If Pelosi can twist the arms of leftist Liberals to vote her way on this bill,

[mtnsnake]

the one that just got passed in the House that so many of them didn't really want to vote for, then she ought to be able to twist the arms of the more conservative Blue Dog democrats just as effectively, giving us the necessary number of votes it would take to impeach Bush, a simple majority of one.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I am afraid that she will refuse to consider impeachment because

she will be seen as going back on her word about it. Plus, it may be a conflict of interest for her as third in line for the throne. The call and proceedings would have to be intially driven by someone else in the House. Steny, perhaps?

[sallyseven]

20. Steny is an ass wipe.

It would take 2 years for Impeachment to go through. Too much time for congress to spend when they have so many other scandals to play with. Bush is done lets roll him over and stick a fork in him. We would run the risk of the nitwits in the middle states to feel sorry for him. Lets let History take care of him.

I know why the middles states and some of the western states still care about bush. I was in AZ and they have the worse news reporting of any where in the world. Any, if it shows up at all, real news is on the back pages and minimal coverage at that.

[Nite Owl]

2. I just asked that of someone

yesterday. What happens when he vetoes this? Will the Blue Dogs then agree to not fund at all or will he then get his 'clean bill' and get everything he wanted in the first place? Will they agree to vote for no funds? I really doubt that.

[ncteechur]

4. If * vetoes the bill, then He doesn't want the $$.

[rodeodance]

7. When Repugs in senate Reject Reid bill--then we can say They do not support the troops

[Nite Owl]

19. Does this bill need 60 votes

to get a vote as it is a spending bill?

[youngdem]

3. The problem with that line of thought is this

The anti-war Dems had extremely limited political exposure by backing this bill, because it was the best they are gonna get at the time.

Blue Dogs are extremely vulnerable in their districts if they get too 'liberal' or anti-war. Pelosi has to be sure that when she is twisting arms that she isn't making it impossible for these Dems to get reelected and for the Dems to hold on the majority.

Then, you have LIEberman. Nothing you can do to or for him. He's an AIPAC stooge and an administration plant. And he could get rid of our majority in an instant with a simple change of party affiliation, as I am sure he reminds everyone of everyday when he doesn't get his way.

Frankly, I really don't understand the newfound optimistic assessment of impeachment. It is wholly unfounded and a waste of time. I want the Chimp gone as much as anyone, but I am a realist, and I would rather us focus on getting something done than swinging for the fences, striking out and losing the game. We should focus on neutering the president and putting impossible choices on his desk to weaken his party, in order to solidify our chances for meaningful pickups in 08, so that we may actually have a real chance of governing from a position of strength.

[thethinker]

9. Really?

You said and I quote: "Blue Dogs are extremely vulnerable in their districts if they get too 'liberal' or anti-war." That simply is not true. I can't think of one that would apply to. The polls are showing 60% of Americans want the war to end now. The Blue Dogs are representing their own interests, not what they think the voters want. I think a lot of them should be worrying about ever getting re-elected.

[kenny blankenship]

18. you would need polling data from their specific districts to make that argument

[cali]

21. Actually, the polls do NOT show that.

They show that the electorate is deeply conflicted about how and when to end the war. In fact, in a recent poll posted at Polling Report, only 21% think we should leave Iraq now. I wish you were right, but you're not.

[CreekDog]

22. that 60% support is not the same in all districts

It's an average.

And like any issue, when you start making specific proposals, the support for the bill actually goes down.

You don't have 60% support for defunding and removing the troops tomorrow in all districts, nevermind overall.

This has similarities to the abortion ban in South Dakota, they had just barely enough political support to get it through the system, but not enough overall support to finish the job and make it permanent law.

If the Democrats refuse to fund the bill, basically any bill that comes up for possible amendment could be amended to fund the troops or could be amended to end the war and in the former case, the amendment will pass, and in the latter case, the amendment will lose, either are entirely possible and either would be a big loss for the anti iraq war supporters everywhere.

This is the system we have and we have got to use it to our advantage. It seems that folks against the supplemental have no strategy and either ignorantly think they can stop funding in a congress that is majority in favor of keeping funding (while troops are in the field) and even our leadership is not united in defunding them. Additionally, the anti supplemental folks posting recently sometimes accept that they cannot pass their proposals and sometimes accept that they will lose badly, but seem to think that would be a step of progress in the anti war effort? In fact, it won't even be a rhetorical victory because it will be a rather astounding loss for those who oppose the war.

A bill needed to be crafted that was against the war in some way, but also could pass. Anything that wouldn't pass and was antiwar would be chalked up as showing there is not a majority in congress opposed to the war.

Let me know when Kucinich becomes dictator and perhaps then this war will end, until then, the end will not come from his strategy.

[leftofthedial]

5. the congressional democrats are a major disappointment

they are merely marking time until 2008.

[rodeodance]

8. voters are just as guilty--We knew where many Bluedogs stood on the

major issues------We wanted a Dem to be in Congress.

[saracat]

10. Yeah right and all they accomplished during the first 100 hours means nothing to you

doesn't it? Our congressional Dems have been magnificent.Too bad you want everything you want overnight and exactly your way without any understanding of procedure and rules. With a response like yours it is a wonder any of these good people even want to be reelected. And last weeks votes are nothing? Why don't to take a course in what it takes to accomplish anything in DC? I 'll bet you have never served in congress or even a stae legislative body.It is a very difficult and thankless job.

[leftofthedial]

11. Gasp! you're right!

I've never been in Congress!

How dare I have an opinion?

"magnificent"? :rofl:

Why don't you take a course in stand-up comedy?

[saracat]

12. It would be nice if you had an "informed " opinion!

If you had even any kind of legislative experience you might understand the process and appreciate what these people have done. Try getting n education on the procees before you form an opinion because it is clear you don't even know what the Dems have done.

[mtnsnake]

14. You remind me of a few pretentious athletes who tell sports fans that their opinions don't count

because they never played the game.

[TheWraith]

15. Indeed.

Some people seem to have no apprecciation at all for the proceedures and roadblocks that are involved in legislating. To hear them describe it, the new Dem majority has the power to end the war instantly and make candy fall from the sky, they just choose not to do it.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

13. You are not alone in your sentiment

AFAIC, one of the only areaa that Democrats have improved since "taking over" Congress is that they're better at how they frame things. For example, they even have the media believing what a victory this latest bill is that they passed, when the reality of this bill is that it comes up short, way short. Another area where they might be more improved is in the "unity" department. Sure they're more unified for the time being, but what good is it if they don't use their unity to make real change, not just a band-aid fixup that may never come to fruition when 2008 rolls around because of all the safety provisions built in.

[rodeodance]

6. You are assuming she Wants to do that----recall her premise was to "goli

lightly"---no impeachment proceedings.

[mtnsnake]

17. No, not at all. I'm assuming she knows she SHOULD do it, but might not want to

for one reason or another, such as she might be afraid of losing or she might be letting politics stand in the way of seeking justice.