Shouldn't we be suspicious of folks working to convince us Democratic efforts won't succeed

[bigtree]

I mean, there are folks working overtime to tell us that subpoenas are meaningless because the White House will resist them.

We've gotten compliance before in the face of refusals, from this very White House.

Think about it. What possible purpose is there in spending time convincing folks that any action short of impeachment is meaningless because the White House may resist?

I can't think of any good reason for folks who claim to be concerned about accountability and the rule of law to constantly denounce every action by our Democrats short of the end game. I can think of a few bad ones though.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. It's the same folks who say impeachment is a meaningless waste of time.

How do you know unless you try?

[bigtree]

2. Is there one pending to judge?

I can't seem to get behind the generic, omnibus one circulating.

[welshTerrier2]

3. YES but that's a double-edged sword

i think the Dems should be applauded for the many investigations they're conducting. I have no idea whether anything will come from them but at least they're trying. Also, while it's almost inconceivable that impeachment is "off the table" given the parade of crimes bush/cheney have committed, that should not be the only standard by which we assess the Democratic led Congress.

Having said that, however, we should also reject the arguments of those who say the Dems "don't have the votes". The theme is kind of the same for me. It's not about success; it's about effort. Maybe they don't have the votes but that does NOT excuse the Party's failure to lead and speak out on a wide array of issues. And it certainly doesn't excuse sending bush a funding bill on Iraq without conditions. They couldn't have overridden a veto but they were under no obligation to send him a bill at all. No bill; no veto. At the very least, they should have sent him back the exact same bill.

The recent Energy bill was also pathetic. A step in the right direction? sure ... but still pathetic ... the Dem proposals for changes not due until 2020 will make almost no reduction in CO2 emissions. Didn't have the votes to do more? no problem. failed to make a case for deep mandatory conservation measures to lay the groundwork for future legislation? inexcusable ...

as the OP points out, we can't only judge outcomes; we have to assess effort and the values those efforts reflect ... so, this business about not demanding impeachment, while I disagree, should NOT be the ultimate standard. The ultimate standard should be what the Dems say and how they lead and what values their words and actions embody ... and on that standard, at least thus far, the performance of the Congress has been very disappointing ...

[bigtree]

5. I think these committee actions like Leahy's provide the only pretext possible

for any impeachment which our party would intend to advance in a partisan way.

The only other option would be to generate the charges from some outside prosecution. I don't believe it would be prudent or effective to begin some impeachment process from a dead-start presumption of guilt. I think the case has to be built like any other prosecution. It's extraordinary that we have committees already deeply involved in advancing the myriad of cases against administration abuses and crimes. But it's a mystery why folks would herald the revelations from these committee efforts in their calls for the ultimate solution of impeachment and ignore or denigrate the process and the Democrats that have worked since we gained the majority to produce the evidence and testimony we are relying on.

[welshTerrier2]

7. i don't disagree with that

i repeat, however, that I think Pelosi made a huge mistake when she said "impeachment was off the table". your point makes the case very well: let the process and the evidence determine where the investigations lead ... it made no sense to preempt or even comment on "possible outcomes" ... Pelosi shouldn't have said impeachment was "off the table" nor should she have said it was "on the table". She should have said that the Democrats intended to fully perform their oversight responsibilities and that where questions exist, investigations would be conducted. She then could have refused to answer questions about impeachment making the very same arguments you have made: Let the evidence unfold.

[bigtree]

9. I think she was correct to distance herself from the possibility of an impeachment

When and if one comes, her impartiality will be a benefit to knock down charges that everything she has done has been, somehow, a pretext to impeachment. It's merely a way for the leadership to conduct business and have each action judged on its merits instead of being measured against some stated intent to remove Bush or Cheney from office. It also puts the question to rest until that point arrives where there is an impeachment action. Who needs the hounding every other day about impeachment. The investigations can proceed without any overriding taint of bias from our leadership. We don't have to lay all of our cards on the table to have effective, productive investigations and hearings.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. Very shrewd points. The Democrats know they have to deal with the

neocon media "noise-machine", and finesse it whenever they can. Of course, it can seem like weakness, but tactical withdrawals can pave the way for a Stalingrad, Kursk and advance into "Berlin" and the Reichstag, when the time is right.

[Emit]

4. No, not in my opinion.

I'm pissed more hasn't been done to confront this administration on their blatant crimes. So are others. I'm pissed that our media continues in their ho-hum-politics-as-usual blythe manner with all their niceties while ignoring the crimes of this administration. I want action. Now. How many subpoenas need to be issued before something gets done? I want to be proven wrong, soon, by the Dems who are on this. Good for them for all they've done with the investigations, the inquiries, etc., but, it's time to act in a decisive manner. Now. For sure they must have enough to act more aggressively, no?

[bigtree]

6. How many subpoenas were issued during the Watergate committee hearings before the Articles were born

this is something getting done.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. Can you name any subpoenas that *have* been effective? Where's Condi's

appearance? Where's the emails from the RNC servers? Where's Cheney's documents?

I'm glad we have investigations going on, but they need some teeth in them. What are people supposed to think when the headlines they see are "Dems threaten subpoenas" or "Dems send strongly worded letter to __________." I know we can't control the headlines.. but then again, we can! I'd like to see them have to say "In a surprise move today, pResident Bush was handed a subpoena to appear before Congress".

We've had enough threats and letters. Don't threaten, just DO it! Don't send letters, send the Capitol Police or whoever is in charge and drag their asses in to answer questions. It's well past time to take the kid gloves off with these clowns.

[bigtree]

10. In December 2001 . . .

. . . Bush declared executive privilege for the first time when he denied a House committee's subpoena for information regarding alleged FBI corruption in Boston. By February 2002, the White House turned over the memos that Congress sought.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/67950.html

[endarkenment]

55. Uh - is that all you've got?

Aren't you even moderately embarassed by your evidence?

[bigtree]

58. aren't you the least embarrassed by an inference that Bush is so powerful

that he can just brush off subpoenas from an effort investigating obstruction of justice with no consequence at all?

Subpoenas have been pressed successfully before against larger cretins than Bush. The entire history of subpoenas like these suggest that there are ways to have them enforced if pressure is applied and persists.

I'm not ready to pronounce Bush and Cheney infallible just because they've made the predictable, obstinate claims of executive privilege.

[endarkenment]

60. You've cited one case from five years ago that

had little or nothing to do with issues central to the actions of this administration. You have yet to substantiate your characterization of the argument as simply 'bush can brush off subpoenas'. That is not the argument I've seen, there is another part to it that has to do with some other branch of government's inaction when the administration refuses to cooperate. You dishonestly leave that part out, and then expect people to not notice your dishonesty and mis-characterization of the arguments of your opponents. Do you think you are so much more clever than the rest of us that we will not notice?

Try making the case that this Democratic congress has been effective so far in bringing this administration under control instead of posturing that those of us on the other side of this debate, those of us arguing that they have been massively ineffective and asking why that is so, that we are 'suspicious'.

[bigtree]

61. It's not like our party has had the entire term to bring these

Just because we haven't produced some miraculous conviction doesn't mean we're ineffective. How many political prosecutions have you witness resolved in 6 or 7 months?

Try making you own case that the two impeachment efforts which serve as the only contemporary precedent we have weren't preceded by months of congressional action outside of an impeachment committee, including subpoenas which were aggressively resisted.

I think you are setting a standard and timetable for this Congress and our Majority for holding this administration accountable which has no parallel in history.

[bryant69]

11. I can totally see this

I will not though that in some cases people are so upset at the Democratic leadership and Democratic politicians in general that they aren't willing to concede positive actions.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[malaise]

12. Yep many of them also thought Dems would lose in

November. Go Waxman! Go Conyers!

[slipslidingaway]

13. We should always be suspicious and that would include folks

on both sides of the issue.

Did you have a chance to read about the draft oil law that was a part of the Iraq supplemental bill? I was looking forward to your comments on this issue, see post 43 & 44 from this thread.

"Don't be cowed by critics into abandoning our Democratic majority"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1138477

[bigtree]

15. I've seen it. I've also read the charges against the enterprise

I think it was an inevitable consequence of the invasion and occupation that oil interests would be accommodated, and that the U.S. cronies would be first in line.

I'd like to see more of a focus on this issue. It's couched as one of the 'benchmarks' which our soldiers are supposedly fighting and dying for. Outrageous. I notice Rep. Jim McDermott is actively opposing it. I think it will fail to pass in Iraq and be revised.

I really don't think that criticizing Democratic actions which fall short of impeachment as ineffectual is the same as advocating against a rush to impeachment by pointing out the political realities behind the present balance of power, but your point is taken.

The difference I see is that there are concrete advances in the investigations and committee hearings which can't be reasonably compared to some nebulous call to impeach. That impeachment proposal will have to be judged when and if it appears. The work of our Democratic investigators can be judged by the testimony received, and by their responses to that testimony (subpoenas).

The only indicator we have to judge the impact of an impeachment is past precedent (which shows a cautious, deliberate move to impeach Nixon which included the formation of the Watergate Committee and involved subpoenas for documents and testimony from the WH), and opinion.

[slipslidingaway]

50. Pelosi removed a tool (impeachment) from the toolbox and

that has angered many Democrats.

Thanks for the reply to the posts on your other thread. Impeachment and past actions are not the only issue here, we should be questioning our leaders and candidates on other issues as well.

Draft Oil Law...That is one of his (Bush) benchmarks that the Dems approved of and are not eager to discuss. From everything I have read about the draft oil law this will not benefit the Iraqi people, do you think we should stand behind our party while they try and force this law on the Iraqi government and people? Especially when our troops occupy their country, 4 million citizens are displaced and many are living without basic needs.


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22678

Kucinich: While Washington Sleeps, Effort to Privatize Iraq's Oil Continues

"This entire matter about control of Iraq's oil would be a farce, if it were not so tragic in its implication. First, Congress wanted benchmarks because the President wanted them. Now the President wants benchmarks because Congress wants them. Who is the father of this baby?!

"Meanwhile Congress prepares to continue to fund the war while the White House crafts a bipartisan consensus to force Iraq to show 'progress,' meaning Iraq gives up control of its oil. This war will never end if Iraqis believe we are trying to steal their oil, and, given the substance of the Hydrocarbon Act, how could they believe anything else?"





Kucinich spoke for an hour on the floor about the history of the Iraq Oil Law

Wednesday May 23, 2007 -- Summary and Notes from Congressman Kucinich's One Hour Speech Before the United States House of Representatives On Administration's Efforts to Privatize Iraq Oil

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12901

[Imagevision]

14. Folks, the proof is in the pudding, actions do speak louder then words as the countdown continues...

[Maven]

16. What is the point of thinly veiled "conspiracy theory" posts like this

other than to censor viewpoints you don't like?

Gosh, "you either agree with me or you're with the enemy..."

Where have I heard that kind of thinking before? I can think of one place. :think:

[bigtree]

19. I explained my pov reasonably well

I wonder why this particular effort with the Leahy subpoenas was received with such cynicism and laced with such apathy.

Is that cynicism in our interest, or is it coming from someone with an agenda which has nothing at all to do with the merits of the action criticized?

I attribute much of the cynicism over worthwhile efforts like Leahy's investigation and the issuance of subpoenas to the steady drumbeat from some that anything short of impeachment is worthless, ineffectual, and doomed to failure. The subtext of the proponents' argument against Democratic efforts outside of impeachment being that, moving toward that one remedy is the only worthwhile enterprise for our Democrats.

Even more curious is the apparent disregard of the fact that many, if not most, of the evidence folks are relying on to advocate jumping to impeachment was actually generated in these hearings. You have to wonder at the cravenness of a proponent's position who would ignore or denigrate the very Democratic impetus and efforts which have sparked and advanced the many detailed revelations about administration crimes and abuses.

Either you are with these Democrats who are working hard to uncover the abuses and crimes of this administration or you are risking forfeiting the opportunity to build on their work and move the nation toward the ultimate remedies folks say they want.

I can say with surety that many proponents of impeachment who denigrate these Democrats' efforts are putting themselves in the position of cutting their noses off to spite their faces. These Democratic efforts which may fall short of impeachment will, nonetheless, go hand in hand with any prosecution that would lead there.

[Javaman]

17. Come to think of it, I have been Highly suspicious of my motives...

I'm thinking of investigating myself. but first I will call myself a freep and launch very disparaging attacks upon myself.

I hate when I do that.

yes, I think it's totally wrong to hold our elected officials who are supposed to protect our rights and this country to a higher standard. :sarcasm:

go away.

[bigtree]

24. I won't go away. And I won't sit still and silent as responsible, aggressive work by our Democrats

is talked down to the level of accusations of Democratic complicity with Bush just because those actions haven't produced the pie-in-the-sky panacea of an impeachment.

Who is to say that these efforts outside of an impeachment proceeding won't actually produce the accountability folks claim they want from this administration?

I don't think you have to be a freep to have your actions labeled as counter-productive, irresponsible, self-defeating, or arrogant.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. And when that happens, they might just as well be freepers for all the help

they are to the cause of a total rout of these neocons - including impeachments. I suspect the motives of many naysayers. They act too dumb to be bona fide Democrats.

In his first year in law school, I'll bet that Congressman Conyers understood the ways of the world, the ways in which the Law and government operate, better than all the nay-sayers here put together. This is the man who pointed out to Senator Warner, I think, on CNN, that he had made five errors in law, after he'd barely spoken for fifteen to twenty seconds, and you people effectively question his intelligence? Turn it up.

If you have family in Iraq or Afghanistan, please ignore what I've written. Your impatience is, of course, easy to understand and to your credit.

[Javaman]

42. Proof is in the pudding. if they grow a spine, I will be happy, but if they

roll over like on the war funding bill I won't be the least bit surprised.

There have been many people on DU saying "oh they have only been in a few months give them a chance". (sounds remotely familiar like what the repukes were saying when 9/11 happened)

Fine, but you know what? we have less than two years before moron* and his room full of dopes are out of office. Let's just keep dragging our heels and keep issuing subpoenas that the repukes ignore, lets keep having hearings about this and that to "build a case". Fine dandy, but if this shit gets dragged out and nothing is done, damn straight I will say I told you so.

Until that time, these dems better get on their damn horses because time is running out. It's already clear moron* has violated the wiretapping FISA law, get him for that. what else do they need? I just want the bastard* impeached, I don't care how it's done, just do it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

52. What reason do you have for believing that they don't have time-line in mind? Isn't the latest

news on the Home Page that Congressman Conyers states that it's now time for enforcement of the subpoenas?

[Javaman]

53. Okay, why hasn't testified in responce to her subpoena? nt

[Javaman]

62. Rice that is. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

63. Because they have not yet "lowered the boom" on her. Why imagine they have

no plans to do so?

[Javaman]

64. LOLOLOLOLOL. Lower the boom. LOLOLOL yeah right, what ever. nt

[progressoid]

18. "We've gotten compliance before..." Really?

:shrug: Have I missed some great victory against this regime in the last 6 years? :shrug:

[bigtree]

21. no, there are no 'great victories . . . yet. But, I can't think of anything more self-defeating

than immediately declaring that the Bush administration will be able to overcome these subpoenas.

There are ways to force action. One of the most important ways will be through the exposure to the public of the issues involved and the stakes. The entire exercise will depend on how unified our party remains against the predictable resistance from Bush and his republican enablers. What I've seen from many here is a unilateral surrender to that resistance as folks complain endlessly about the reluctance of Congress to move to impeachment and trash every move short of that as ineffectual and a waste of time.

[progressoid]

37. We're not giving up - we're pissed off.

I think you are confusing "unilateral surrender" with our disgust for Bush Inc and our party's inability to make a difference. Just because some of us state the obvious doesn't mean that we should be suspect (which one assumes means we are somehow trolls/freepers/RNC super duper under cover agents? ).


Most of us are activists. We want change. We contact our elected officials & we work to get the word out. We just haven't seen a lot of results.

[bigtree]

40. of course I haven't called you one of those

but, I do question folks' commitment to the preservation of our party and majority, and question the effect of folks denigrating every action our Democrats take which falls short of impeachment.

It's my experience that we should work to promote the efforts of our Democrats (where we can) if we want anyone else to take notice and have confidence in them.

[blogslut]

20. I appreciate the cynicism. It keeps me on my toes.

If people have an agenda, that's not my problem. Sometimes a naysayer is just a naysayer. I think a certain amount of skepticism is to be expected. We've seen so much horseshit and not one damned pony, ever. I still want my pony and I will not give up the dream until I get one.

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

[mmonk]

23. Be very suspicious of us.

[bigtree]

26. I am suspicious of those who do nothing but spread cynicism and apathy

about our party and the efforts of our Democratic legislators.

[mmonk]

27. That's your choice and your read of the situation.

I push impeachment because I vote, I vote for democrats, I can count (we have more people in the House of Representatives thus the power to impeach), I know how much this executive branch doesn't co-operate, I can tell by the overwhelming evidence this administratin has committed constitutional crimes (not all crimes are codified in the criminal code, especially political and constitutional in nature) and I realize there are ideologues on our courts now.

[bigtree]

29. good for you

as you should know, I respect your opinion on impeachment, even as I disagree with your verdicts on our party and those who haven't signed on to the proposition yet.

I do think there will be resistance from the courts, but I do think there'll be political consequences to their stonewalling as we press the case forward from many different sides. And, there are so many conflicts of interest between Justice and the WH that I think a call for an outside investigator will gain support as the evidence swirls and gets more visibility. Contempt of Congress and lying to Congress are still criminal offenses which would provide a legal avenue to address constitutional abuses.

In all of this, the efforts by Democratic legislators like Conyers, Waxman, Leahy, are setting the standard for direct, legal confrontations with the Executive. We need to build on those efforts, not just assume they are worthless just because some Bush crony might step up and stand in our way. Everything we've done in the past decade has been against the odds of an entrenched WH cabal. I really don't know how we got to the point where we think we can afford to cast aside the product of our resistance and just spend our time exclusively promoting the end-game

[wryter2000]

30. Interesting take on it, thanks.

My own guess is that people who say nothing will work are attempting to protect themselves from getting their hopes up. If they're right...well, they were right. If they're wrong, that means something good has happened for the country.

The impeachment or nothing folks are purists who don't want to consider the realities of what would happen if we impeached and the Senate failed to convict. You often hear, "When all the crimes come out, the Republicans will come over to save their hides." What Republicans have they been watching?

[Forkboy]

31. I think this post is rather frightening.

Win on the strength of your ideas,not by sowing suspicion and paranoia among the community based on your own readings of why people post here.

Your post sounds dangerous in it's intent,and is a LOT closer to Republican thoughts and tactics than than the people you're upset with.

[mmonk]

35. Thanks from the impeachment crowd.

It's not we're against the things they have done or are doing as much as it is leaving things to chance. Impeachment can be done in a day on a simple majority vote. That way, you don't have to go through stonewalling, judges sympathetic to the right's cause, or allow the administration to ride out the clock over what they have done.

[bigtree]

38. but it's the accountability from such a rushed, apparently partisan process which is at issue

I don't see the potential for any real accountability from a process which would end in an acquittal. That's why I'm strongly supportive of the committee action which has the very real potential of generating bipartisan support at some point for an outside investigator, leading to actual charges which could produce a turncoat ready to testify against the WH. Congress is investigating like any prosecutor would, quietly and deliberatively. Their product will be at least as important to the rule of law as a quick, partisan impeachment which has no reasonable expectation of a conviction based on the balance of power in this Congress. Further, their efforts, supported by a unified party, could very well lead to an impeachment action which has galvanizes support by virtue of the evidence they uncover or the prosecution they encourage and achieve.

[bigtree]

36. you read 'intent' rather than what I actually wrote?

sounds like you're examining the inside of your own head instead of reading my words, which I think are clear enough.

I'm suspicious of folks who spend their time promoting their cynicism over our party. That type of leadership generates apathy more than it does anything productive or positive.

And, I don't think you can deny that there are more than a few folks whose interests don't serve any of the goals and concerns most Democrats express here and elsewhere, who are working to upend our party and neuter our majority. I wonder how many of them are working here to generate apathy, indifference, and cynicism about our party and our potential for success?

I think it's more than fair for someone who expects to find a reasonable level of support for our Democrats at a site named, 'DEMOCRATIC Underground", to wonder about all of the posts denigrating every action of our legislators which falls short of impeachment. I personally would find it amazing that someone would think that the level of sustained haranguing that's occurring here at DU would benefit our party in some way.

[mmonk]

39. Your post breeds suspicions

that aren't good for point discussions. Read some of the replies. I have no motive other than stated. If that is my motive, then from my vantage point, I must be critical of "impeachment is off the table" without debate as has been chosen. I have no "ulterior" motive.

[bigtree]

44. It really isn't an elegant post

but I do question someone's commitment to the rule of law and to upholding the Constitution who would disregard, and actually cast aside other efforts which intend to protect and defend these principles to make the case that they haven't yet gone far enough.

And, there is a serious disconnect in the proposition that Democrats drop these efforts and immediately move to impeach, as if they were exclusive of each other. I think those efforts underway by Democrats in committee actually support the drive to impeach, not hinder it or distract from the proposition.

[mmonk]

45. I won't hammer your intent

because we're ultimately on the same side. I think both of us realize Richardson could be a good president and is highly qualified as well (as an example). I'm all for subpoenas and everything else that puts pressure on the administration. I'm just against, by design, taking the ammo out of the constitutional remedy as an option. That's it in a nutshell, my position.

[bigtree]

49. I'm really thinking of an approach which would blend the efforts of these committees

into an escalating mass of opposition that recognized a potential need to impeach the Executive. We need to build more of a public case in Congress for whatever ultimate action they want to take which include these committee efforts and consciously builds on them.

[Forkboy]

47. Examing the inside of my own skull...

sounds like you're examining the inside of your own head instead of reading my words

And yet that is exactly what you're doing.Reading into people's motives based on your own ideas and thoughts more than what they write.I've read many threads with you and you've been given many thoughtful responses about why people feel the way they do.Your post here doesn't make any effort at all to acknowledge those points as being valid and thoughtful,and instead uses a vague sense of suspicion and insinuation that anyone who criticizes the party has an ulterior motive.That doesn't serve the goals of the party either. :shrug:

[bigtree]

51. you make a good point.

I do understand that there is substance and depth to most of the positions taken here.

I do stand behind my assertion that there is a disconnect between most of the dismissals of Democratic efforts which are providing so many of the recent revelations that are firing folks up. It's that disconnect which leads me to wonder what is motivating the criticism, especially since most of the Democratic actions criticized, while admittedly short of impeachment, are, nonetheless, important steps in building a public case of accountability of this administration which could actually advance the initiative into a sustainable action.

It just follows to wonder just what folks expect to happen to the effectiveness of a party which is beaten down daily by its own membership. Motivations may very well be guileless, but the destructive effect of that constant tearing at our party is inevitable. I would like to believe these folks who constantly belittle the party will defend and preserve the progress Democrats have already made in these investigations, but I'm not that naive.

[Forkboy]

57. A lot of it is just human nature.

Some people are optimists and some are pessimists so the two will have a different take on the same set of facts,and it's possible that both are right.So to me,I see the very meek leadership to be as destructive as the protestations against it.I think a lot of the protests though are just thoughtless lashing out,and while I can understand and appreciate the emotion,I agree that it's not very helpful.

I'm sure we have a few people here who like to just play one side against the other,but they usually give themselves up fairly quickly through a mixture of stridency and dumbness,and I don't personally worry about them.You can tell the ones who are willing to listen and those who aren't,and the ones who are you can discuss things with respectfully,even while strongly disagreeing.My two cents for both sides would be to focus on those thoughtful ones and deal with them.There is a real split right now,and lobbing bombs at one another is just making it worse for all involved.

And to be clear,I don't consider you one of the bomb tossers. :)

[Imagevision]

32. So tell me, how impressed are ya'll with the results from the Pelosi group?!!

[bigtree]

34. I'm impressed with her efforts in the House.

but, she can't do it all from there.

Democrats Highlight Accomplishments In Face Of Republican Obstructionism
http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=277883...

[ReadTomPaine]

33. The best way to judge a person's future behavior is by their past actions

Held to this standard, many (but certainly not all) Democratic leaders haven't given voters much to feel confident about. As others here have mentioned, actions speak louder than strongly worded letters.

As soon as I see real confrontation and hard knuckle action taken against the GOP and Bush's political machine, I will remain respectfully skeptical.

[porphyrian]

41. At least as suspicious as those condemning criticism of Democratic perfomance thus far. - n/t

[bigtree]

46. well you know that I take my pleasure in promoting the party

and our many efforts to hold Bush accountable. If my defense of our party and defense of our legislators threatens any other party or political interest, so be it. For me, the Democratic party remains the most effective vehicle that exists to advance my concerns into action.

I believe strongly in upholding the rule of law and adherence to the Constitution. In keeping with that belief, I feel that the efforts of our Democratic legislators who are working toward those same goals and beliefs should be supported and highlighted along with whatever particular remedy folks decide they favor.

Scary stuff, huh?

[porphyrian]

48. You're easily pleased. - n/t

[Buzz Clik]

43. Suspicious? Not me. I'm in their face.

[endarkenment]

54. Shouldn't we all be mindless cheerleaders for our team?

"I mean, there are folks working overtime to tell us that subpoenas are meaningless because the White House will resist them. "

Strawman much? Got link?

[bigtree]

56. not mindless

but supportive of efforts which clearly are intended to hold the administration accountable.

[LanternWaste]

59. To a lesser degree...

To a lesser degree, I find myself thinking that very thing about anyone on this forum who denigrates (NOT criticize policy, mind you-- but denigrates) a Democratic nominee in the primaries, or says with righteous rage, "You're not a Democrat if you vote for xxxx and/or support yyyy."

On the other hand, once I get past the, "is this guy a troll?" stage, I eventually find myself in the "why am I getting lectured to by a sixteen year old guy?" stage. Although one is not better nor worse than other, I can justify it to myself that at least there's a few sixteen year-olds out there who are interested in politics...

(Apologies to DU's famous Ava-- who, though a teen herself, has more depth of wisdom and wit than most adults I know...)