When Are The Dems Going To Do Their Job? What More Do They Need To End This Corrupt.....

[global1]

administration? They have the November vote and support of the majority of the American people to end the war. They have Scooter's conviction. They have the Walter Reed scandal. They have the displacements of AG's around the states. They have Katrina. They have torture. They have spying. They have treason. What more do they need?

Scooter's conviction has handed them a way to do in *Co on a silver platter. Why aren't they doing their job?

[ClassWarrior]

1. They need our eternal vigilance. How many times...

...have you called your Reps today?

NGU.

[Zensea]

2. The problem is

too many people expect instant gratification.
Significant events take time.
Nixon's demise took quite awhile also.
Watergate started coming out before he got reelected.

It took years to get out of Vietnam even with major antiwar sentiment starting clear back in 1967.

[emulatorloo]

3. Did you write John Conyers and ask him to pursue Plamegate?

As I understood it yesterday, Fitz said he would turn over his files if congress asked him. . .

[naboo]

4. That's what I'd like to know.

The Bush administration is a gift dropped in their lap as far as being prosecutable goes (Except all the honest prosecuting attorneys seem to have been fired by Bush)

[mtnsnake]

5. Spine transplants

That's what they need. They've already chickened out on cutting off funding for Bush's surge for fear they'll be perceived as "unsupportive of the troops".

[TayTay]

7. Which Democrats have done this

Blanket condemning all the Democrats for the actions of some Democrats is nauseating. There are Democrats who have not done this. Should they be blanket condemned with everyone else?

Are there regional differences that make this action difficult? Are there constituencies in some of the various states who genuinely do not want their Representatives in the Congress to do this? What are the possible political reasons that Democrats might not want to cut off the funding? Can someone be honorable, have good motives for their votes, disagree with you and still have viable and workable spines?

[TayTay]

6. They are doing their jobs

The Democrats understand that we live in a country of laws and operate with respect to those laws. There are not enough votes in the US Senate to cut off debate in a filibuster. Those are the Rules of the Senate and there are not enough votes to change the Rules of the Senate, nor would it be that wise to undertake that change at this time. (I should think the Republicans would just trot out the Democratic speeches from 2005 when the Repubs threatened to change the filibuster rule and just repeat them on the Senate floor.)

The complaint against the Bush Administration is that it is a lawless regime that recognizes no authority by it's own. Do you want to substitute that for Democrats who ignore the law in order to uphold the law? That is what it would take.

There is no choice here but to carry on the 'long fight' that it will take to move the country away, not just from the Bush Administration but from the idea that any President can govern any way they feel without regard to the laws of this country. That is not a fight that will be over in any single election. That might just be a fight that is years, if not decades, long. I wonder if the voters have the stomach for that.

[mtnsnake]

8. Name all the Democrats you can who say they'll vote down funding for the war.

Then tell me how they're doing their job.

[TayTay]

11. I don't think they should block funding

not at this time. I don't think that is the right way to do this. The bill to shut off funding does not have enough votes at this time, nor do I think that the debate on this has been robust or hearty enough to engage the voters. The vote on funding does not differentiate enough on what will happen with this. It doesn't say what will be cut off and what won't. I would like a vigorous debate on what military programs should be funded and what ones should be cut,like the Osprey program, but we don't seem to be ready for that debate yet, nor do we have to votes to force one.

It may take another election in order to get the votes to actually do this. This is how it works in a democracy, people get to vote. You can't force this nor can you force the debate in the country at large that feeds the opposition force that eventually comes to the Congress. The polls say the people have turned against this war and the funding. If so, where is the pressure on the Congress to get them to vote to stop the funding? That pressure must be there or there will be no vote to cut funding. It won't happen. The people have to become more engaged in the debate and more passionate about making their views known. That is the real force that will affect actual change in the Congress and it may take one or two more election cycles to do that.

Why do you think the debate is and what do you think this debate will accomplish? Please list all the folks who back up your views. (Usually, you cite people who back up your point of view. You don't ask people who don't agree with you to list people who back up your point of view. In addition to being lazy, this is also dumb. I am not going to make my argument and yours simply because you are too lazy to go out and do your research to back up your points. Do your own research dear, it's good for you, like eating your vegetables.)

[mtnsnake]

12. Just because you don't want to block funding

it's no reason to call someone who disagrees with you lazy and dumb just because you don't have any answers yourself. Your routine is always the same. Mock someone you don't like with personal attacks, then get mocked in return, then whine about it afterward.

Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait. You're too easy.

[TayTay]

15. A logical gap here, once again

I did not call anyone dumb and lazy because they disagreed on funding the war.

I said the proposal to have someone else do your research for you was dumb and lazy. A proposal is not a person. There was no accusation against a person, it was against a proposal.

It is too bad that reading skills in this country have declined so far that this can't be seen. There is a difference between maligning a person and maligning a proposal or idea. How sad that others can't sometimes separate these or clearly read the distinction.

[theoldman]

9. You are right. The Democrats in the senate do not have a

strong majority like the Republicans had during the Clinton administration. There hands are tied so they have to go forward one small step at a time.

[TayTay]

13. And this they MUST do

This is a debate that we have to have in this country. But we have to do this completely, lest we wind up with another group of Republicans who are going to claim that the US lost another war because the Left wouldn't let them fight. In addition to being a bald-faced lie, this argument hurts democracy itself and feeds the notion in voters that their voice doesn't matter and that the 'elites' will sell them out no matter what. This divides the voters from those who actually do advocate for them and makes it seem like one political group hates the very people that it has traditionally supported.

We have to have this debate fully. Being correct on this issue is not enough. The Left was correct about the Vietnam War and the Repubs made them pay and pay on it. We can't let the debate go that way again and allow the Repubs to paint the Dems as 'soft on defense' issues again. We have to take the lessons learned and apply them. This debate has to occur, again and again, until the real issues start to sink in.

The country is angry at the Bush Administration about the treatment of wounded veterans in the VA system, including Walter Reed. The argument needs to be made that this was a systemic failure that shows that the Republicans in power, who moved heaven, earth, law and truth aside in order to march off to war, didn't care about the people who actually had to fight in their war. This argument needs to go forward. It is proof of who has abandoned the people. The argument starts here because this part of the argument is true, is immediately grasped by just about everyone and shows, graphically, just how much disdain the Republicans really hold for 'average people.'

[peace13]

10. I feel your pain.

Yesterday I called Sherrod Brown's office in total frustration. My questions were,'What can we do to help the Senators get the job done? Do they notice when 100's of thousands of citizens come to
DC to stand up for what is right? What will it take for the Democratic members to take a stand and be willing to fail if necessary.' We need feedback. As a person who has called senators, all senators on many votes I am beginning to see that the vote to bring the troops home will not happen in my lifetime. I have worked elections, worked at the polls on election day, created a memorial to the soldiers in our yard, and organize regular peace vigil's in my community so when I hear some of these responses like....what have you done I am ready to say 'What the *ell have you done?' Your question is a very valid one. The Democrats need to respond to those that are supporting them. They were sent to DC with a mandate to bring the troops home and they need to follow through with that.

Support the troops! Kim

Edit to say that he young man from Brown's office was very nice but to sum up his response, 'You are preaching to the choir here.' That did not do too much for me. But I once had Dewine's 'boy' tell me that 'It really stinks to be in the minority doesn't it?' So I guess things are looking up for Ohioans.

[Connie_Corleone]

14. They're keeping their powder dry one more time.

You just wait. The Democrats are playing chess. Everything will come together by 2029.

[closeupready]

16. I know - they aren't serving as a check on either of the other two branches of government.

Meanwhile, the courts and the executive branch just sort of do what they want because they know that Congress isn't going to do anything about it.

[closeupready]

17. And the idea that they CAN'T serve as a check unless people LET them

is as senseless an argument as it sounds.