Source: The Hill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is working hard to make sure that the fiery liberal wing of the Democratic Party remembers that she is one of them. She is also going out of her way to reassure opponents of the war that she is on their side.

Her efforts are taking place in speeches and interviews off Capitol Hill and away from the constraints and compromises inherent in running the House. Liberal lawmakers and activists accuse Pelosi of being too cautious.

Now, with Congress’s approval rating plummeting following its passage of an Iraq war-spending bill without a troop-withdrawal timeline, the Speaker is signaling that Democrats will be more forceful in challenging the president.

...

“Unless we make our own environment, we’ll be wedded to incrementalism,” Pelosi told a group of college students on Tuesday at a conference hosted by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank.

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-pelosi-reminds-the-left-that-shes-on-its-side-2007-06-28.html

Pulling out ALL her guns.

In the end, she couldn't get the support, and it was killing her. You can't blame her for other Democrat's votes..

damn straight!

The proof is in the IMPEACHMENT pudding, Nancy dear.

don't we have to wait for a 'real' reason first?

*sigh*

that Rove hasn't been sucking him off for years???

The proof is in the IMPEACHMENT...

You don't have enough votes? SO WHAT? You're supposed to impeach on the grounds of impeachable things having been done, not on whether you have the votes? SO WHAT if you fail? You think you're doing better by doing nothing at all? And by the way, the Dems' success was LEVERAGED by the liberal wing of the party, NOT the centrists!

:mad:
rocknation

until you open the pouch, take out some of that "dry powder" and load it

question of time-lines was brought up some time ago, when they could have acted upon it. Yet, she gives neither a reason why they failed to do so, nor why they should fulfil this pledge (which I think they'd made last time) next time round - other than cynical political necessity; the growing outrage of their Democratic base.

However, you can't help asking yourself the question, why do they need to monitor the wishes of the Democratic base? Why are they so remote in their thinking from the voters that they are not driven by an even fiercer passion! I would want my political candidates to be engines of passionate concern for justice and compassion, irrespective of the electorate; fire-brands driven by conscience and commitment.

The neocons are firebrands, passionate about wanting to enslave the world and everyone else in it. The Democrats tend to have quasi normal worldly ambitions, but tempered by an awareness of the need for us all to be subject to a moral, a spiritual dimension. Unfortunately just enough to prevent them from swapping sides (well... where a normal Republican party would be in place). "Truly, the children of this World are wiser after their own fashion than the children of light."

The other thing that disturbs me greatly is the catch-all phrase I hear slipped in when the issue of disengagement from Iraq and Afghanistan is brought up: "...to protect our national interests". Well, I don't think it's stretching the imagination to suppose that Ghandi's understanding of that term would be rather different by Cheney's or Bush's, or from the historic understanding of it by both Republicans and Democrats - most notably, in South America. And perhaps more to the point, here, of Nancy Pelosi, herself. That's the worry.

Is it that the murderous military-industrial complex still casts such an intimidating shadow over them. It's not difficult to understand such fears on the part of otherwise decent politicians, who would not normally want to be conspire with the "dark side" in its darkest machinations and "ministrations"; gratuitous imperial wars, without even a half-plausible pretence of superior civilisation on the part of the aggressor are a throw-back to pre-Christian times.

"gratuitous imperial wars, without even a half-plausible pretence of superior civilisation on the part of the aggressor are a throw-back to pre-Christian times."

Considering there was as much of said imperial aggression during times after Christian conversion of the west that's an ignorant statement to say the least, not to mention arrogant.

I read your post, and I was pointing out you said something rather ignorant and uninformed. Nice response, attacking my understanding of the language instead of addressing what I said.

non-US history is worse than even mine... it happens that one of the justifications put forward by the British Establishment for the British Empire, and doubtless the other European empires did the same - was that it brought benefits to the colonised peoples that they would not have otherwise enjoyed in the foreseeable future. They probably spoke in terms of 'civilising' them, although common observation of documentary films, as well as the witness of anthropologists, attests that all so-called 'primitive' peoples are in fact, invariably, exceptionally clever peoples, who have perfectly adapted their societies to their own particular environments.

More glaringly, the noble purpose of empire was in large part a pretence, a lie; the Establishment as a whole simply wanted to steal their natural resources, and if they could not colonise them, as in the case of China, force a drug culture on them profitable to the British and doubtless force other exploitative systems of trading on such countries. However, the catalogue of villainies perpetrated would be too vast to enumerate. Suffice it to say that Hitler was very impressed by the British empire, and indeed, we were the first to introduce concentration camps - specifically, to the Boer freedom fighters' families. We wanted the gold there.

As regards the missonaries, no doubt there were many who were compassionate and heroic, as well as duds - which one must expect of any group of defectable human beings, religious or secular.

The fact remains, however, that many benefits were passed onto some of the subjugated peoples, even as their national wealth was being plundered.
An English writer, now deceased, called Malcolm Muggeridge, remarked (I can't remember to whom) that Nehru conceded that when the British came to India, they were welcomed as saviours by the mass of the people. Suttee, the incineration alive of wives on the funeral pyres of their husbands was outlawed, and a small Indian cult of murderers called thuggees was also eventually suppressed. It has been called the world's first Mafia.

They set up a civil service and a pretty wonderful judicial system in India, too, and left behind the largest functioning democracy in the world. There can be no doubt that that culture the British colonists introduced was essentially Christian. I think the advance of capitalism in India will soon knock that on the head, as it has in Britain, wonderfully boosted by atheism.

I dare say the benefits bestowed by our empire were very unevenly distributed, but where they existed they must have been real enough.

I hope this satifies your curiosity, because I'm not interested in arguing the toss.

I sometimes wonder who's side CP is on...

is ending the occupation in Iraq. It, as a group, will protest and picket and push the agenda it works for. You don't see the big corporate lobbyist who can pay for special lunches and etc. on t.v. because they do have the money to buy some time from the reps. The only thing Code Pink has is vibrant shirts, loud mouths, and a huge heart.

They push everyone that they can reach. Sorry, the reps are wrong and are not listening to the people, and it will be remembered.

Protesting all night. Pelosi and Murtha were using every working hour trying to get everyone on board for the funding bill and she didn't need that shit.

Sorry, Code Pink is a loose cannon, and Medea Benjamin wants Pelosi's job.

including the Oil Law for The west. It was bullshit and code pink along with the rest of the Anti-War community recognized that.

And some benchmarks are better than none...rejecting the bill for that is so Naderish...

Are you referring to those things that Bush can waiver, those benchmarks? If they can't be enforced they are not worth the paper that they are printed on!

Pelosi and Murtha could have not wasted their time at all and not even offered a bill.

I would author a bill that funded each troop individually by name for what they needed survive/ come home.

seems veto proof to me.

Like I said, they aren't working for dems or repugs. They are working for peace.

spread across this country, working locally. Some have the chance on occassion to go to Washington D.C. In fact, Medea only stays at the house certain times. She is not a live-in all the time. The group was founded by more than just Medea. She is very vocal, and will use any press she can to further the peace process. I recently worked along side another member who has been living in the house. She was working for the peace process. She was working to save the lives of soldiers and Iraqi's. She was working for compassion and civility in a modern world. No where in her address or during the time that I spent with her did she say "I'm working for Medea".

and you're so far off you're not even in the same solar system with this crap...

"Medea Benjamin wants Pelosi's job"

Nope, Medea Benjamin wants the exact same things I want -- end war and create a system of economic and political justice.

I guess that's nicer than "Dirty fucking hippies."

the "looney left." I'm SOOOO confused! :evilgrin:

and, sometimes, "Hippies."

"Dirty fucking hippies" is what the left blogosphere calls itself (in the proud American tradition of taking an insult and adopting it for yourself--see also "Nigga" and "Yankee Doodle"), although it sure would be fun to hear an actual conservative us that specific phrase.

It's not that hard to suss out is it?

I'm gettin' too old to keep up with this shit. Can't I just go back to "commie-pinko-fag" and be done with it?

Until it is and, she's ready to stand up for the rule of law, it's just talk. Action speaks loudest and best.

royally piss off shrubby. And it's perfect timing because of all the anti-cheney-ness in the air.

FUCKING LET CONYERS ROLL!!!!

...so it is difficult to know just what she is doing for the middle and lower class

so much for the power of the purse, Nancy.

someone telling me they are a christian. The point is I shouldn't have to be told.

The ship of "Liberals" and "Progressives" has without you.

buh-bye...... :hi:

TC

a "lovely" man from a "patriotic" family.

In fairness she also said he was "oblivious" and that Iraq is a "fiasco." But she just couldn't resist the urge to temper her remarks with some world-class sucking up. It was disgusting. :puke:

that makes me mad. For starts, if she wanted to impress me , she might at least pretend to be interested in my opinion.
Then theres that passage of the Iraq war-spending bill. That was a big FU to voters.
But all is not lost. Pelosi would have my forgiveness and total undying support from this fiery voter if she would just walk upto the table with a big steaming plate of IMPEACHMENT.

Would someone from California forward this message to her. Please?

I don't think any member of Congress accepts emails from outside their district. I know I have tried to contact numerous members in the past only to find that they only accept email from their constituents.

I have found the easiest way around that is to look up a hotel in their district and fill out the form using that address and zip code. Then they think you're in their district.

is Speaker of the House which means her constituents are Democrats throughout the nation. I'm sorry, she's an embarrassment to strong women everywhere. She needs to lay off the corporate teet and grow a fucking pair of ovaries!

Is she just the leader for California? If she isn't prepared to represent all of us and hear from us, we need someone else to speak for us.

Here you go:

http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

This email form goes to her as the Speaker of the House not as a CA Rep.

I've used it before, but never received a response. I guess I'm not saying the things I'm suppose to say. I have this wild idea that our government should be held accountable and not be run by a pack of criminals.

It's even linked from her page, FCOL.

AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

http://www.speaker.gov/contact

The Dems have to turn into a bunch of pit-bulls on the issues...stay on it and on it and on it and on it until they tire....Speeches don't cut the mustard...thick skin and actions do. Wear the bastards down...damn it!!!:grr:

but we can't do that, we are democrats!

SHOW ME YOU MEAN IT! :puke:

Let's throw the Republicans out of the Democratic party!

Let Clinton, Pelosi, Ben Nelson, and Norm Coleman go on Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity and complain about how the Democratic party is being taken over by Socialists!

I would throw every one of those military corporate stooges under the bus by the close of business this Friday.

Pelosi and her newly elected group she be evaluated in next election,
remember, fool me once shame on me??

:grr:

though I'm becoming more and more of one as this whole mess is allowed by democrats in congress to continue at it's current course, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Come on you elected officials, throw us a frigging bone.

"* will veto any legislation we pass, the repubs will filibuster, (insert other stupid-ass excuses here)." You have bargaining chips too. An example of something you could have done....* wanted the Iraq funding bill. It could have been on your terms or not at all. He's only one man, while you are many. You pass a bill that contains the bare minimum of what you want and then * vetoes it. Well you pass a different version of the same bill containing more liberal provisions. * vetoes it as well. You have every member of the house and the senate who voted for the bill talk about the legislation on television and in their home towns. If they all stay on message the resonance chamber you build can force the pResident to acquiesce to YOUR demands or move further to the left on the issue in question. Or not. If he vetoes legislation that he wants because of a few lines of text, then you don't pass the legislation and move on with the rest of your term. He may veto all of your pet projects, but he also will not get anything he wants through either chamber of congress.

Show him that there are consequences to his actions, something that...it would seem...no one has every done before.

Another example....the DC funding bill. * has sworn to veto such legislation if it does not contain language that keeps government funds from being used for DC's domestic partnership registry. You pass the version of the bill as written and then you let him veto the legislation. While you publicly work on a new version of the bill, which would fund the domestic partnership registry with 100% of federal money...say, you take to the air waves and talk to the nation: "Everyone should have the right to protect the person they love." and "How would you feel XXX not to be able to make medical decisions for your wife or even visit her as she lay dying in the hospital room? This registry gives same sex couples that right, and I support it 100%" or "How would you feel YYY if you couldn't pass your retirement benefits onto your surviving widow after you die? This registry gives partners of same-sex couples the same rights and abilities to support themselves as everyone else. I support that." America supports the benefits of marriage (as long as you don't call it such) for same-sex couples. He may not change his position on the issue, but if you do it right you could build public pressure that would make the pResident even more unpopular in the eyes of the entire country than he already is. This would have the added benefit of forcing repubs. in congress to jump from the sinking ship that is, in the grand scheme of things, a repub. presidency. Perhaps you could even bring him to the negotiating table to get something that you (and your base) want out of the deal.

His approval rating is hovering around 32%. Congress' is hovering around 19%.... What have you got to loose?

towards merely sending out the message that the US. must vote in a Dem president because this new house & senate show they are incapable of making changes or/and making this administration accountable

Just get on with it already!

Don't tell us, SHOW US!

What are you waiting for her to show you? The big issues - impeach bush and try him for war crimes, stop the us involvement in iraq, have been thrown out by her personally.

Get it. Almost every single one of us disagree with you. Not just some far off looney fringe group.

You do not need to compromise. End the occupation. Just do it.

Just sayin'

They didn't put you in position to become Speaker--the liberals did! Get your nose out of that book Rham Emanuel just wrote and STOP TRYING TO MARGINALIZE US!!!

:headbang:
rocknation

You are NOT championing my causes and what you ran under Ms. Pelosi.

You are an embarassment.

When you dropped the iraq pull out, you lost me. From then you've only slid down hill faster as I watched you cater to the Bush Administration.

I do not want you representing me further.

She may not think she can hold the Democrats together if she were to simply NOT move Bush's military spending requests. And God knows there are a lot of anti-war Dems who would not be able to withstand the "You're leaving our troops out in the cold!" bullshit.

So all she can do is make the Bushies have to work a little more to get their funding--including withstanding more public scrutiny and more public debate. She may figure enough of this dragged out over the presidential campaign year will be better for the Democratic nominee in 08 than a series of budget confrontations the Repubs will eke out wins on with the cowardly House Dems who will always defect.

I can understand this. Either choice is a big gamble. The choice she made here is hurting the morale of her base, and Bush paid the price for doing the same thing in 06.

I wrote back that I wasn't giving any more money until the Democrats took bold action on Iraq, and on impeachment.

Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

So I took my wallet off the table.

You know what disgusts me, is when Democrats discuss impeachment in the context of "what's good for getting us re-elected in 2008". That is unbelievably CRASS.

Do the right thing for the US Constitution, not your political careers, you idiots !!!!!

Her making soothing and cooing sounds does not cut it. She had an opportunity to stop the war and failed. She's got one more chance -- September -- and that's it.

GROW A GODDAMN BACKBONE and impeach Bush NOW!

:hi:

and PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE FUCKING TABLE.

The people are pissed off and all congress wants to do is wag a naughty finger at the prick* and vice prick.

If these elected "leaders" don't stand up to these bastards and haul them in for ignoring the subpoenas, it's nothing more than smoke, mirrors and bullshit.

Welcome to fascism with a smiley face.

I've bit my tongue so many times to be a dem, to keep my expectations sufficiently low to imagine that if a crumb fell from the table I would be grateful. But We, the Loony Left, the antiwar, the people who have waited decades for the pendulum to swing back are the ones who got the dems their mojo back. Pelosi turned right around and announced that impeachment was off the table. No explanation. It made me wonder if she get a check or a death threat.

I don't want to hear promises and pretty speeches. At this point I think every viable, acceptable, respectable democratic candidate is lying to me. Just like when Kerry had Springsteen singing "no retreat, no surrender" and then - bam, he was gone like a fart in the wind with no explanation to the people whose hopes he had carried.

The democrats think they can't lose the loony left. I think they might be wrong about that.

Prove It On The Field.

But, really, just take a look at who her biggest donors are. To a great extent, she is on their side.

and that means they are obstructing justice. You're silent. WTF :wtf: