paradox in the house! Another no-bullshit, kickass post. Come on Dems, the freakin house is on fire!
Posted by Sharkbabe at February 25, 2007 08:18 AMOne of my Republican friends, who voted Democratic for the first time in her life last election, echoes this. She said, "I expected more action than this. It's nearly March, and we're still in Iraq with no plan to get out."
Democrats have an historic opportunity now. Even here in deep red country people are sick of Iraq. They want out - now. They voted for Democrats to get us out. But the Democrats are blowing their chance with their pussy footing pusillanimity.
The Republicans are proven fools, but the Democrats are beginning to look like cowards. People want, and will vote for, leaders.
Where are some?
Remind me once again of the difference between Coke and Pepsi?
Posted by Thomas Ware at February 25, 2007 08:37 AMUntil Red State Repub senators start hearing from citizens like clio's friend, the horrendous Repub senate leader Mitch McConnell and his Red State Repubs (and Lieberturd) will block every possible line of advance by senate Dems, and there is literally nothing Reid can do about it.
Our country has a Red State Repub problem. Perhaps at some point Reid will start denouncing this Repub sena-turds block, although that's never really done in the senate. But senate Dems better start explaining (on a daily basis) what's going on, or we can forget about all those voters like clio's friend.
Posted by euzoius at February 25, 2007 08:40 AMMy one republican "friend" is a pussy footing pusillanimous pussy.
(I have one republican "friend" for research purposes only.)
Posted by TIKI AL at February 25, 2007 09:00 AMIt's too easy to complain about the Democrats because of the situation euzious notes.
They seem to waffle because the public sends contradictory messages to their Congresscritters. If everybody sent the same messages to them without attacking them and calling them names like "pussy," then they might be better led to do the right thing. Since we are the leaders, after all.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 25, 2007 09:01 AMNo paradox, its you who needs to stop. Like it or not it's still only been a month and a half.
Jeepers even temps get a 90 day evaluation. You're being impatient. There's no other way to call it.
I'll wait because it's still EARLY.
Posted by Daryl at February 25, 2007 09:06 AMeuzoius,
Her Senator is hearing from her. (That's a new thing for her, too.) Doesn't seem to be making much difference so far (must be related to Bush), but we're both keeping at it.
As for Republican friends. Heck, if I didn't have Republican friends I wouldn't have friends. This county went 65/35 Bush in 2004. However, it did go 50/50 for the Democratic Senate candidate last time. There may be hope.
Posted by clio at February 25, 2007 09:10 AMThe Democrats never intended to act on any of their campaign promises. They never do. They need the issues to use as political footballs during election years.
Remember the 1990's? During Clinton's first 2 years, he had a Democratic Congress. They could've done something with health care, indexing the minimum wage to inflation, alternative energy and the environment. What'd they do other than raise taxes, sign NAFTA and GATT? How much of that helped you? The latter two were really leftover from the Bush I years that Clinton just signed. Other than that, nothing.
The major action during Clinton's term came with the GOP Congress. We got welfare reform, a hike in the minimum wage, tax cuts on real estate and capital gains, and Roth IRAs. I bet that helped you a lot, especially if you've sold your home the past decade and have contributed to your Roth IRA.
Now with the Democrats back in Congress, you're surprised that they're back to doing nothing? They need those issues for 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and beyond. Why would they even attempt to solve them?
Posted by muckdog at February 25, 2007 09:28 AMReid and Pelosi have articulated nothing in the form of Democratic response or opposition to this and it’s unforgivable.
“Much has been made about President Bush’s recent saber rattling toward Iran,” Mr. Reid said. “This morning, I’d like to be clear: The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking Congressional authorization—a the current use of force resolution for Iraq does not give him such authorization.”
What do you think they should have said? "We'll impeach your ass if you bomb Iran!" Goad the cowboy, that'll work. Or maybe the Dems could lead the masses to the White House with torches and pitchforks, and drag Bush and Cheney out in chains. I'm sure that's gonna happen soon. Whether it's fair or not, whether you like it or not, this shit's going to take time. Yes, it sucks, but that's democracy for you.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 25, 2007 09:31 AMThe Democrats never intended to act on any of their campaign promises.
Anyone else hear a mosquito buzzing?
Remind me once again of the difference between Coke and Pepsi?
None. Lobby reform leaves a bitter taste from both.
What do you think they should have said? "We'll impeach your ass if you bomb Iran!"
Nope. They just shouldn't have taken it off of the table.
Posted by phidipides at February 25, 2007 11:12 AMThis past week, I heard Juan Williams on NPR say Murtha's plan to tie Congressional funding to troop readiness was "dead in the water". Several mainstream press outlets say the Dem leadership is afraid to be seen as weakining the troop support. Even MoveOn.org is being criticized by Cindy Sheehan for being afraid of what it would "look like" to use the power of the purse.
Posted by gtash at February 25, 2007 11:42 AMHey, look: rhetoric divorced from reason!
You guys need to think about something. You're faulting these people for not pushing a certain agenda through Congress. It is not reasonable, though, to fault people for not doing impossible things. Until you can point at some specific proposals Dems could have pushed through both the Senate and the House, but just didn't, then there's really nothing to complain about.
See, unlike you or I, Harry Reid can mosey down the hall and find out in advance who's likely to vote for a given law, so he can plan which stuff is worth pushing and which stuff isn't. Now, I suppose it's possible that Harry Reid is the stupidest fucking guy on Earth, and hasn't bothered to do that. But more likely, he knows exactly what the score would be, and he's pushing symbolic gestures that move the debate, because that's what the current political landscape will allow.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 25, 2007 12:37 PMMostly, women are better than men in managing, in understanding, in logical thought and in caring for humanity. Pelosi probably has many of these qualities but she has to deal with men who are hampered by an excess of testosterone and a shortfall of sense.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 25, 2007 01:59 PMIt could also be that the Dems lack the political will, the balls, and the backbone.
If this was a Dem president and the Reps were in charge of the House and the Senate, chances are good that impeachment would be very much on the table. Oh wait, that's already happened for a blowjob.
The Dems don't have that go-for-the-throat mentality needed to show they mean business.
Reps in the 70's understood the damage Nixon would do to them, so they wised up and joined the Dems. That's the only thing Reid needs to tell them when he moseys on down the hall.
It really is that simple. All that's needed is the will and backbone to do it.
Posted by Alex at February 25, 2007 02:44 PMstraight shooting paradox
i particularly liked this, and couldn't agree more: "...stating if Bush attacks Iran he and Cheney will be impeached the next week. No ifs, ands or buts, simple instant impeachment, along with total cessation of all funding for any American war effort, anywhere."
time to up the ante in this poker game and throw in all the chips. either that, or all the damn demoRats should resign (oh I forgot, they're all too busy running for 2008 to take real care of any current business that might put the whole country back on track and in the black economically etc etc)
Very simple--the Iran attack will be defensive.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 25, 2007 08:29 PM