Maybe.
But. Like Reagan & Co. Like Bush 41 & Co.
Bush 43 & Co will all go free with their $400k/yr pensions intact (funded by the taxpayers). After they've left the country in the ditch.
Being timid is not leadership on the Dems part.
And soon in the future, people in their less than infinite wisdom will again vote for Reps and the country will go through all this again.
If they had impeached Reagan & Bush 41, things would probably have been different.
You underestimate how short the public's memory is. Remember Watergate and then six short years later Reagan was in.
Posted by Alex at March 14, 2007 12:10 PMthere is no bill of impeachment. this is not acceptable. they have had enough time. perhaps they are scared of how many things would start happening if they did?
could it be that they want to watch this failure and let it ride? they may think this is better for their political futures to not have to spend much money on the next house race. if they keep quiet, the (D) will get re elected, the (R) won't.
it is beginning to look like that is what is helping feed their fondest desire. unopposed in an election. more campaign dollars for me. I am sorry, but I do not think this group is moving very fast. I base this on how easy it would be to expose their (R) counterparts actual vote on matters in congress. they could lay them all to waste, but still, nothing.
Steve is right, turtle oversight is MUCH better than the non-existant GOP brand.
Orrin Hatch screaming in a know it all condescending manner on the Senate floor minutes ago in a nutshell: If we don't go into Bahgdad and clean and hold, the terrorists that are here in America now will be unleashed and destroy our country.
May I suggest an immediate bed check of all mental institutions in Utah, as one of their most idiotic patients may have escaped to Washington, D.C.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 14, 2007 01:03 PMJust because the bar has been set so low for Bush & Co does not mean the bar should continue to be set so low for the Dems because they're still "feeling their way around".
If they continue to shoot low, pretty soon it'll be the end of 2008 and nothing will have changed except 3000 more military will have died.
Pulling out the Iran provision which takes away the authority to invade Iran is not acceptable.
Unilaterally taking impeachment off the table is not acceptable.
Changing the gas and saying we have a new car is not acceptable.
Having the power and not having the balls or backbone to use is not acceptable.
Posted by Alex at March 14, 2007 01:14 PMIn the "real world" acting slowing without any urgency is not acceptable for what's at risk.
A Congress that's dealing with an administration that has polls in the mid-high 20s approval, says something about lack of nerve on the Dems parts.
Posted by Alex at March 14, 2007 01:18 PMAh, a new morning in America, where being led by the lesser of two evils is reason to rejoice!
Posted by steve duncan at March 14, 2007 01:21 PMthe bottom line is that none, repeat None, of the current inquiries into the most recent Bush crimes and incompetency (Surge, Walter Reed, Lamgate, Scooter Falloutgate) would be going on with the GOP still in power in Congress. They would all be stonewalled, swept under the rug or muffled in phoney "bi-partisan" investigations with LIEberman being the only "Dem" on the panel. Or never seen the light of day at all.
The GOP's worst fear going into last November was losing control of Oversight. On that, their fears have been proven correct. The veil has been lifted, maybe not as fully and as fast as some want, but lifted nonetheless.
Yes, after four years, the deaths of 3,197 American soldiers, 23,417 injured American soldiers and more than $500 billion dollars spent, what we need is MORE debate!
Please. Enough already. Pull the damn funding on this mess and bring the troops home. It's over.
Posted by Christopher at March 14, 2007 02:23 PMSay what you will. The Dems will go into the 2008 elections owning Iraq because they can't blame the Reps anymore completely.
Posted by Alex at March 14, 2007 02:43 PMDemocrats should NOT get too comfortable with the belief that they will win in 2008. As Alex said: "If they continue to shoot low, pretty soon it'll be the end of 2008 and nothing will have changed." If nothing changes and we are still in Iraq, there is little reason to vote for the whole lot of 'em, Democrat or Republican.
The Democrats have little time left to prove themselves.
Posted by Judith at March 14, 2007 02:59 PM
If these investigations return indictments, good.
On a scale of 1-10, the Dems get .5. They would have gotten more for the investigations, but the 1st 100 hours was a fucking joke and lobby reform...well, that was a big fucking joke also. They will lose in 2008 because they won't get their heads out of the respective lobbyest's asses. If I have to vote for the same old shit I will not vote for a lame-ass democrat over a shyster republi-con, not even to keeps dems in power. Fuck them if they can't get it together.
Posted by phidipides at March 14, 2007 03:17 PMThe Democrats have little time left to prove themselves.
Judith is 100% correct.
The Democrats were elected in November to end the war in Iraq and thus far, they've failed. The polls show the American public is growing restless.
Posted by Christopher at March 14, 2007 03:19 PMWhat Judith said. The Ds are moving at a snails pace, but at least a snail leaves tracks. Everytime the start talking about censure, impeachment, reining in shrubco, someone wakes up with their pet's head in their bed or something. The cold feet seem to happen overnight. This entire administration is based on lies: 9/11 to start the fear machine,and on and on into Iraq, excuse after excuse, and all most of us want is for the big shrub-in-office to go away and take his evil minions with him. Can't someone call Paula or Ken and get this overwith?
Posted by sara swati at March 14, 2007 04:20 PM"They will lose in 2008 because they won't get their heads out of the respective lobbyest's asses."
When you are flying on a private jet to play golf in Scotland with a drink in your hand and a stewardess on your member, it is hard to stop being a human colonoscope.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 14, 2007 04:37 PMChristopher at 2:23 pm
Well said. It was actually over when the United States had the stupidity to invade and occupy Iraq. Now that the Democrats have gotten their wish by obtaining a majority in the House, why are they not supporting the troops by cutting off the funding so that they can be taken out of that hellhole as quickly as possible? With friends like these Democrats, the soldiers do not have to search very long to find their enemies. As the comic strip character Pogo once said, we have found the enemy and it is us.
Posted by Erroll at March 14, 2007 05:41 PMThere's an excellent song, "Day In The House" on the disc Jeff Beck's Guitar Shop, that is basically the British House Of Commons harrumphing and harrumphing about the lack of action on environmental issues. The one-liner from that song that sums up this train wreck... "Much is being said, My Lord, but nothing is being done!"
Posted by Dr. Wellington Yueh at March 14, 2007 06:16 PMI'm not quite sure what you folks THOUGHT was gonna happen with a very diverse caucus in the House and a nominal, at best, majority in the house (not even a majority with Sen. Johnson incapacitated).
I'm here for the long haul. I think they're doin' ok.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2007 06:56 PMI'm with snark, I'm in it for the long haul.
I knew it would and will take a couple of elections before we can start to straighten this mess out.
bu$h and the cabal has fucked this country over, and nothing short of a major overhaul will fix it.
However, with that said, I do wish it was going faster. Anything to save the troops lives!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 14, 2007 08:08 PMThe big problem with Washington politics these days is that we lost in November '04. Having lost that crucial, bitter election, we're doing as well right now as one can reasonably expect.
Which is to say, y'all aren't being reasonable.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 14, 2007 08:33 PMHouse.
Senate.
Senate.
House.
I can see how you'd get them confused, what with so many people always coming to you for help designing their senate.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 14, 2007 08:45 PMat least we can gripe about the pace of chance rather than the lack of any change at all.
But what has changed, or shows any hope of changing??
Real wages are headed south--has the lot of the working man/woman gotten better?
Is there any hope for proper medical care for all, not just the privileged?
Will the onerous Patriot Act be repealed?
How about the huge Pentagon budget, when the US faces no armed threat in the world?
Any change in the bogus drug war, that results in the US being the incarceration world leader?
The US also leads the industrial nations in child mortality, maternal mortality and poverty--any hope of reversing that trend?
Working mothers need day care and other assistance-what are the Dems doing about that?
The "free trade agreements", which are actually "subsidized corporate raiding"--any hope?
"No child left behind" with meaningless tests=every child left behind"--who's going to fix it?
Free and fair elections, and politicians that represent citizens not corporations?
The big kahuna, the wars--have already been given a green light by the Dems, and 'do Iran while you're at it', and please don't bore me with that baloney about what's going to happen eighteen months from now.
None of these substantive issues have been even touched. Everything you guys mention is blah-blah-blah. Phid comes the closest to getting it right, as usual. On a scale of 1-10, the Dems get .5.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 14, 2007 10:12 PMI think the Democratic leadership has decided to look for wedges to separate Bush from his followers rather than confront him or Cheney head-on over Iraq. In an odd sort of way, it's the Nixon years and Vietnam all over again--at least to me. When there was rioting in the streets and students being shot up by our own National Guard, you could say the country was polarized on the issue of war like now. And what ultimately happened? The Nixon Administration fell because of things only vaguely related to the prosecution of the war and tension between anti-war folks and the love-it-or-leave-it proto-NeoCon homeland crowd. The politics of polarization (by choice or chance) led to evicting Agnew for tax fraud and Nixon for politically motivated break-ins and cover-ups. That the run-up to his election involved Vietnam and alleged anti-American protesters or leakers was irrelevant to the issues that brought about American indignation, but had everything to do with the sense of relief when he was gone.
This is what the Dems see now. Outrage over highly politicized but simple-to-grasp corruption is being used as the wedge against a different issue. It has similar elements of cover-up, misplaced loyalty, Constitutional infringement, and in-your-face stonewalling (arrogance of power). The Dems are hoping not that the wheels come off, but that they can pull them off one-by-one.
I do not find it as satisfying as direct push-back on the issue of the war itself (how to end our involvement). I'd rather they simply defund escalation and runt he risk of being voted out next round. I doubt if they would be voted out, but that's just me. It's their fears that govern right now, and if they won't attack head-on, the flanking will have to do.
If only the country can last so long....
Posted by gtash at March 15, 2007 03:39 AMI'd rather they simply defund escalation and run he risk of being voted out next round.
There you've got it--something they'll never do. The job security of our "elected representatives" trumps their constitutional duties to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Posted by Don Bacon at March 15, 2007 08:05 AM