PLEASE, this is a serious question, how is everything Nancy Pelosi's fault?

I have seen her called a 'pile of shit' just now on another thread. I have heard how the majority of DUers think that she is the worst Speaker EVER. But I have asked MORE THAN ONCE what she could do to get the troops home or restore our civil liberties or push SCHIP through or impeach Bush/Cheney with a small majority in the House and a majority of ONE in the Senate.

I am asking because I honestly don't understand how responsible she is for these things not happening. Can someone PLEASE explain to me how this works? How do the Democrats in Washington get controversial legislation that does not have a lotof support from the GOP passed with the size of the majority they currently 'enjoy'?

Because if nobody has an answer, then WHAT IN THE FUCK IS EVERYBODY BITCHING AND BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS FOR???

I just want a serious, workable answer. Not a bunch of shitty one liners, which is what this question got the last time around.

what right does she have to do that?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow
she is ignoring the will of the people

she's following the dictates of the caucus. There are virtually no members calling for impeachment. Which isn't surprising, since just a year ago all of them were elected and virtually none of them ran on impeachment as an issue. In fact, during the 2006 campaign, Howard Dean himself said that impeachment was off the table. If in fact, a majority of the House was hot to trot on impeachment, you would have expected at least one member to introduce a resolution to impeach chimpy. Instead, there is only the one resolution to impeach cheney. And if a majority wanted that to move, Kucinich could, for example, start a discharge petition and, with signatures from 218 members, force it to the floor.

But none of that is happening, which supports the thesis that Pelosi knows that the votes aren't there in the House to start impeachment proceedings. WHich should come as a surprise to no one given the votes on issues like the moveon censure, Pete Stark, and FISA.

and as a majority leader she should be leading others to endorse impeachmnet
we will soon be in iran
and then we're fucked

During the campaign, the repubs were trying to rally their base by claiming that if the Democrats captured the house/senate, they would make impeachment a priority. Dean and Pelosi sought to defuse the issue by rebutting those assertions -- presumably because they were untrue (given the fact that virtually none of the Democratic candidates were arguing that impeachment should be a priority)

when it comes to impeachment - for God's sake it is her Constitutional RESPONSIBILITY - she took an oath to the Constitution not the caucus

Its not about having the votes - it is about the inquiry - did you ever think that maybe if they started an HONEST go God inquiry/investigation they might just get the votes.

I am sick to death of these Dems who instead of doing the right thing on SO MANY friggin issues they posture and worry and wonder how it will impact the 2008 election - sorry folks there comes a time when there are some things more important than the next freaking election - and you know what I truly believe if the fuckers would stand for something they would have no problem in the next election....

Nancy controls the agenda - SHE ABSOLUTELY SUCKS - this Pete Stark apology has pushed me over the fucking edge.....


oh we're keeping our powder dry - oh we don't have the votes - oh oh oh we have our heads up our ass - or MAYBE they are just PLAIN IN ON IT and will not tolerate any progressive Dems who aren't

The first step in the impeachment process is for the full House to vote on a resolution authorizing and directing the House Judiciary to conduct an inquiry and report back with recommendations regarding articles of impeachment. In the Nixon impeachment, that vote, taken in Feb 1974, was 410-4. In the Clinton impeachment situation, there still was a modicum of bipartisanship: 31 Democrats supported commencing the process. There is no bi-partisan support for taking that first step and almost certainly more than 16 Democrats want nothing to do with a purely party line impeachment effort and will not support it. I would bet the ranch that more than 16 Democrats have let Pelosi know that they don't want impeachment pursued unless/until there is some indication of bipartisan support. I don't like that those are the facts, but I have learned to live with them.

or Nancy taking it off the table or not having the votes for the inquiry. She made that statement during the 2006 campaign because the repunks were telling folks if you put the Dems in the majority they are going to impeach the freak - SHE SHOULD HAVE NEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT - she had NO RIGHT TO MAKE IT and SHE HAS a CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility to bring forward impeachment if she believes impeachable offenses have been committed PERIOD. She did this because she felt if she didn't the Dems would lose and I believe she could have kept her mouth shut on the issue and the Dems STILL would have won. My point is that too many Dems do things under some misguided political calculation and I am FREAKING SICK OF IT - actually I am now beginning to believe it is getting a little to late for impeachment - but taking impeachment off the table has not been the only problem with Nancy Pelosi and I still maintain she is not there to abide by the wishes of the caucus BUT TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION and I believe John Conyers has been pressured in some way not to go forward in the judiciary committee because I'm betting he WANTED TO....AND by the way I have called his office SEVERAL TIMES regarding this and have been told SEVERAL TIMES they get TONS of calls supporting impeachment.

and because, in fact, it was true: Democrats running for Congress weren't talking about impeachment.

By historical standards that is not a small majority. The Republicans did a lot more with a majority in the single digits than Pelosi has done with significantly more. Plus she and the rest of the House leadership seem to take every chance they can get to rub in the base's face how it is insignificant and it will still crawl over broken glass for the opportunity to vote against the Republicans in '08, so who cares what they think in Oct. '07.

the dems would be in the minority- unless you think that Schuler's district, for example would have elected some mythical liberal.

...that votes gop...?

and weak as the dems may be, it's better to be in the majority.

...when does the pay-off begin exactly?

Would it be before or after the majority leadership forces an apology out of one of it's members?

Or does the payoff begin AFTER the subpoenas are actually enforced?

Or after Habeus Corpus is re-installed?

Or AFTER His Majesty gets another $42 billion?

Gimme a break...

move those goal posts, why don't you. Sorry, I don't feel like bothering with someone with a closed mind.

Criticize a Democratic leader, and cali is ready to defend them at all costs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2106117

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3610607

That's just two threads I started critical of dems. I've made hundreds of critical comments.



We now return you to ratty making shit up.

and repugs in the majority..

to be anything but collective. You do. Go for it.

Lead, follow or get out of the way...

getting passed? How are the Dems going to look if they repeatedly get send up bills that get killed? What GOOD does it do?

...In fact it looks GREAT. Why? Because we wold be able to paint the giggling murderer in the WH and has rubber-stamp lackeys as the obstrucionist war-mongers that they are...

But that would require commitment to principles and stiff spines....

Something the Dems have NONE of apparently...

and bush vetoed it
they then turned around and gave bush everything he wanted - victory for bush
their excuse for not putting up an a bill with even tighter restriction on how he spends the war money was "he'll just veto it again"
my answer is
MAKE HIM FUCKING VETO IT
MAKE HIM FUCKING VETO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN
GIVE HIM NOTHING
how the hell does a simpleton pres with plummeting approval ratings keep winning with a minority party?

MAKE HIM FUCKING VETO IT AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN.

If he wants funding, make him accept the timeline, and if vetoes the timeline, then to hell with the funding.

And, the American people would THANK the Democratic Party for it.

Exactly right!! And, if we have to lose a Shuler (and that comes from a big Tennessee Vol fan) or a Marshall to do it, so be it.

This party should not be the "Blue Dog Protection Party," or the "Incumbent Protection Party," but the "The Constitution Protection and Defense Party."

How naive I was...

Making Bush *REPEATEDLY* veto legislation that the vast
majority of Americans support would be good for our party,
especially in the next election.

Looking like a bunch of running dogs stinking with the
stench of fear, on the other hand, probably jeopardises
our chances in 2008.

Tesha

It is well within hers and Reid's powers to decide what comes up for vote. They have chosen their path, and that is to appease the Republicans instead of their own constituents.

Will be checking back for an answer.




Peace:thumbsup:

She compounded the original problem (lawlessness, invasion of privacy, warrantless domestic spying, lies leading to Iraq) by making her first announcement that she would never consider impeachment.
That sent a signal to the WH that they could do pretty much what they wanted.
On funding Iraq, she caved without even trying to use some reasonable and rational powers that her office provides.
On voting on FISA, she allowed a vote to take place, after a full court press and fear mongering by the WH, never seen on such a scope or scale. That spinelessness was horrific, especially that we all now have confirmed that it (the purported threat) was bogus and made up.

She just forced Stark to apologize for saying something that more than 50% of Americans believe.

She is a disaster.

the decision to forego impeachment wasn't made in a vacuum? I mean, that it wasn't a spontaneous choice on her part because she loves Bush so much. I would imagine that with the limited majority that Dems have, that the GOP might have said something like, "Bring impeachment to the table and we will not work with you on anything. At all."

2)I don't have a clear opinion on the FISA bill. I have heard even people here say that it was not a terrible compromise. I do, however, have reservations about giving the telecom industry a free pass.

3) Stark HAD to apologize. I wish he didn't, but he did. The comment about the President being 'amused' by the death of the troops was out of line. Yeah, I know they say things that are out of line all the time. The thing is, they are usually smart enough not to say them on the record while standing on the House floor. I was all about that comment when he made it and dead set against him apologizing. But the more I read, the more I realized that an apology was in order.

You have listed three things, all of which are questionable, even by staunch Democrats such as we have here on the DU. Does that really add up to a 'disaster'?

she could have said NOTHING about impeachment, and frankly, silence would have put the fear of it into some in the administration, enough that they would not have continued down the path they have since taken.

She had many choices, she chose to deliberately act and in the process picked the absolute worst of all variations.

how strong was the GOP feeling at that point? I know they lost seats in both houses, but other than that, I honestly don't remember. I can see a scenario where Pelosi was told that if she would publicly take impeachment off the table, the GOP wouldn't fight her on other things every step of the way. Also, impeachment is not as easy as some people seem to think. Remember, NO President has ever actually been impeached. And forcing impeachment hearings during a war might have actually had a reverse effect and triggered more support for Bush. Without impeachment hearings, Bush's approval rating is the lowest of any POTUS ever, Dems are looking like winning the WH and larger majorities in both houses in '08.

Also, what are the chances of 'getting' Bush and Cheney AFTER they are out of the WH? Is there a way that can be done once the Dems have more control?

> Remember, NO President has ever actually been impeached.

Actually, Clinton was impeached. He wasn't convicted, but
he most certainly was impeached.

And if we actually impeached Bush and brought some evidence
to a Senate trial, whi knows what wonders might happen?

Tesha

Andrew Johnson in 1868 avoided conviction and removal by one vote
and Bill Clinton

and of course a third Richard Nixon most certainly would have been impeached and actually more than likely convicted had he not resigned....

You're correct, of course, but I didn't think we needed to
reach back that far to disprove the poster's point. ;)

Tesha

even then more than half of the nation was against him.

and Richard Nixon resigned because had he not, he would have been impeached.

The assertion that no president has ever been impeached is just not true.

Impeachment was put in the Constitution for a reason. The reason for impeaching a president is quite evident right now. Not to impeach Cheney and Bush is to ignore the reason impeachment was written into the Constitution.

If Bush is above the law with all he has done, then NO president shall ever be accountable to the law ever again.

my thought. I was thinking that no President had ever been successfully impeached ie. removed from office.

to ensure the election. The only people who were concerned the Dems might impeach the lying sack of criminal shit were people who wouldn't have voted for the Dems anyway. The Dems would have taken back the House most likely - but what ensure it and increased the number of seats going to the Dems and most likely contributed to the take over of the Senate (which in early 2006 anybody who predicted the takeover of the Senate would have been laughed out of the room)

Two words sealed the fate of the House and the Senate in 2006 - FOLEY and MACACA.

I knew the day the Foley story broke and that sick fuck resigned in practically MINUTES that it was OVER for the repunks....funny thing I was right

IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT an issue one way or another for the vast majority of people - she should have kept her mouth SHUT....

and I'd have to go look this up but I'm very curious what was the margin of repunk seats to dem seats when they did indeed impeach Bill Clinton....didn't hear them crying oh - we don't have the votes oh he'll veto us wha wha wha The repunks have been more effective in the minority than the Dems are in the majority they roll over all the time and I am getting so sick of it

Before election day in 2006, both Pelosi and Howard Dean essentially said that impeachment would be off the table if the Democrats captured control of Congress. It wasn't a terribly irrational thing to say, given that virtually no Democrat running for election (or reelection) was talking about impeachment or making it an issue. If it was the "will of the people", why wasn't anyone trying to take advantage of that fact by making it an issue?

your made up scenario about why nancy won't impeach does not explain why she made the ignoramus statement
"Impeachment is off the table"
or why she can't join dennis kucinich in his attempt to impeach cheney

bush is amused by all this
go back and look at the huge grin on his face when he told russert he was "a war president"
just recently he giggled when he warned of the up-coming world war III

and as for the fisa bill:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gU5gA6IcIpk

Not the Speaker. Protest, act nasty, be mean and un-civil. Keep bringing up votes even though it won't do any good and wastes time. Make all the Republicans mad, even if they might change to our side and we need a few to overcome the lack of votes.

Ok, I guess anything is better than a doormat.

Tom Delay? --- I do. That's the way you run a small majority to vote like a large one. Hell, Delay and Hastert even got our Blue Dogs to cross the aisle multiple times. It was rare when one from their side crossed over to ours on a vote, and when they did, they were sorry later.

And they did it by being the meanest sons-of-bitches in DC. She needs to be like that. Ruthless. A LEADER.

TC

and I am not referring to "anger".

at least a little.

literally. She did NOT have to allow a vote on a war funding bill without a timeline for troop withdrawal. She did NOT have to allow ANY vote on any bill funding the war. She did NOT have to take impeachment "off the table." She did not have to criticize Pete Stark for telling the truth and pressuring him to apologize for it. She did NOT have to table a Contempt of Congress vote on Rove and Miers and Bolten....(she doesn't want to vote on that, for some reason). She said she would hold this administration accountable, yet at every turn has let the administration slide, and has given Bush every vote he has asked for on the House.

Not EVERYTHING is Nancy's fault. But, she's a piss poor speaker of the house who capitulates when she doesn't have to do so. And, she's is ticking off the base...there are a lot of good Democrats leaving the party because of her inaction.

Maybe that will answer part of your question, anyway.

I don't normally like rodents but you are the exception. Well said.

:hi:

Discharge petition.

that's for damned sure.

and one more thing she did NOT have to bring that ridiculous FISA thing up for a vote in August....

Rat!~

Wish I could recommend it too!

:applause::hi::applause:

crap about how she's worse than bush blah, blah, blah, but there are things she could do. She could, for example, just not introduce funding for Iraq. She could be more persistant about investigations. She could introduce impeachment and bring the evidence to light. The last is a huge risk, and I actually understand her not taking it.

virulent hatred for her here. It also makes sense to me that with a very small majority, whether anybody likes it or not, the Dems have to work WITH the GOP.

There is no such thing as working with the gop, It's their way or filibuster. These fascist crapmongers will continue to destroy this country and the only way to stop them is to keep their agendas from passing. Just don't bring it up for a vote. If that means making them angry so be it. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any time a repub crossed over on an important vote and made the difference in passing a bill. Just saying.

going on which we are not privy to.





Peace:thumbsup:

Sure there is -- she *LIKES* her power and privilege and intends to use
keep it until it's forced from her hands. Of course, her constituents can
do that in any even year they that decide to do so...

Tesha

She wanted the Speaker of the House position, we gave it to her, she did nothing.

at an alarming rate
iran - here we come

she is perfect as Speaker.

Nor would they allow a Democrat to present any bills.

Pelosi allows each and every GOPer censure statement and each and every GOPer bill to be presented for a vote. If a Dem bill is even considered, it first has to be vetted by GOPers before going up for a vote or Nancy whines "We don't have the votes".

were in control and Clinton was president. He spoke of how they "shut down the govt" and stuff to finally get clinton to the table on issues.

if the Dems throw their small amount of weight around? Or is this genuinely a case of Dems being chickenshit? Or are they waiting for '08, when we are virtually guaranteed a Dem in the WH and more comfortable majorities in both houses?

If she can't keep at least one of those 31 votes on her side, she's not a damned leader.

If they understood how those dynamics work, how the floor is actually run, they'd be rightfully pissed off at Steny Hoyer (Majority Leader) and Rahm Emanuel (Caucus chairman). I'd throw in the conference and both whips as well.

The ignorance of how things actually work in the House has them climbing all over each other screaming for the head of the Speaker - woefully misplaced.

Nevermind those are elected positions, which the Speaker has (obviously) no input on, and in the current case, they have a long, bitter history of being political rivals (Pelosi & Hoyer).

They are very different "Democrats".

This shit generated in the caucus and the conference, BTW - look to Emanuel.

Would you please elucidate on Emanuel's responsibility in this? I feel woefully ignorant, but I just can't remember back to sixth grade Civics to how EXACTLY the in-party politics work.

Letting Stark get "reprimanded" in any way would have generated from the caucus, which is chaired by Emanuel, so this action generating in caucus is no surprise there. Most likely w/cooperation of the (republican) conference. Disciplinary stuff comes out of the caucus (conference for the republicans).

Emanuel & Hoyer are friends, ideologically similar and work in concert between the caucus and the floor. Emanuel chairs the caucus who would have approached the floor leader (Hoyer), who runs all the action on the floor. Hoyer placed the call to Stark, telling him that the floor workers decided that if he apologized, all the floor people would make sure the censure failed. This whole apology business generated on the floor - between the caucus, the conference, the whips and the floor leader. Hoyer put out a stmt to the press about his phone call to Stark over the weekend.

Yeah, sure, Pelosi is at the top of that ladder, but as I'm sure you know, the Speaker is rarely involved in the day-to-day runnings of the House and is even more rarely actually on the floor. The Speaker is doing the strategic policy planning, but the floor leaders are running the place.

I'm just saying it's a bit unfair to lay everything at the foot of the Speaker when it's really others running the house every day, especially since those leaders have those positions by election, the Speaker has no say whatsoever over who has those jobs.

have issues with Hoyer and Emanuel - I sure do but the thread was started about Pelosi - and btw did the caucus hold a gun to Nancy to make her make her statement about Stark? There comes a time no matter how things work that folks take a stand and even though she doesn't run the day to day stuff she has to be stoned deaf stupid to know that A LOT of Dems are not happy with her and she needs to step up and lead - but given her statements about the protesters outside her house and the fact that she has not met with her constituents in AGES I think she just doesn't give a damn what we think....and I hope the good people in her CA district realize that and do something about it...same for the folks in Hoyer's district and Emanuel's and all the other Dem repunk lite enablers....

it was brutal. Then, when Pelosi became Speaker, she stated up front she wanted Murtha (a longtime ally) as Majority Leader. I'm sure that pissed Hoyer off to no end. It was Steny's gang that dragged up the ABSCAM bullshit about Murtha all over again.

On the outside, we don't see much of this, but it's important to always keep in the back of your mind that these Dems are much more fractured within the House than we realize.

I was afraid when Pelosi made Speaker and Hoyer was elected Majority Leader (& Emanuel as caucus chair) that Hoyer may undermine Pelosi. It may be happening, my gut says probably.

It matters to the rest of us because the in-fighting can make our party look stupid and ineffectual to outsiders. I just point it out so that we are blaming the right people for that impression.

...that's NOT what the 06 election was about...

There are long-held divisions within our House leadership, and a good part of them don't really like each other.

I'm saying you should leave open the door of possibility that some Dems undermine other Dems and you will never, ever know that publicly. You have to look at their long history of positions within the party - who fought who for what and what position. Those things don't go away overnight.

about 'centrist bullshit'. We didn't get any more of a mandate than Bush did when he squeaked by in '04.

She, as the Speaker of the House schedules votes on all bills in the house. Or, she doesn't schedule a vote at all.

This is a tremedously powerful position, because legislation she doesn't want or like she can effectively kill.

So when the Senate sends her a bill to allow illegal wiretapping, for instance, she can just not schedule a vote on it, unless of course she wants to.

She can also use this power to twist arms.

Want a vote on your favorite bill to fund your pet project? If you don't vote my way on bill x then your bill y will never see the light of day.

So far as I and a lot of other folks can tell, she hasn't used her power very effectively to pass or to kill legislation that is important to progressives.

As I said, I haven't seen any critisism of her about SCHIP. Thw Senate passed it with veto proof majority, the Repos in the house voted in larges enough numbers to sustain bush's veto.

But she could, for instance, refuse to schedule a vote to continue to fund the illegal and unpopular occupation of Iraq.

She could launch an impeachment investigation into Dick Chaney.

While it's true, that there are mechanisms to force a vote on legislation, there are also powers that she could exercise to make life pretty tough on those who cross her.

So that is why so many are so disappointed in the Speaker.

Absent a discharge petition, legislation doesn't get to the House
Floor without the Speaker's support.

Strangely enough, tons of bad legislation is making it to the floor.
Guess who the Speaker is...

Tesha

Of course, a lot of "Democrats" are actually Republicans
so they probably would vote for Republican discharge
petitions.

But that's a separate problem.

Tesha

easily, as reflected by previous votes.

A discharge petition was successfully used to get campaign finance legislation to the floor over Hastert's opposition: http://www.bu.edu/washjocenter/Spring_2002_Stories/newswire_field_shays0125.htm

As I recall, McCain-Feingold had some Republican
support as well.

The Democrats *NEVER* brought anything to the floor that
the Republicans didn't want brought there.

Tesha

that's the point.

majority of DUers-- just a lot of loudmouthed ones who won't shut up about it.

Going back to Carl Albert and Tip O'Niell, the Speaker's powers were cut back quite a bit and Pelosi can't do what some of the old ones could. Think back to O'Neill and how Reagan always managed to best him-- just as with Shrub, the President will tend to get his way in a battle with Congress, no matter who has the majority.

Gingrich went to war with Clinton, and look what happened to him...

Anyway, the slim majority we have on the Hill seems to have encouraged a lot of people with false hopes, as if Pelosi and Reid could wave magic wands and we'd be out of Iraq, Shrub would be impeached, and everyone would have ice cream for dessert.

It doesn't work that way, of course, and when disappointed that their immediate desires aren't fulfilled, the peanut gallery has to blame someone. Rather than properly put the blame on Shrub and the Republicans, they're blaming our own people.

As if that would help.

Secondly the Speaker of the House of Representatives has the power to keep legislation from being considered.

And if she allowed the impeachment process to be started, the resultant committee hearings would expose the crimes and treason of the Bush/Cheney administration. Several months of such hearings and the Republicans would be jumping ship.

She needs to speak out against the so-called "Unitary" presidency. What a load of crap that is. It should be obvious to any person who has completed a fifth grade civics course. Unfortunately, most Americans couldn't pass a fifth grade civics course. "Unitary" presidency, indeed. What horse shit.

She needs to stop treating Bush as a well-intentioned man. He is a traitor who came to power through a judicial coup.

And we, under her leadership, need to take the gloves off. Can you even begin to imagine what the Republicans would do in a similar circumstance?

I was criticized by one of our politically correct members for daring to compare Pelosi by implication to a cow . How to God I wish I could compare her to a raging bull or a charging elephant instead of some poor beast being led off to the slaughter. Can you imagine anyone with any degree of fairness whatsoever comparing Barbara Boxer or Sylvia McKinney to a such passive animal? Speaker Pelosi, by her behavior, invites such comparisons. And unfortunately she is taking us and what's left of the Republic to the slaughter with her.

She is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, holding the office many of our founding fathers thought would be the dominant one.

Bush has demeaned both the legislative and judicial branches of the government. Under our constitution, Pelosi is his equal. It's about time she started acting like it.

"She is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, holding the office many of our founding fathers thought would be the dominant one."

Damned straight. It's time the Congress remembered that they are ARTICLE I of the Constitution for a reason. It's the PEOPLE'S house, and it has both the power of the purse, and the power of legislating.

Pelosi has the power. I even think she may have the wisdom. What she lacks is the courage to do what needs to be done. And, we the people are paying the price for it.

I see pictures of Pelosi holding hands with Bush** and gazing at him like a junior high student admiring the hero quarterback. Appearance matters.

with the woman on the left in the second pic is uncanny! :evilgrin:

Nancy promised to get a LOT OF SHIT done and she hasn't. She promised to bring the troops home and end THIS FUCKING WAR and she hasn't. She pissed in Cindy's face the second she got into office THAT BITCH!! I'm sorry you CANT FUCKING SEE THAT.

when she got Speaker, I truly think she's being leaned on, or they realize what kind of schizo * is, they do not want to upset the apple cart, but, * will do something again so outrageous that these Reps will be saying we should of listened to the American people, who the hell knows what is going on behind the scenes, they are dealing with the mafia.

There are some who wanted Pelosi to do everything exactly the way they wanted it and now that she didn't, they are attacking her. They've taken all the blame off of Bush and put it on Pelosi, which is ridiculous.

Pelosi and the gang threatened censure against him if he did not apologize. No attempts to even censure anyone in the administration for starting an illegal war, or outing a CIA agent though. Kinda funny to me.

Criminal acts aren't what censure is for. What happened with Stark isn't even that serious, it's not going to change anything for better or worse. They wanted to take the Republicans ammunition away and that's exactly what happened with this Stark issue.

Has to do with leadership..

Nancy Pelosi hasn't the balls to stand up and speak for everyone who she is supposed to be speaking for AS the elected speaker of the house.

She is speaker of the House and so should speak for us and against all the bullshit this administration is doing. She is not doing that. That's what her job should be. Her willingness has been to work with the Republicans and she has not brought legislation up for votes to get us the hell out of this quagmire, not being kowtowed by right wing neo nazi factions of these Goddamn crazy Republicans. It's their vote got us into this mess by not HAVING opposition. We said, ENOUGH last November, but we were looking for someone who would bring forth ENOUGH.

Now, we have more round hells, this time in the leadership of the Democratic party. Why? There is practically NO opposition to what has been going on to finance a war that is illegal and offline with BUDGET. You've seen how this crazy motherfucker keeps doing this, haven't you? And how she keeps backing down each time?

She deserves to be replaced by someone who will step into the absolute worst mess ever allowed to develop by a Republican congress by a little piss ant dictator who never was elected.

Yes, this is some serious shit, renie, so I hope you recognize the serious nature of how we should get out of it and WHAT kind of leadership it will take to do this.

Thanks for asking.

But she should unify the democrats against this regime. There should be no deals for immunity from crimes or secret deals for more dictatorial powers against the laws that protect the people. Quite frankly, she should allow any attempt at an impeachment inquiry instead of taking our protections off the table no matter what crimes against us are committed. I didn't give bush or her the power to take my rights and the rights of my children away.

Your question is too much an "all or nothing" proposition. We're all angry at *ush *heney and tend to blame them the most, the there's a host of evil, sick assholes surrounding them who are equally complicit. And the enablers of this cabal who sit in board rooms deserve much more of the blame as they are worse still while hiding in the shadows.

So Nancy's receiving the bulk of the retribution because of her position and because of the position she takes on issues that most of us feel would make a far greater difference for the better than the ones she's chosen to pursue.

No doubt the legislation is leaps and bounds better than the ass-wipe republican congress we had prior to this (god, what a pathetic group of people they were...). But she's ignoring impeachment, enabling funding for the war, and chastising fellow democrats for speaking out but not doing the same when republicans speak their BS that is far more vile. She's got the gavel, she's got the title, so she's going to take the brunt of the blame.

but NONE when it comes to this Fascist Criminal Torturing Constitution-Shredding Administration!

That goes with the territory.

of several genera :rofl:

a. freeper troll teams who are highly paid to disrupt the "enemy"

b. ordinary trolls who are Dems but troll because they are trolls and can't afford psychiatric help

c. people who behave like Dick Cheney when they get pissed off, but, at least, are not card-carrying members of the Corrupt Bastards Club

d. and, seriously, people who lack understanding of the workings of Congress and the incredible difficulty involved in herding cats and Dems.
Did I leave anyone out? If so, I apologize. :rofl:

Being a Progressive means being a narrow slice of the political pie.
If you can't handle that, get out of the kitchen and let the cooks work!

:rofl:

It has all the ingredients of making Dems hate their leadership, a divisive tactic
intended to suppress voting and schism more Progressives into the Nader column.

When you have Democrats in leadership that would allow something like the "condemn MoveOn" bill on the floor of the house, and then fucking vote FOR it, I think it's safe to say our leadership sucks.

She is not representing the will of the people who want her to Impeach * & Co, but rather saying she leads-not represents-the people & will do what SHE wants and for the people to shut the f*ck up.

How much CLEARER does it have to be for ya?!