Democrats: Imploding?

[M14 Shooter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202837_pf.html

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation...

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

But, here's a real gem:

If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death...."If there's going to be a filibuster, let's hear the damn filibuster," Rangel fumed. "Let's fight this damned thing out."

Now, imagine what all you Dems/Liberals would have said if the GOP had done this when they were in the majority. Be honest: you'd hit the roof, whine, cry, scream about an 'abuse of power' and any number of things like that.


If the Dems/liberals have such a 'mandate' to do all the things they said they would do in their campaigns, why haven't they done any of it?

 

[maineman]

I would never have a problem with forcing actual debate in a filibuster.

I was outraged when Frist and Co. were trying to rewrite the Senate rules to eliminate filibusters....and I bet that the republicans are now breathing a sigh of relief that THAT didn't happen!

 

[M14 Shooter]

But wait!! There's more!!

Pelosi: Republicans `like' Iraq War
"They like this war. They want this war to continue," Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans' ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

Asked to clarify her remarks, Pelosi backed off a bit.

"I shouldn't say they like the war," she said. "They support the war, the course of action that the president is on."

"And that was a revelation to me," she said, "because I thought the American people's voices were so—and still are—so strong in this regard."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TGOEMG0&show_article=1

Nancy:
As speaker, you, personally, have the power to end the war right now.
If you are SO confident in your assessment of the ‘voice’ of the American people, why don’t you do it?

 

[Paulie]

But wait!! There's more!!


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TGOEMG0&show_article=1

Nancy:
As speaker, you, personally, have the power to end the war right now.
If you are SO confident in your assessment of the ‘voice’ of the American people, why don’t you do it?

Pelosi doesn't give a horse's fucking NUTSACK what the people want. Neither does Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers, or Charlie Rangel.

If congress cared what the PEOPLE wanted, there'd be WAY MORE transparency into criminal investigations of the executive branch, and impeachment proceedings would not be 'off the table'...as if any ONE PERSON EVER has any constitutional authority to do that in the first place.

Pelosi's and Conyers' office gets flooded with emails and calls on a daily basis requesting this, and the people get NOTHING. Conyers actually told Cindy Sheehan a few months ago that if he were to pursue impeachment any further, Fox news would paint him as being "partisan".

Why do you still have faith in the 2 party system? The US government is not a football game. It's not "pick a side". It's about the COUNTRY, not just what you particularly want for your OWN personal content.

 

[CrpRavens30]

Pelosi doesn't give a horse's fucking NUTSACK what the people want. Neither does Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers, or Charlie Rangel.

If congress cared what the PEOPLE wanted, there'd be WAY MORE transparency into criminal investigations of the executive branch, and impeachment proceedings would not be 'off the table'...as if any ONE PERSON EVER has any constitutional authority to do that in the first place.

Pelosi's and Conyers' office gets flooded with emails and calls on a daily basis requesting this, and the people get NOTHING. Conyers actually told Cindy Sheehan a few months ago that if he were to pursue impeachment any further, Fox news would paint him as being "partisan".

Why do you still have faith in the 2 party system? The US government is not a football game. It's not "pick a side". It's about the COUNTRY, not just what you particularly want for your OWN personal content.

WOW.. I see your way out there..

 

[JimH52]

But wait!! There's more!!


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TGOEMG0&show_article=1

Nancy:
As speaker, you, personally, have the power to end the war right now.
If you are SO confident in your assessment of the ‘voice’ of the American people, why don’t you do it?

No, Congress controlls the funding, not the war. It would be political suicide to cut funding on troops in the field. Perlosi is expressing her disdain at the GOP congress and their continuing to follow like sheep the guy some call president.

Be assured that the republicans will pay dearly again in 2008. If a greater democratic majority is needed to overcome GOP blocking, I think they will get it.

 

[Gunny]

No, Congress controlls the funding, not the war. It would be political suicide to cut funding on troops in the field. Perlosi is expressing her disdain at the GOP congress and their continuing to follow like sheep the guy some call president.

Be assured that the republicans will pay dearly again in 2008. If a greater democratic majority is needed to overcome GOP blocking, I think they will get it.

Not a chance that either party will get majority of both houses in sufficient numbers to override blocks. Just wishful thinking on your part. Bet you're one of those that believe conservative dissatsifaction with Republicans causing them to stay home in 2006 and not put their own back into office giving the Dem's default victories was a "mandate" too, huh?

Either party being in complete control of the government with no checks ro balances would be an absolute disaster for this nation. Oh, sorry ... I forgot ... you political hacks put your politics first. Forgot my audience for a second there.

 

[jillian]

Not a chance that either party will get majority of both houses in sufficient numbers to override blocks. Just wishful thinking on your part. Bet you're one of those that believe conservative dissatsifaction with Republicans causing them to stay home in 2006 and not put their own back into office giving the Dem's default victories was a "mandate" too, huh?

Either party being in complete control of the government with no checks ro balances would be an absolute disaster for this nation. Oh, sorry ... I forgot ... you political hacks put your politics first. Forgot my audience for a second there.

I never think it's a good idea for one party to control all.... but I do think it's important from a governmental gridlock perspective to get override power (of course, that's only by *my* folks). ;o)

It's clear right now that the Repubs are being obstructionist and that Bush is going to veto any initiative that doesn't suit him. Hence, there still, effectively, being one party control. I've had enough of that after the last seven years. And, say what you want about Bill Clinton, he didn't wield his veto the same way. There were many areas in which agreement was found.

 

[Gunny]

I never think it's a good idea for one party to control all.... but I do think it's important from a governmental gridlock perspective to get override power (of course, that's only by *my* folks). ;o)

It's clear right now that the Repubs are being obstructionist and that Bush is going to veto any initiative that doesn't suit him. Hence, there still, effectively, being one party control. I've had enough of that after the last seven years. And, say what you want about Bill Clinton, he didn't wield his veto the same way. There were many areas in which agreement was found.

I will say what I want. Clinton authorized himself the line-item veto and cherry-picked what he wanted to sign. So no, he didn't veto whole packages, he just bled red ink all over them until they said what he wanted.

And ummm ... as far as who has been obstructionist, the first 6 of those 7 years it was YOUR folks that were the obstructionists.

No party should have override power. That is BEYOND dangerous.

 

[jillian]

I will say what I want. Clinton authorized himself the line-item veto and cherry-picked what he wanted to sign. So no, he didn't veto whole packages, he just bled red ink all over them until they said what he wanted.

And ummm ... as far as who has been obstructionist, the first 6 of those 7 years it was YOUR folks that were the obstructionists.

No party should have override power. That is BEYOND dangerous.

Every president wants the line-item veto. The Court, rightfully, said no.

If the dems were so obstructionist, why did Bush and his merry band get everything they wanted while we got shell-shocked?

What's dangerous is the president holding Congress hostage with his veto pen.

 

[Gunny]

Every president wants the line-item veto. The Court, rightfully, said no.

If the dems were so obstructionist, why did Bush and his merry band get everything they wanted while we got shell-shocked?

What's dangerous is the president holding Congress hostage with his veto pen.

You're kidding, right? Bush didn't get much of shit he wanted, and those stupid Republicans sat up there and acted like they were the minority and danced every time the Dems cracked a whip.

The President SHOULD be able to veto legislation, and if enough members in Congress agree on an issue, they should be able to override the veto. That means a 2/3's majority of a bipartisan Congress. That's the way it's set up.

Bush is no more a villain, as you imply, than any other President that vetoes legislation. And EVERY one of them has. Your partisan slip is showing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Every president wants the line-item veto. The Court, rightfully, said no.

If the dems were so obstructionist, why did Bush and his merry band get everything they wanted while we got shell-shocked?

What's dangerous is the president holding Congress hostage with his veto pen.

My bold.... remind me again what the Constitution says? You are always doing this, making amazingly IGNORANT statements about our Government and its power or lack of power.

I swear, you must not even know what the document says to make the above bolded statement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, Congress controlls the funding, not the war.

That's right. No funding, no war.
Pelosi can, by herself, cut off funding.

It would be political suicide to cut funding on troops in the field.

Really?
I thought the voice of American People was so strong -- to end the war.
Certainly, if that's the case, then its not political suicide.

And, if she wont do it because it is politicial suicide, then isnt she putting her political career above the will of the American people, the lives of the troops, and the 'right thing to do'?

Be assured that the republicans will pay dearly again in 2008.

Given how popular congress is now -- about 1/2 the appoval rating of GWB -- I wouldnt bet the farm on that. The Dems have staked the political future on the war; it appears more and more they are on the losing side of that bet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's dangerous is the president holding Congress hostage with his veto pen.

Its been that way since 1791.
How is it just now a problem?