pelosi is at the top of the helm or not as long as it is a Dem...period. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely...but bashing I will NOT do here. We're suppose to be in the same boat rowing together....not bashing. If going that route, Bill-O has some openings on his show.

[Bitwit1234]

19. The house passes the bills --- don't you know they get stuck in the senate.

[depakid]

21. It wouldn't matter if the Dems had 67 votes

because the right wing of the oarty would STILL side with the Republicans.

[sendero]

22. Exactly..

... at this point I don't believe much would change if we did have solid majorities in the senate. We HAVE a solid majority in the house and WHAT HAS IT GOT US? Not a god damned thing, that's what.