Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why are we allowing this fucking lame duck asshole to dictate terms to us?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 10:52 AM
Original message
Why are we allowing this fucking lame duck asshole to dictate terms to us?
Whether it's withdrawing troops from Iraq (or lack thereof), confronting Iran, rolling over for Turkey, or nominating a new Attorney General, why are we allowing this asshat to dictate terms to us? We're supposed to be the majority party. We were elected into power with a clear mandate for change - people have had enough of this administration's abuses and incompetence! Yet it seems that no matter how resolute our Congress appears to be, it only takes a few words from Chimpy and our leadership rolls over and gives him what he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why are we allowing this fucking lame duck asshole to dictate terms to us?
I think that's a question that should be addressed to every Democrat in Congress, especially Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Given all we know about Bush's lies, cronyism, unethical behavior, illegal activities, etc., I find it appalling that no one in Congress has the cajones to stand up and confront him. Which makes every Congress person an accomplice to these activities in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Dennis has....
At least the cajones to talk about it!

See text of DK's resolution to Impeach here:

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Yes, you are correct, Dennis has talked about it.
He has the bill to impeach Cheney.

So, other than Dennis, who else will confront these criminals? And if not, why not? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. anthrax!1!1! video of harry reid and a pony!!1!! i'm series!!!1!!
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. Eyes are on the prize--2008. Nancy, Harry and Co. will continue to
take it up the ass with nothing more than feeble protest, because they don't want to make any bold, controversial political or legislative moves that might jeopardize their coast to victory next year. They're useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Perhaps they're dreaming of a Democratic president with the same
type of power Cheney, Addington and Gonzales have amassed through all those executive orders and signing statements.

Considering the corruption that power produces, I sincerely doubt a Democratic president with that kind of power would be a whole lot better.

That's what Pelosi simply doesn't understand. The only way to reset the constitution and restore the balance of powers is to impeach this scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. ya know you're right- a dictatorial leader
a corrupt 'Dem' would only be minimally better-

What we do need is representation willing to take a stand regardless of their fear of not being 'enough'- One with courage- doesn't take much courage to only be bold when you are assured of winning-

Impeachment is necessiary because it is the proper response to the tyrany that * and cheney have unleashed upon us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. ding ding ding!!!
You win the prize for that one. Regardless of party, once government amasses power, it's not likely that they are just going to give it back. I think this bunch is covetous of the level of power expansion under "Cheney's Law" and they are just itching to get their hands on it. Th feigned outrage they display in the meantime is beyond tiresome :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. delete
Edited on Wed Oct-17-07 11:24 AM by GTRMAN
dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. The minute a Democratic president tried to exercise that power, impeachment would be RIGHT BACK...
The minute a Democratic president tried to exercise that
sort of power, impeachment would be *RIGHT BACK ON THE
TABLE*, no matter how slim the Republicans' chances of
winning a conviction.

Count on it.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yep--expect a sudden big fight against the unitary-executive theory
by GOPers once Hillary takes office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Even as they jeopardize their 2008 chances by being totally F***ING usless in 2007! (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. They know that there is no viable third party to wreck their chances--
they're betting that you will vote for them anyway, despite their being as useless as tumors right now, simply because they're marginally less evil than the Republicans. That's good enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Unfortunately, "less evil" is no longer a winning argument for my vote. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. that "clear" mandate was neither that clear nor that much of a mandate
It was a step..a big step..in the right direction. But it was hardly as sweeping as some people want to believe. We gained control of the Senate because we managed to eke out a victory in Montana by less than 3000 votes and in Virginia by around 7000 votes. And the main reason that we were able to pull off those victories was (a) Burns association with Abramoff and (b) Allen's macaca moment.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. what was Chimpy's margin of theft in Ohio? in Florida?
a win is a win. if you're not going to turn that into actual policymaking power, you're not fit to lead a political party.

Harry and Nancy were just fine as rank-and-file Congresspeople. They are absoulute crap as Congressional leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Margin of 'victory' doesn't matter. A win is a win...and once you've "won"...
Edited on Wed Oct-17-07 11:04 AM by truebrit71
...you press ahead with your agenda...FULL SPEED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. and how do you do that when you have a miniscule margin in the Senate
and your actual margin in the House is limited by the fact that the House Democratic caucus is not uniformly progressive -- in fact, it has a very sizable blue dog/conservative wing.

And chimpy still has veto power.

I'd love it if we could do more, but I know enough about how the legislative process works to be realistic about what is and isn't possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. you give 'em The Treatment, LBJ style
quit treating Congressional Pukes with kid gloves. you want to pass a legislative agenda, you get in there, get your hands dirty, and you pass the damn agenda.

waaaa, we have a tiny majority. waaa, chimpy has the veto. waaaa, blue dogs are everywhere.

screw that. we took both chambers in 2006 away from the pukes. we took 'em. they're ours. you want to sit on your hands and hope hope hope that a "do nothing" strategery wins a supermajority in both chambers and the White House? that's a strategy for utter failure, my friend.

we won. we should probably maybe start to think about acting like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. LBJ -- do you actually know much about his tenure as majority leader?
Edited on Wed Oct-17-07 11:48 AM by onenote
LBJ became majority leader in 1955 when the Democrats had a scant majority. Between 1955 and 1958, he was successful in getting legislation passed largely by watering it down, as was the case with the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Even after the Democrats captured a veto-proof majority in 1958, he was unable to get strong Civil Rights legislation through because his majority included a large contingent of conservative Democrats from the South.

If you've got some examples of legislation that LBJ shoved down the throat of the Senate, I'd be interested in seeing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
16. I'm not are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC