Rec. this if you think it's time for PELOSI and REID to be congratulated.

[JohnnyCougar]

Come on. This is silly. Pelosi and Reid are awesome. I especially like Reid. They made McCain and the Republicans look like fools on the bailout. They governed under the radar over the last two years to allow President Bush to take all the blame for the direction this country is headed. They have allowed us to build a coalition that allows Democrats to get serious stuff accomplished in the next decade.

Let's not throw it all away to support some fringe ideologues that will only appeal to about 10% of the population. The Republicans threw their majority away by governing from the far-right. We don't want to do the same by governing from the far-left.

[Danger Mouse]

1. I hope that we can find a better speaker than Pelosi.

She's been terrible.

[az chela]

15. I am sure you cant find a worse one than pelosi

[Danger Mouse]

19. Sure you can. Joe the Plumber, maybe.

[peace13]

Nothing against them as long as they walk away peacefully.

Soon would be good.

[peace13]

2. Nothing against them as long as they walk away peacefully.

Soon would be good.

[april]

3. Pelosi need to be replaced!

[Zombie2]

5. Agreed

[Dr Fate]

4. If Obama is fine with them, I'll give them another chance.

Maybe he wants leaders who are proven to be malleable.

[scarletwoman]

6. How much are they paying you?

:rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Congratulated for what, exactly?

The bailout? That is your entire list?

I think the bailout is a corrupt piece of bullshit and that the compromise worked out to get it passed was another typical capitulation by our vaunted congressional leaders. Never once have they waited for the other side to blink.

I have held back for six months. Now that the election is over, my public views on our pathetic congress are not going to be withheld. Horrible, weak, corrupt.

Congratulations Harry and Nancy.

[Pale Blue Dot]

8. Yeah. They've been great.

:eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Anyone who thinks impeachment was ever a good idea or would have been successful is an idiot

The votes were never there for a conviction in the Senate, and it would have been more of a DISTRACTION than anything else.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Yeah it was just crimes against humanity after all.

no biggie.

[JohnnyCougar]

34. Impeachment would have brought down the George W. Bush brand

Instead, they let Bush bring down the entire Republican party with him. I don't see what's so bad about that. I guess I value political strategy more than moral purity, though. But what good is moral purity if you don't have the power to govern?

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. You do know how many votes are required to convict in the Senate, yes?

Two-thirds majority. That's 67 votes. The votes weren't there, they were never there, and we couldn't have gotten 16 R's to switch. So, allowing for the fact that conviction was not a possibility, and that the circus of an impeachment trial would have distracted the Senate from other business, and been spun by the Republicans as politically--motivated payback for the Clinton impeachment, can you explain to me exactly what the point would have been?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Do you know where an investigation with subpoena power would have lead?

I don't. I'm wondering if we ever will. Instead the secrets of the Bush Cabal, the truth about what happened between 1998 and 2008, may never see the light of day.

[Marsala]

46. What subpoena power?

The same subpoena power that dragged Rove before Congress and made him testify? That subpoena power?

[Warren Stupidity]

47. An impeachment is an entirely different matter.

That is the point. The investigation would have been exceedingly difficult to derail or avoid.

[JohnnyCougar]

51. Sorry. I think building a permanent majority of our own is far more important

than punishing Bush. Punishing Bush won't reverse the past, but building a solid majority will ensure it doesn't happen again in the near future.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. thanks for the false dichotomy

any other fallacies you want to share?

[Independent_Liberal]

72. There, you say you care more about political gain than the law and constitution.

The anti-impeachment crowd has really shown their true colors these past couple days.

[JohnnyCougar]

73. I am proud of my colors.

In the minority, Democrats are powerless to uphold the law. Putting ideals always above political strategy causes parties to lose power. Why do you hate the constitution?

[Independent_Liberal]

75. I DON'T hate the constitution!

You're totally off on that. What I'm saying is we should always make sure we work to apply the rule of law and constitution when we're aware of wrongdoing regardless of what effects it may have politically.

[JohnnyCougar]

84. But if you ignore the political side effects, you won't have the power to apply the rule of law.

I never want to go back to the period between 2002 and 2006. Never ever. Making sure the Republicans don't regain control of this government is more important than anything else right now.

[Old Codger]

26. Maybe

Might well have been sorta useless but damn sure would have felt good, would have looked good too, might have gone a long ways to show the world that we still believe in the rule of law and that there are repercussions to breaking those laws, you bet it would have been a distraction, but it would have been a GOOD distraction... Fuck it imeach the asshat NOW.....

[Runcible Spoon]

97. exactly. it would force every politician to put ON RECORD whether or not they support impeachment

that alone would be worth the effort. Americans hate Bush, rightfully blame him for many things, and would like to know how their representatives stand on the matter.

[Independent_Liberal]

71. So, we're idiots because we want to defend the constitution and rule of law?

Thanks for pointing that out to us!

:sarcasm:

[Double T]

10. Pelosi and Reid must go now.

Both haver presided over the MOST unfavorably rated Congress; no excuses, they should step down and be replaced immediately.

[az chela]

16. yes they have supported bush long enough

[leftofcool]

11. You mean the bailout that didn't work?

[JohnnyCougar]

33. I think people are misreading what I posted.

I make no claims as to whether the bailout itself was a good idea or not. All I'm saying is that they made the Republicans look pretty stupid over it.

[JVS]

12. Best $700,000,000,000 ever spent!

Oh wait, no.

[RollWithIt]

13. Reid more so than Pelosi... but they definitely deserve kudos...

Strong leadership, even though that isn't the prevailing on this board it seems.

Three years ago we were in the minority. Now we have massive majorities and a very organized party.

[Raineyb]

100. Strong leadership?

How exactly is it strong leadership to cave to the Republicans when you have the power to kill a bill by not allowing it to come to the floor?

How exactly is it strong leadership to cave and squash a bill because the Republicans threatened to filibuster it without making the bastards go to the floor and actually do the filibuster and tell the American people why they are against things like SCHIP?

These two spineless, feckless excuses for leadership needs to step down so someone with a spine can do the job properly.

Regards

[Tarc]

14. crickets...

[Occam Bandage]

18. They're both pretty good at obstructing and blame-shifting,

but I'm not convinced that either will be good at forming legislative majorities for change.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

22. Agreed. I'm not impressed with Pelosi's or Reid's leadership, or lack of it.

Congressional leadership needs to change as well.

[Uzybone]

20. I agree

Our congressional leaders deftly handled the bailout and made McCain and the GOP look worthless. They made the absolute best of the turd sandwich that Bush and Paulson handed them.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

21. aaaaaaah, comedy! love it. K/R!

[bvar22]

23. "They made McCain and the Republicans look like fools..."

And it only cost our children $850 Billion Dollars.

Now we got Your Children's Money too!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!



*Fully funded every War Appropriation without any timelines or concessions of any sort.

*Took impeachment "Off the Table" telegraphing to Bush and friends a free pass to do anything without ANY Congressional oversight.

*Confirmed a Criminally Complicit NeoCon "Yes Man" to be the Attorney General (Mukasey)

*Granted the telecoms immunity and endorsed Spying on Americans without oversight.

Can you name an issue where they actually opposed anything Bush demanded....or even an occasion where they got a concession before giving Bush everything he wanted?
I'm glad no one was expecting them to actually act like the leaders of the Opposition Party.


Yeah, Harry and Nancy have been brilliant....just fucking brilliant!

[JohnnyCougar]

37. Bush will get his due. You just have to be patient.

They can do a lot more with a permanent majority than they could have been from trying to be minority obstructionists.

[Raineyb]

101. Could not agree more! n/t

Regards

[TBF]

24. You forgot your sarcasm tag. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

25. The Pelosi/Reid era should vanish from the pages of time

America can do better. Really.

This election has proven it.

[NoPasaran]

27. More a Pelosi fan than Reid

But I appreciate their efforst in the last Congress and look forward to them working with President Obama.

[petgoat]

28. Since when is defense of the Constitution a "fringe" ideology coming from the far left?

[JohnnyCougar]

50. Since when was building a strong governing majority a reason to kick our leaders out?

I have an idea. Let's clone Dennis Kucinnich and run him in all 435 congressional districts. We'll win only about two dozen of them, but we will be an ideologically pure party. We won't be able to pass any laws, but at least all our candidates will be able to meet our moral litmus test.

:sarcasm:

[petgoat]

69. The reason to kick our "strong leaders" out was because they were not strong leaders.

Your implication that Kucinich is a loser is given the lie by the fact that he was
reelected in his district despite an attempt by the Republicans to get him out.

Where you get the idea that moral cowardice and the abandonment of sworn principles
is "strong leadership" I don't know. You wouldn't be one of Pelosi's grandchildren
would you?

[JohnnyCougar]

93. But I didn't say Kucinich was a loser.

Not even close.

Have fun arguing with your self about what you think I said.

[petgoat]

95. You implied it, and now you want it my fault that you refuse to clarify your ambiguous statement. nt

[Honeycombe8]

29. I hope this is a joke. Really. nt

[Atman]

30. Pfffffffftttt. Fuck 'em.

Worthless, spineless co-conspirators.

.

[mmonk]

31. Fringe ideologue here if you mean those who support Constitutional

government as the far left. I will not be silent until after I draw my last breath.

[JohnnyCougar]

36. Retaining political power has to be a consideration, though.

You've probably read the Art of War. Chose your battles wisely. Don't fight a battle that you may win, but may also cause you to lose the war.

[mmonk]

45. The Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't a partisan issue.

We cannot let politics cheapen our birthright.

[JohnnyCougar]

54. But doing what you advocate would get turned in to a partisan witchhunt.

Being in the majority is more important than being a morally and ethically pure party.

Govern from the center, and you'll never see the fringe right-wing rise to power again. Forget about the past. It can't be undone, as unfortunate as it is.

[druidity33]

63. what you call

a partisan witchunt...

I call CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONs.


:shrug:

[JohnnyCougar]

83. But moderates will call it a partisan witch hunt.

I'd rather have a party in power than a party not in power. If the Democrats play their hand right, they can make gains in congress in 2010, too. There's about six vulnerable Republican Senate incumbents up for reelection in two years, so if we don't get our 60 votes this year, we have a pretty good shot at getting them two years from now.

But we ain't going to do that by polarizing this country and fighting amongst ourselves. We have to keep focused and united, and we have to appeal to moderates. Politicians aren't responsible for changing the views of people in this country. If you want to change people's minds, it's the people themselves that have to do that. If you want a more progressive country, the people have to change first -- not the politicians.

[mmonk]

89. The term Witch hunt would indicate there's no constitutional crimes.

Reality indicates there is an historical amount of Constitutional crimes. I consider Pelosi a political enemy and a threat to my rights and well being. No other conclusion is possible for me.

[Wetzelbill]

32. there really isn't a political "far-left"

Basically people who are considered far-left now are just regular traditional Democrats. People in our country approve of what is considered far-left positions, like universal health care, for example. Or ending the Iraq War. Democrats and Republicans often campaign from the left, but govern more from the right. Being a Leftist populist wins elections, that's what people want, but they are always unsatisfied because politicians get in office and refuse to govern with the philosophy they campaigned on.

on edit:

My bad, I didn't get it, satire. Nicely done!

[JohnnyCougar]

35. Cindy Sheehan is far-left.

Let's see how many elections we win with someone like her leading this party.

I admire Cindy and pity what she has been through, but I would never vote for her to represent my district.

[Wetzelbill]

66. she's used Republican talking points before

And talked about using GOP type policies in other areas. She's definitely anti-war, but that's hardly a far-left positions. And what office does she hold anyway? Oh yeah, none. That wasn't satire? I thought you were being subtle, guess not.

[JohnnyCougar]

81. The title was satire, since apparently this whole forum wants them gone.

Yes, lets start eating our own as soon as we have obtained enough control over the government to actually get stuff done.

(now that's satire)

[Eyes_wide_ open]

38. CONGRATULATED? uh ... no. How about FIRED?

[JohnnyCougar]

41. You do realize that to retain the political majority, our party has to represent the majority

This country ain't as liberal as DU. We have to govern from the center, with a leftward tilt. When we do implement left-wing ideas, we have to frame them as centrist and mainstream. Retaining power isn't about attacking Republicans, it's by letting them marginalize themselves.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

42. Sure do ... why do YOU think the Democratic Party

won so many seats in '06?

[Warren Stupidity]

44. oh that was some sort of fluke

just like this time.

There is always an explanation for why we should do nothing.

[Marsala]

48. Because the country was furious about the war, and because we ran a lot of conservative Dems

The Democratic Party now reflects the nation. We're a true center party.

[JohnnyCougar]

49. Because they found candidates to the right of Pelosi to run.

[bridgit]

39. rec'd, I'm sure it hasn't been easy sitting across from the biggest gang of thugs in years

[salguine]

52. Fuck them. They actively aided and abetted the worst crimes of this Administration. In case

I wasn't emphatic enough.

FUCK.

THEM.

[JohnnyCougar]

53. Oh god. If Pelosi had the same attitude as you, she couldn't even win in San Fransisco.

This isn't about undoing the past through revenge. Preparing for the future is far more important. It's more important to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

Going after Bush should be an afterthought.

[salguine]

56. "If Pelosi had the same attitude as you, she couldn't even win in San Francisco"!?

Would you explain to me what the hell that even means!?

[riverdale]

61. Johnny Cougar = Bob Boudelang

Bob, good to see you back here. I've missed you, man!

[JohnnyCougar]

74. Whatever. I've been a member here far longer than you have.

You can't remember me from that long ago.

[petgoat]

88. It's not about going after Bush. It's about restoring the Constitution after he's pissed on it. nt

[Raineyb]

102. Impeachement is supposed to be about the rule of law

Bush literally confessed to multiple crimes yet not a damn thing has been done about it. Impeachment is supposed to be the remedy of a lawless executive branch. Instead it's been tabled because the leadership is too cowardly to stand up for what's right. That's why Pelosi needs to go.

Regards

[barack the house]

55. They have had their moments but I think Hillary will be a fine senate leader.

[quakerboy]

57. Your right. Absolutely. Lets govern from the near Right instead.

That would be much better.

[JohnnyCougar]

79. How about the center-left?

Harry Reid is a perfect leader if you ask me.

[Truth2Tell]

58. "under the radar"

:rofl:

"allow President Bush to take all the blame" That's why their approval rating is 9%.

:rofl:

"fringe ideologues" You mean like Durbin? Or Hillary? Or Obama?

:rofl:

Best satirical post all year. Nice work.

[JohnnyCougar]

78. People aren't mad at the Democrats in congress

They still perceive congress as being a Republican body. That's why the GOP lost even more seats this time around. The Democrats are building a solid governing majority -- one that will prevent Republican misdeeds in the future. For that to happen, they need to welcome more and more moderates under their tent.

[pat_k]

59. Congratulated for the treasonous pre-emptive surrender of "off the table" ?!?

Congratulated for whining "leave us alone; go away; you don't understand" when we call on them to stand up for us ??

Congratulated for record low Congressional approval?

Congratulated for willfully turning a blind eye to bush's program of torture and intolerable abuses of Presidential power ?!?

Tell me this. Which is worse? The criminal who commits a crime in plain sight or the police force that willfully turns a blind eye?

Americans elected Barak Obama despite Pelosi and Reid's betrayal of trust. The impotent Democratic "leadership" didn't inspire Americans to vote for Democratic candidates. Democratic victories have been driven by the intensity of the anger at bushncheneyism.

Pelosi and Reid occupy a bizarre world in which casting a losing "no" vote against a Supreme Court nominee, while refusing to join in a united filibuster, is accepted as "opposition." Where leaving the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of war criminals is being "high minded." Where embracing torturers is "moving forward."

Impeachophobia is just the most recent and most devastating manifestation of the beltway blindness that pervades the Halls of Congress.

Tragically, it is looking more and more like Reid, Pelosi, and many other members of the Democratic caucus, are simply too far gone. If they cannot, or will not, be saved from themselves, it's time to give them the boot.

Formidable primary challengers are out there. The trick is to seek them out and engage EARLY. Stop thinking "shoe string" campaigns. Let's get out there and look for prominent, principled people with Deep Pockets.

[JohnnyCougar]

77. Governing isn't about revenge,

it's about moving forward and preventing the past from happening again. No matter how much you want to punish Bush, you will never be able to undo the wrong he has caused the world. But you will be able to prevent future wrongs by retaining power yourself.

[Independent_Liberal]

80. It's not about revenge.

You're totally missing the point. You must punish crimes when they're committed no matter what. It's something we're supposed to do. If somebody robs a bank you don't say, "Well, they've already stolen the money and prosecuting them won't undo that." Of course, punishing Bush won't undo the damage, but it will deter future executives from committing the same kinds of misdeeds or worse. Just obtaining power does nothing.

[JohnnyCougar]

82. I completely disagree.

Obtaining power effectively prevents them from having the power to do so in the future. How are the Republicans going to commit future crimes if they are relegated to a permanent minority?

I would love to see Bush prosecuted, but gaining more congressional seats and a larger constituency is far more important. If the Democrats can figure out a way to do both, I'm all for it, but moderates don't like partisan witch hunts. And that's likely how they would have perceived Pelosi and Reid going after Bush while he was still in office.

[petgoat]

85. Nothing in politics is permanent. That's why aim for a government of laws not men.

What's the lifetime of your "permanent minority" status? Ten years? Twenty?

The Constitution is about the centuries! And you want to diss it for a temporary
political pragmatism?

[pat_k]

94. I've always been a bit bothered by. . .

. . .the "not men" part of the phrase "government of laws, not men"

Government is the sum total of the people we charge with certain duties and powers. Obviously, the evolving body of law defines the specific duties and the powers and the means of "hiring" -- so it is certainly a "government of laws" -- but it is people who make the law manifest.

We shape our government by making laws, but if we hope to actually "create a more perfect union," we must pay as much, or MORE, attention to making sure the People we 'hire' to execute, interpret, and enforce those laws aren't busily fouling things up.

Somehow the "not men" part seems to feed into the notion that government is some abstract "system" that can be "fixed" by putting more words on paper.

I guess my problem is that members of Congress appear to have forgotten that they must be more than lawmaking creatures -- they've lost track of the "people" part of the equation. They do "oversight" to "expose problems," but refuse to go after bad actors. The only solution they ever offer is to pass a new law (or in the current crisis, to pass laws that duplicate violated laws that are crystal clear).

They seem to have forgotten that oversight/supervision is meaningless without enforcement. And enforcement is not done by passing law; it is done by going after bad actors -- people. It is meaningless to pass new law if you allow government officials to subvert and corrupt the body of law that exists. When they identify officials who are violating the public trust, they have a duty to stop corruption by going after corrupt People. Preservation of the government demands that they impeach and forceably remove if the bad actor won't exit in response to other political or judicial action. When our representatives refuse to deal with "the men," the "government of laws" is meaningless.

Given the incalculable damage that can be done in a single term, "let the people vote them out" is the height of dereliction.

[pat_k]

91. There is no governming without enforcement.

It's "moving on" and "looking forward not back" that got us into this mess.

The things we are duty-bound to do are NEVER easy. That's why we swear oaths -- so that when duty demands action, we act, whatever the consquences. Sometimes we are even called on to give our lives in the name of duty.

It's no surprise that officials constantly try to weasel out, it's hard to do hard stuff. But don't kid yourself. The rationalizations -- "for the good of the country," "look forward, not back," "reach across the aisle," "fix the system instead," whatever -- are nothing more than lame excuses for dereliction.

The Democratic Congress was derelict when they refused to impeach Reagan and Bush I for Iran Contra -- but they feared they'd "look too prosecutorial" or would "risk losing the White House."

Clinton was derelict when he put the breaks on the prosecution of Bush I for Obstruction -- but he wanted to "get more done," "look forward not back," "work with the opposition" . . .

Gore was derelict when he submitted to the criminal Bush v. Gore edict and refused to call on Congress to reject the illegal Florida electors -- but he wanted to avoid a "constitutional crisis" and "tanks in the streets."

I shudder to think what horrors will be in store for us if our leaders once again refuse to Confront the Truth and Do What Duty Demands -- if they simply try to sweep the last eight years under the rug and "move on."

For your consideration:

Enforcement is about stopping Wrong-doers (i.e., People); not "wrongs."

Government is People. Nothing more and nothing less. It is the electorate. It is the people we elect and charge with certain duties, and to which we delegate the limited powers we deem necessary to carry out those duties. It is the people appointed/hired by those we entrust with the power to do so.

Impeachment is the power to enforce our will/our law by removing government officials -- the People -- who are violating it. It is a power that is of Absolute Necessity to the preservation of our sovereign authority over the People we 'hire' to serve us. The very existence of our constitutional government depends on it.

There is no "preventing future wrongs" when criminals have no reason to fear PERSONAL consequences.

Failure to go after wrong-doers is the surest way to breed more wrongdoers. Why would any corrupt official hesitate to abuse their powers when the response to intolerable violations of Federal Law has consistently been "Oh well, done is done. Go on your merry way."

Appeasing torturers and "moving on" is not good government; it is cowardly dereliction of duty.

Enforcing the law is not revenge.

Prosecution and punishment/retribution is not revenge; it's justice. (The definition of retribution is "Something justly deserved; recompense; Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.)"

Apprehending to stop an ongoing crime is not revenge; it is the means by which the police fulfill their oath to "protect and serve."

Likewise, impeaching and removing a corrupt government official to stop the corruption is not revenge; it is the means by which Members of Congress fulfill their oath to "support and defend."

That oath is not an oath to Win; it is an oath to Fight; To Defend. Bush and Cheney are waging open war on the Constitution. When Pelosi tells us impeachment is off the table because she fears "backlash" (or "losing" or whatever the latest excuse is) she is saying "We're just too scared to fulfill our oath to support and defend." In short, "We are cowards. We are derelict."

Legislation is meaningless without Oversight/Supervision. Oversight/Supervision is meaningless without enforcement.

It seems that our so-called leaders think that oversight means "sit back and watch." But "watching" is utterly useless if you refuse to Do Anything about what you see.

DC "strategerists" are obsessed with sending a "message." When the official you refuse to impeach is an outlaw President, and the crimes committed in plain sight are War Crimes so grave they are punishable by death under Federal law , refusal to impeach sends a crystal clear "message." It is a declaration that we cannot be trusted to keep ANY promise made in treaty or law.

Legislation doesn't mean much when we can't trust our legislators do something about a President who has proven he has no qualms about violating the law.

Electing Obama doesn't do anything to repair the broken trust between the People and their Congress.

Failure to impeach when circumstances demand it is the ultimate betrayal.

Impeachment is objection on behalf of the American people. When government officials commit acts we deen intolerable, seeking to remove is the means by which we say "No!

George Bush didn't turn the USA a War Criminal Nation that Spies on its own Citizens. The dereliction of Nancy Pelosi and the members of Congress who are submitting to her "off the table" edict are doing that.

Unless they wake up to duty and impeach/object before January 20th, we will remain a War Criminal nation.

Law that is already clear cannot be "restored;" it can only be enforced.

We keep hearing assurances that the new Congress, or Barak Obama will "restore" the law.

Pledging to "restore" the law -- i.e.,to pass laws that duplicate the laws that bushncheney blatantly and openly violated -- accomplishes NOTHING. Even worse, to look to an American President to "give us back" that which should never have been surrendered is to declare the American presidency a dictatorship. Being Subjects under a benevolent dictator is certainly an improvement on being Subjects under a War Criminal, but without impeachment we are nevertheless Subjects.

Failure to impeach is symptom of deeply entrenched, self-defeating tendencies that have plagued the Democratic Party for decades

It is the historical weakness of the Dems that got us into this mess. And their weakness is driven by some very strange and immobilizing notions.

Like idea that holding people to account for their actions is revenge.

Like the notion that they should only stand and fight for principle when they are sure they'll win -- a notion that just confirms the image that Democrats are weak and unprincipled..

Like the notion it is "good politics" to just go for what you think the other guy is willing to give you, instead of what you want. Of course, when they go for half-measures they utterly fail to inspire and engage. And so they feed the vicious cycle of apathy --> failure --> apathy.

Like the notion that is is somehow "high minded" to refrain from attacking bad actors and just talk about bad ideas. Of course, bad ideas can't destroy a government. Bad ideas don't commit crimes. Bad people do. When officials betray the public trust, people aren't angry at their ideas, they are angry at the People. By seeking to suppress that outrage, Democrats suppress the political will to act. They immobilize.

When we fight for impeachment, we are fighting a much larger battle -- we are challenging long-standing, and destructive, "conventional wisdom." We are challenging our representatives to become EFFECTIVE agents of change.

[Runcible Spoon]

96. since when is ACCOUNTABILITY "revenge"?!

for a supposedly progressive site, there are so many STUPID things said here.

[Window]

60. Kick

[RichGirl]

64. I think they need to be given a chance with a dem pres.

[Wetzelbill]

67. there you go

I think so too.

[bigwillq]

65. Pelosi and Reid have been

disappointments, imo.

[Beacool]

68. Sorry, I can't stand the sight of Pelosi.

I was overjoyed to have the first woman speaker, but she has been a disappointment all around.

[petgoat]

86. Disappointment? She's been a scurrility and a disgrace! nt

[GeorgeGist]

70. Congratulations ...

cynic.

[musicblind]

76. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours n/t

[tkmorris]

87. I'm building a nice troll list off this thread

I suppose that's helpful.

[budkin]

90. No - they are both spineless.

[onenote]

92. brings to mind one of my favorite bookmarks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3661758

Oops....

[democracy1st]

98. congrats for what ?

[mtnsnake]

99. I'll never congratulate anyone who capitulated to Bush like Pelosi did after we won

the majority in 2006. She has been of more use to the Bush administration since we took over power two years ago than she has to Democrats.