RE: Pelosi with Blitzer this morning...anyone else fuming??

[polichick]

Impeachment is still off the table ~ the Dems can't do anything but keep "holding Bush responsible" for this war (and, presumbly, the next). The war is now owned by the Republicans in Congress.

[NotGivingUp]

1. What a fricking joke. Anybody falling for this crap has to be a total idiot. n/t

[polichick]

10. Yeah, I guess she thinks we're all idiots. nt

[snappyturtle]

39. I agree and she has been saying this a lot lately.

Here's a link I posted last week....exact same lines:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1920207

[Pachamama]

67. Pelosi is an idiot and she clearly thinks everyone is an idiot....

I had just finished watching Wolf Blitzer interview Seymour Hersh about his depressing article in this weeks' New Yorker re. the Bush Administrations determination to bomb Iran. Then some fat shit talking piece from the "Iraq/Bush Administration" who instead of talking about how crappy things are in Iraq, said something to the effect that Iran better watch it and learn a lesson from Saddam Hussein re. Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!! I screamed at the TV "Yeah, the ones he didn't have!!!!"

Then all that was followed by Pelosi claiming how the votes on the Iraq War now show that Bush's War is really owned by the Republican Congress....Is she effing crazy? Is that really what she believes and thinks the rest of America believes now? And then she followed with "Impeachment is off the table"..."the country doesn't need to be divided".

I got news for Nancy...the Country is divided and now they are even divided on the Democrats which they had looked to for answers and results. I felt so sick to my stomach and so disheartened this morning. Pelosi and the Dems in Congress offer no hope as far as I can tell and I can't even begin to describe my despair of what is to come. It's not looking good and she is clearly not going to change things.

[polichick]

69. Either there's an inexplicable disconnect between those on the Hill...

...and people like us in the real world ~ or there's a hidden reason that Dems have become such staunch enablers.

[Benhurst]

2. The founding fathers thought the speaker of the House was going to

be the most powerful figure in our government.

Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Impeachment is not an option, it's a Constitutional responsibility. Pelosi's position is indefensible. For shame!

Recommended #1 :kick:

[Kelly Rupert]

4. Then they really oughtn't have given the veto to the President and not the Speaker n/t

[Canuckistanian]

73. In our system, the Speaker is the tie-breaker

And the Speaker only gets to vote in case of an unresolvable tie.

I think it's a mistake to give the tie-breaking vote to an official of the ruling party's administration.

[sabbat hunter]

86. when the constitution was written

there were no political parties. Our first president didn't belong to a party.

[jmp]

75. She has a veto. She schedules the votes. (nm)

...

[polichick]

5. I don't know how Dems are supposed to keep "holding Bush responsible" if...

...they're not willing to impeach ~ just seems like double-talk.

[progpen]

53. Looks like the present bunch of Dem "leaders"...

desperately needs to be voted out of office to make room for REAL Democrats.

[mmonk]

91. By funding an escalation and putting oil deal benchmarks in.

[movonne]

3. This goes to show us that a good part of are party has been taken

over...the word is a coup...

[polichick]

6. She claims Reps in Congress now own the war and...

...are committed to being there for ten years.

[snappyturtle]

40. Yes I've heard her say this. Seems to me if the Dems don't as least

propose to cut back funding or discuss re-deployment in the House chamber (where it counts) the war belongs to the Dems too....or they're making it their own. I believe this is dangerous before a general election.

[polichick]

45. I agree, what they're doing (& not doing) is dangerous before a GE...

They look as if they're in support of the war or they're not willing to use their power to stop it. Either way, they lose. An ineffective party won't be appealing to voters.

[snappyturtle]

47. Amen and hallelujah! nt

[robinlynne]

58. so she thinks it's fine to keep the war going as long as she keeps her votes by saying it's not her

fault. Where's the integrity?

[Riddler]

7. "Fuming" doesn't begin to touch the depths of my displeasure.

I just sent her the following email, not that it will do any good:

"I was very dismayed to see you on TV this morning and once again proclaim that impeachment is off the table. You seem to take the attitude that impeachment is an option that is open to you. Most Americans, however, have taken the correct position that it is not merely an option, but a duty, and you, ma'am, have abdicated the duty you were duly elected to carry out. You and Senator Reid have made the Democratic take-over of congress a joke and reduced the party to a laughing-stock. To think that either of you will EVER have the spine to hold this administration accountable has ceased to be the joke it once was, and has turned into being a sorry legacy for your (hopefully short) reign as Speaker of the House.

You OWE the American people to hold this administration accountable and responsible for the high crimes and misdemeanors they have continually perpetrated on the American people. To do anything less is not acceptable."

[polichick]

9. Well done!!!

:woohoo:

[snappyturtle]

41. WHOA! Way to go!!!

:woohoo:

[Cha]

50. A Tragic Farcical

JOKE.

[LibDemAlways]

8. I'm trying to picture a Speaker of the House repuke

admitting to the press that his party is basically ineffectual - and I can't do it because it would never happen. When they are in control of Congress, the repukes take over completely. They won't even let Dems have an upstairs room for a hearing. Remember Conyers convening in the basement? When they aren't in the majority, they still damn well act like it, blocking legislation with every tool available and leaving Pelosi looking and sounding like a wimp. It's pathetic.

[polichick]

11. Exactly. I don't know if Dems think they're taking the high road...

But it amounts to being completely impotent.

[Benhurst]

12. And what sort of "high road" allows the Constitution to be shredded and

an unelected "president" near dictatorial powers? High road, indeed. Treasonous malfeasance is more like it.

[polichick]

13. I can't imagine what their real reasons are for not impeaching...

They say that nothing else would get done, AS IF they were taking the high road. It's crazy beyond words!!!

[defendandprotect]

16. They wasted nine months doing very little -- the investigations basically stopped by Bushco . . .

refusal to honor subpeonas and supply records --

What a farce this all is ---

[polichick]

19. It makes me wonder what we don't know about these folks...

What is it that's keeping them in line???

[snappyturtle]

42. When Bruce Fein was on Bill Moyer's Journal about six weeks

ago I got the impression impeachment wouldn't take all that long....the House part. The trial in the Senate might take some time but really when you think of all the investigations you'd think there would be just one fool proof cause for impeachment. It's not like they have to build a case.

[dmr]

70. Nothing get done? Yet they have the time to slap MoveOn & the American people?

Oh, puh-leese. After the last do nothing Congress, to boot? Holding Bush* accountable? How? and When? I feel quite forsaken.

[defendandprotect]

17. OK -- so nine months later -- what's Plan B, folks -- ????

[defendandprotect]

15. Absolutely! The Repugs have ruled as majority or minority -- Pelosi aids & abets Bush ---

[defendandprotect]

14. No impeachment means no accountability -- wake up, Pelosi!!!

Pelosi has to keep new funding bills for Iraq off the floor; if they reach the floor they will pass.

This is another opportunity for Pelosi to show what her true intentions are re Iraq/Bush ---

This is it, folks!

[polichick]

20. I guess the question is: What's behind Dem complicity...

REALLY???

[defendandprotect]

35. money . . . .

[snappyturtle]

43. It's gotta be. nt

[robinlynne]

59. yes that is the question. If we can answer it, maybe we can stop it.

[lonestarnot]

18. Bush could slit the throat of Red Rover and impeachment would still be off the table with

her. As the stomach turns.

[polichick]

21. Looks like it...

She almost seems afraid to do her job.

[lonestarnot]

22. Not afraid.

Something else like dough.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

23. Hold him responsible and keep writing the blank checks we weren't going to write

I know we're moments away from someone posting a response saying that we shouldn't use DU as a forum to attack our Democratic leaders (it happens in virtually every Pelosi thread on DU, especially when someone quotes the "off the table" remarks).

BUT...it's not about attacking Nancy Pelosi. I'm not attacking her right now by posting this. I'm asking a question.

It's about what the HELL does "holding Bush responsible" mean if he continues to get everything he wants? Does it mean more symbolic "signing statements" and more talk about not writing blank checks for the Iraq war as we are in the process of signing the latest blank check?

Sometimes I wish the people who feel compelled to tell us how we should and should not use DU would answer those questions as part of their fatwa.

:patriot:

[polichick]

25. 'what the HELL does "holding Bush responsible" mean'

To Wolf's credit, he asked what it means besides just complaining ~ but she just changed the subject.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

29. Wolf's becoming the new Tweety...

...and I say that without having the benefit of cable TV, since I gave it up a couple of months ago. But I follow the clips here and on Crooks & Liars, and Blitzer has had flashes in recent months of asking the right questions.

And yes, that's what I was getting at with my post...what, other than complaining, are we actually doing? Is Junior simply going to be allowed to run out the clock on Iraq and hand it off to the next president?

:patriot:

[Honeycombe8]

24. I'm not in favor of impeachment. It's very difficult to get a "conviction,"...

the evidence is all in the hands of the perpetrators, the Dems won't have the votes in the end, and it will cost millions and take months (if not years) to go through the investigations and hearing.

It would not be good for the country. The mess right now is just too bad.

Maybe if there's a way to impeach or censure him during the next administration, when things are more under control, and the Dems have access directly to some of the information, and people aren't as scared of retribution from the neocons as they are now......maybe then.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. He'll be relocated to his Paraguayan estate by then.

[polichick]

28. I'll bet quite a few will be "doing Halliburtons" before long. nt

[beaconess]

27. Oh, come on. Don't try to use logic in here!

We must impeach because it will make us feel good. Who cares whether it will be good for the country or even accomplish the ends we claim to want?

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

36. If you want accountability then you need impeachment -- listen to the Founders on that -- !!!

[snappyturtle]

44. I think impeachment would be the best thing that could happen

to this nation....and the world. Otherwise, we'll just be building on the "mess" and have more to dig out from under in '09.

[robinlynne]

60. did you watch the bill moyers' impeachment special? I recommend it. It changed

the way I view impeachment.

[jzodda]

30. I agree with her

We need to focus on 08. She is smart to not take her eyes off the prize which is the White house with a Dem House/Senate. Impeachment would totally distract from that goal. Impeachment should be off the table at this point. This is something thats only really popular around here, but not in the country at large. Many people call Bush a bum and want him out but won't go that far. I would rather have those people punish bush by voting for our side in 08 then possibly being pushed the other way by impeachment.

In any event impeachment is not something this nation needs to go through right now in my opinion.

[polichick]

31. But will people vote for a party that has proven itself so ineffective...

...in the face of such outrageous ~ and ultimately deadly ~ offenses??

[jzodda]

74. I hope so

If we can convince the population the truth, that we don't have 60 votes in the senate, the president is going to veto anything we really want to get done and the repubs are not interested in working with us on anything. Thats the definition of obstructionism to me. Bush used that message in 2002 mid terms and it apparently worked so now its our turn to get out the same message.

[democratsin08]

32. our candidates say we need to stay in iraq

they arent listening

[polichick]

34. Reminds me of those Dylan lyrics:

Something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

[Imagevision]

33. I'm calling for Jane Harman to replace Pelosi, (the real deal)

[KeepItReal]

38. You must not know my Congresswoman. Harman would do *LESS* than Pelosi

You need to think Maxine Waters.

[robinlynne]

61. Maxine Waters yes!!!!! I think she should replace Dianne Feinstein in the senate.

[cosmicdot]

48. this Jane Harman?

Why Jane Harman Should Be Challenged

Posted May 19, 2006

by Tom Hayeden

"Like Joseph Lieberman in the Senate, Harman was a forceful hawk on Iraq when Democrats were trying find a way out."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/why-jane-harman-should-be_b_21306.html


Probe of Harman's AIPAC Ties Confirmed

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; Page A06

Federal law enforcement sources confirmed yesterday that the FBI opened an investigation in 2005 into whether Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) improperly enlisted the aid of a pro-Israel lobbying group, but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

The inquiry focused on whether Harman had made promises to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in exchange for its support of her desire to become chairman of the House intelligence committee if Democrats take control of the House, several law enforcement sources said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401446.html

[mitchtv]

Well, Jane Harman needs a new position all right

However it should be selling Stereos, What a Dino, and a joke

[martymar64]

79. All Harman should replace is Crazy Gideon

Maxine Waters for Speaker all tghe way!

[robinlynne]

63. Jane harman was a staunch war supporter. She only changed her position after

the 2006 election when Marcy Winograd challenged her seat and showed her how easy it would be to lose that seat. Marcy got so many votes, with no money, no political backing, just grassroots door to door, that Harman started listening to Marcy. When Harman asked Winograd to meet with her to help plan strategy, Winograd, said to open the meeting to all her constitutents; that is who she needed to be listening to.
Thank-you Marcy!!!!!!!

[Moderate Dem]

37. I think that Impeachment would be a dumb idea

[snappyturtle]

46. To me, to not impeach is admitting

complicity with all of *'s war crimes. For the sake of our future administrations and our position in the world, we must show we're not going to put up with the destruction of the consitution and the way it has been interpreted.

[Honeycombe8]

56. The votes aren't there...the evidence in the hands of the perpetrators...the voters tired of

the voters tired of bickering and expensive hearings when the world is falling apart around them.

A long, protracted impeachment hearing that is almost certain to lead to...nothing but the loss of millions of dollars and diversion of attention from matters that affect American's everyday lives. That is a surefire way to hand the Republicans control of the executive AND legislative branch for a few years to come.

You either want to make a point...and lose the hearing and the elections coming up. Or you want to win the (election) war, and give up one battle.

[robinlynne]

65. You must watch the Bill MOyers' impeachment episode. It looks at impeachment through the

eyes of constitutional scholars, both dem and republican. Through the eyes of reason. It is about protecting our country, not about Bush as a person. You are looking at it through a frame which has been given to you by the republican media. Take another look, inside what the constitution and democracy itself say. It is not about onbe person, one president, it is about the entire process. It is the remedy put into the constitution for exactly this situation. It was misused with Clinton. But it is exactly what the forefathers would prescribe now, and did.

[Honeycombe8]

82. I am not looking at it through Republican eyes. I've never even heard a

Republican voice an opinion on the subject.

I understand completely why it is usually necessary to go after anyone, esp. someone in a high office, for breaking the trust, breaking the highest law of the land.

But I also believe that this time period is critical. That to waste time and money on impeachment hearings that the majority of the voters do not want, would hand over the presidential election and possibly several congressional elections to the Republicans. The effect would be to allow the criminal party to complete its mission, thereby totally taking over the Justice Dept and the legislative branch. The harm would be irreparable.

I believe there's time to roll back some of the harm, IF a Dem. gets into the presidential office AND if more Dems are elected to Congress.

That won't happen if there are impeachment hearings. I can almost guarantee it. A redux of Clinton hearings on impeachment is NOT what the citizens want. Whether impeachment is warranted or not.

See analogy I posted in another post:

Your child is hit by a driver. She lays injured in the street. The driver takes off. The dilemma is: Do you leave your daughter, and go after the driver, so that there is justice and accountability? Or do you help your daughter, and let the driver get away, hoping that in the future you can get that driver?

I choose the latter option.

Many people simply will not vote for a party that puts impeachment ahead of what's best for the country...and right now, we need all of our money, time, and energy to tackle the wars and healthcare. People's lives depend on it.

[snappyturtle]

66. My point is the loss of democracy with its inherent constitutional rights.

What is more important than that? Not even an election is more important.

If this administration's assumption of unitary executive power isn't curtailed,then what hope do we have for whoever wins the election? I haven't heard one presidential candidate, republican or democrat, say he/she would give back the powers bush has assumed. Have you? That is a huge.

Failure to stand up, to continue to bow to the whims of the republicans and/or bush will prove we are the weak sisters we have been showing ourselves to be. However, I think this country is so fed up with the bush administration we will still win in spite of our weaknesses altho it would be a closer race than necessary. Either way we will not win in the long run.

I urge you to listen to Bill Moyer's Journal episode July 13th I think. Please listen to it. You will see how absolutely necessary impeachment is. If you listen to this and still feel the way you do and there is no impeachment I'll see you in the new world Amerika that won't be a pretty place.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Click on Watch & Listen or read the transcript of the program. It's compelling!

[Honeycombe8]

81. What way to hurt our Constitution (that's what you're talking about) than to hand

over the government to the same party that has done the damage. The takeover would become complete with another 4 or 8 years.

Analogy: Your child is hit by a hit and run driver. She lays injured in the street. The driver is getting away.

Dilemma: Do you leave your injured child and run after the driver, so that there is accountability and justice? Or do you let him get away so that you can try to save your daughter? And then hopefully get some semblance of justice and accountability, after she is safe?

I choose the second option. I think our country is in that much danger. Yes, I think the harm done by * and his cohorts was unconstitutional and criminal. But he is still President. He holds the cards. The Dems don't have a strong majority in either house. There is almost no chance of prevailing. And there is the inevitability that issues crucial to the country will go unattended to because of the time wasted on impeachment.

[pgh_dem]

92. False Analogy

This situation is much more like the driver keeps coming around the block in an easily identified vehicle, hitting kid after kid, as well as anyone who tries to assist them.

At some point you have to at least park a car across the intersection to keep the jerk away while you tend to the wounded.

In my opinion, the analogy would be most apt if the hit-and-run car is a limo carrying the mayor and the chief of police to a "Get Tough On Crime (Through Privatization)" fund-raiser.

[martymar64]

80. It may come down to impeachment or revolution

People out there are angry. The last time they were this mad was in April 1992. That was the month that L.A. burned. Things are much worse now. Think L.A. riots cropping up all over America. Would you rather have that? When people out there finally get fed up with the ineffective response from our officials, they take their frustration out into the streets.
I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen it happen before.

[polichick]

85. We definitely need a REVOLUTION...

I'm just not sure what kind of a revolution it should be ~ an economic one of some sort? The founding of a viable third party led by someone with the stature of Gore?? Simply bombarding Congress with endless phone calls???

My latest YouTube video is called "It's Time For A REVOLUTION" ~ the result of last week's Congressional horrors:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b92G_9OSsSw>

[grasswire]

49. she's acting like a battered wife

I just realized it. Pelosi is displaying the traits of a woman who is living with an abuser or an alcoholic.

Is there alcoholism in her family? Was her father an authoritarian? Wow. The possibilities are frightening.

[polichick]

52. You're right, "the possibilities are frightening"

I hope she isn't actually afraid ~ I hope she has no reason to be.

[Sapphire Blue]

55. "And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash...

... the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights."

- Mel Gilles, from The Politics of Victimization

The Politics of Victimization
Submitted by Mel Gilles on November 7, 2004 - 10:11pm.

{Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross}

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse.

We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don’t know how.

Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you. You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong. You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser. Don’t let him dictate the terms or frame the debate (he’ll win, not because he’s right, but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots campaign, cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system to make it failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the other side. But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless, cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, “loose”, irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history.

Even if you do everything right, they’ll hit you anyway. Look at the poor souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education. And they don’t even know they are being hit.


http://www.mathewgross.com/node/336

[polichick]

64. Thanks for this...

Sad but so true ~ and when the Dems call for partisanship in a climate like this they are foolishly thinking those same abusers will help them.

[grasswire]

71. thank you for this post

As the survivor of a marriage to a pathological narcissist who was an emotional abuser, I should have recognized Pelosi's characteristics sooner. I'm sure that Karl Rove spotted the weaknesses pronto.

[BlueStater]

51. To all those who oppose impeachment

Do you have any ideas on how we should hold this asshole accountable after he leaves office or are you just going to allow to walk away scot-free without any punishment whatsoever for all the damage he has done to this country? I really hope it's not the latter because that doesn't say much about you.

[polichick]

57. Good question...

People act as if members of this administration will stick around to face the music when their terms are over ~ FAT CHANCE!

[snappyturtle]

68. I agree with you plus the powers, the unitary executive powers, that

bush has over reached to achieve will be passed on. I posed a few replies back: Have you heard of any presidential candidate, democrat or republican, who has said they would give these powers back? I haven't heard one....very scary.

[Sparkly]

54. I was fuming at Wolf's "questions."

He was ridiculous.

I DO think Chimp and Cheney should be investigated and impeached, but her stance wasn't news.

[polichick]

62. For once, Wolf asked the critical question...

Paraphrased: How do the actions of this Democratic Congress amount to anything more than complaining?

It's exactly what I wanted to know ~ too bad there's no satisfactory answer. You can't keep funding and refusing to impeach, and then claim you're doing much more than complaining. Also, just pointing the finger at how bad Bush is when you aren't willing to stop him won't help Dems get elected in 2008.

[roguevalley]

72. she's a complete prick. what do they have on her? naked pictures?

complete total prick. dump her, cally. do it next election.

[4_TN_TITANS]

76. The interview made me sick too..

Okay! We can plainly point to Repugs and say they own the war - BIG F'n DEAL. The treasury continues to bleed, soldiers continue to die, Iraq continues to spiral out-of-control, etc.

Looks like we got stuck with a professional finger-pointer folks, not someone with solutions.

[polichick]

77. Here's Gravel's take on what should happen in Congress:

Is he correct???

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OGN4FpIG54>

[polichick]

78. I really want to know what you folks think about Gravel's suggestion...

...so I'm popping this YouTube clip back up.

I'm no expert on legislative procedure ~ would this work??

[sentelle]

83. Pelosi unqualified

An effective speaker 'finds the votes', however way it needs to happen. This is what Ford did, as did LBJ, for instance.

Pelosi doesn't seem to be able to do this: this is a quality of leadership. If she cannot do this, she cannot lead.

Let's find a house speaker, who can find the votes.

[calteacherguy]

84. Way to late for impeachment. We need to focus on the future, and the election. nt

[Carolina]

89. what friggin future!

1)These crooks will walk away with impunity

2)The Dems MAY not win because even hardcore, lifelong Dems like me are so disheartened by our Dem leadership's spinelessness (for lack of a better, all encompassing word to describe the betrayal of the voters, the Constitution and even the core values of the Party). It's still a long way 'til November 2008 and another year of Dems doing nothing but complaining renders them less than useless.

3)Depleted treasury, depleted military, crumbling infrastructure, disastrous climate change, corporatocracy, waning healthcare, waning wages ... What friggin future?

The future is now and it is bleak. Seems that Pelosi is only concerned with the next election and maintaining her personal power. God knows why since she has used it for naught. May we replace her and those like her with REAL DEMOCRATS or A REAL OPPOSITION PARTY.

[polichick]

87. It's Time For A REVOLUTION!

Last month's Congressional votes were so disturbing to me I just had to put the energy somewhere ~ it helps to be creative!

Please check out my new YouTube Video, It's Time For A REVOLUTION: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b92G_9OSsSw>

[Whisp]

88. what to do....

this is an impossible situation. (and I think it was deliberately fashioned in this way, looks more like a big dangerous profitable game played by both parties that most of us are not truly aware of.) Do you vote for the democrats that now do have some power and refuse to use it - hoping that when the next Democratic president is elected that all things will fall in place and be fine or at least work toward it? 100 days are way over and things don't look any finer to me at all so why should I believe that?

total messdom. I have no idea what the answer is except get rid of the one party system that is fed by big industry dollars. but that can't be done, they have all the power and money.

truly sad impossible situation. Our kids and grandkids will be hating us for our inability to DO something about it.

[polichick]

90. I'm finally getting that a lot of Dems in Congress...

...are invested in staying in the Middle East for one reason or another.

[Disturbed]

93. Gravel's suggestion would work but neither Pelosi or Reid have

the spine to carry it out.

[Whisp]

94. I think it's more self interests and wallets than spine.

got to give it to them, they do have spine. Not the kind we are looking for tho.

[polichick]

95. They might not have the spine...

But they sure as hell have plenty of gall!