by PoorBensJournal, Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:01:32 PM EDT
Attn: (Hon) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid
You probably don't check out "MyDD" and never got a chance to read a recent thread of mine, "Pelosi..Reid..Your Leadership is Pitiful"
I've gotten a few responses from others, some in total agreement and others who prefer the roar of a mouse to a lion!
Those of us who voted in 2006 to oust the Republicans fully understand that even though Democrats are in control, albeit with tiniest of majorities,that "your hands are tied" when it comes to getting things done. But that shouldn't mean that you have to plead and beg for Republican support when it comes to Iraq or other major issue.
We are disappointed and disallusioned by what we see. It is better to "go down fighting than with a wimper"
Bush and the Republicans have bullied this nation for the past six plus years. Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest of the Right Wing agitators continue to belittle us on the airways. It's long overdue for us to fight back!
You've got to, verbally, fight fire with fire! Show us that your a fighter and not a victim. Shout out your sincere indignation and show us signs of your honest anger.
by PoorBensJournal, Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 10:07:05 AM EDT
Nancy and Harry, let's get right to the point! Let's expose this mess before it continues for another second. You have shown yourselves to be nothing more than pragmatists and not leaders. Since the 2006 elections neither of you have displayed the talent to lead the Congress. Nancy and Harry you are both a great disappointment to the American people. Your words are timid and your actions are mindless. Are you so frightened of George Bush that you won't take him on? Do you really believe that the President's antics are making the Demo
Nancy and Harry, please see the light.cratic Parties' chances for victory in 2008 any better?
You're both dead wrong if you believe taking a back seat and keeping mum shows leadership. Churchill, FDR, Eisenhower and Truman did not need consensus to take action.
You are both validating George Bush's decisions by your meekness. Examples are Bushes defense of Gonzalez and his pardon of Libby.The Bush people have been smart enough not to argue the issues but have been successful in turning this whole thing around by their use of talking points: This President's great sense of loyalty and his unwavering stubborn nature . Nancy and Harry, if you don't get it, please let someone else take the reins.
by Peter Mathews for CA 37, Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:50:41 PM EDT
Do the Republicans that have supported this president and his massive increase in the powers of the executive branch, disrupting the system of checks and balances that are the cornerstone of our government, do these people ever wake up in the middle of the night, in a cold sweat, wondering what would happen if/when a Democratic president were elected and inherited these same powers? Do the same people that complained so loudly about Bill Clinton's Waco or Ruby Ridge or the White House Travel Office adventure ever wonder how hollow those same kinds of complaints will sound in a future where Habeas Corpus is a quaint and antiquated idea?
Habeas Corpus is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, seven hundred years ancient. Without Habeas Corpus, without the right to challenge the government's charges against you in a court of law, we are sliding on the slippery slope to dictatorship.
If the executive branch stops recognizing the validity of the other two coequal branches of the government, the normal checks and balances of our government have failed. What use are the normal constitutional remedies of legislation or court challenges if the executive branch claims for itself the right to ignore such challenges? The president's new and self-serving interpretation of the Constitution makes just such an end-run around the rule of law.
by skeptic06, Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:28:09 AM EDT
There was a very good reason (or two) for that House ethics truce! As the Lioness is finding out.
A CQpiece yesterday says her plan (devised by the Capuano task force) for a watered down Office of Public Integrity (as compared with the Lieberman version, that is - Obama had something similar, I think) is meeting organized resistance:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, plans to meet with her caucus Tuesday to help assuage the fears of a sizable group of Democrats who believe that allowing non-members to file complaints will open a floodgate of politically motivated attacks.
by skeptic06, Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 08:02:45 AM EDT
To judge from the delay in the corporate response, perhaps the CBC needed some persuasion to get their folks in line.
But was there ever any doubt as to the result?
From the CBC site:
Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) released the following statement on the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson.
"The charges against Congressman William Jefferson are serious and warrant thorough deliberation. The law of the land entitles every citizen to presumed innocence until the court of law deems otherwise. We trust the merits of the case against Congressman Jefferson will be examined in a court of law and not the chambers of public opinion."