Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ABC evening news: Nancy Boyda (D) seems to agree with Bush**. Something like

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 06:53 PM
Original message
ABC evening news: Nancy Boyda (D) seems to agree with Bush**. Something like
"if the commander in chief wants more troops in Iraq he should get them and she will vote for it". ??????? What the hell??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onecent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Idiot Idiot Idiot.... Who is Nancy Boyda? Stop the War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaPera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. A "Dem" from Kansas...allowing Bush's war for profits to continue.
Edited on Thu Jan-04-07 07:00 PM by LaPera
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think a lot of stealth republics joined the "dem" ranks just to get elected
Any idiot could see the Republic party was a total train wreck waiting to happen. The only question was whether or not BushCo would attempt to steal power again. I think he did, but couldn't because they were just overwhelmed. But in the meantime, we got a bunch of these...



.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. From her campaign web site, here's her position on Iraq...
The three-year-long Iraq war has cost thousands of American lives and has left Iraq without a functioning government. This chaos is a direct result of the current administration's poor planning for the occupation of Iraq. Due to their failures, Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists, who may pose a greater threat to our security than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Out of respect for the Iraqi people and in honor of the American patriots who have already died, we have stayed for over three years and helped Iraq restore at least minimal government functions. But our assistance cannot be a blank check extending indefinitely. "Stay the course" is a political slogan, not a military strategy.

The administration must establish a responsible, realistic plan for dealing with the insurgency and a timeline during which the Iraqi citizens must establish a viable government for themselves.

http://nancyforcongress.com/issues.php


Evidently, she's decided to give Bush free rein, despite her campaign rhetoric demanding a plan and a timeline. If her position is being reported accurately by ABC, shame on her.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrRobotsHolyOrders Donating Member (681 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. She's a vulnerable freshman Rep in a Republican leaning district
She'll do what she has to do to survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Plus she's a Republican.
That's really all you need to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrRobotsHolyOrders Donating Member (681 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Well
She's voting with the Democratic leadership, and was elected as a Democrat. I'd rather have her, than say whatever fucking monster the Republican apparatus in Kansas would turn out of their primary system.

So, if she needs to tilt right until she's built up the seniority to not have to be a six million dollar desperate seat hold every two years, I think that's peachy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. True, she's by far the lesser of the two evils
But after hearing the Phill Kline story over Xmas, I'm not too hopeful about Kansas just yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrRobotsHolyOrders Donating Member (681 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'm not either.
But a vote for Pelosi is a vote against Boehner, which is a vote for sanity. Count me in, baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeremyWestenn Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. Exactly! Exactly!

Why is it that some politicians have to be political in order to be electable and that people here on DU can't understand that? I'm willing to have Democrats that don't always follow the mainstream, in which case I think Boyda fumbled her words more or less and that you should read Mabus's right and that she is right ultimately, and that it is a nessacity in politics, an absolutely nessacity. However you spell that word...

Electability sucks but sometimes you gotta teeter to pull it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. With Dems like her, you don't really need Republicans
Listening to her took a lot of wind out of my sails.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. She supports phased withdrawal,
not unlike a lot of other dems. I haven't heard her say she will support an escalation. If that's the case, I'll be deeply disappointed, as I reside in her district. She knocked off Jim Ryun, who was nothing more than a do-nothing rubber-stamp for Bushco. That makes her quite the phenomenon already in this red state.

On Washington Journal this am, I got the impression that several members of Congress want to give Bush enough rope to hang himself, so maybe that's her take, as well. As I recall, Reid has said he would support a surge under "the right circumstances", as well. I strongly disagree with that, as I believe that no political strategy should result in more needless death. Not to mention, I honestly feel that our troops might find themselves fighting their way out if things go much further south in Iraq. Hell, if our government couldn't evacuate citizens in our own country after Katrina, how in the hell are they going to manage to evacuate 150,000 + troops in the midst of a full-blown blood bath? Off of the rooftops like in Vietnam?

I'll find out more and contact Nancy directly if I find out she's willing to play Bush's war game a little bit longer. I'll also check back in to let you know if I find out something definitive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why I stand by Nancy
Look at the question that Gibson asked. He asked her if she would vote to support the troops. She said yes and then pointed out that Bush, as commander-in-chief, deploys troops. Congress doesn't have that power. Instead, congress can vote to fund troops. So, if, as Gibson hypothesized, there were more troops in Iraq, Nancy would have been excoriated if she had said she would cut the funding to them.

fwiw, I have actively campaigned for Nancy since 2003. In 2004, her opponent Jim Ryun (R) ran commercials taunting Nancy's decision to go to D.C. and protest the Iraq War. He said she would be weak on terrorisms.

Nancy was an early opponent to the Iraq War and I believe her staff when they say, she does not support a surge but if the troops are sent there, she will vote to make sure they have what they need to survive and get home. She wants the troops home.

Anyway, below is what I posted on the Kansas forum earlier today after calling Boyda's office and talking to her staff. BTW, they also told me that they got more non-Kansas phone calls than calls from Kansas residents. I'm in Moore's district, not Boyda's. I told the staff that when I called. But they know who I am because they know campaigned for Nancy at various stages (but was never officially a part of her campaign team) and I have co-hosted more than one fundraiser for her.

I called Boyda's office (again), this time I talked to someone else and, frankly, I have to say, I support Boyda. I take back anything and everything bad I said.

Here's the pertinent portion of the conversation I had:

The 110th Congress doesn't get to vote on whether or not Bush decides to send more troops to Iraq. That's an Executive policy decision.

What the 110th Congress does get to vote on is funding the war. More importantly, what the 110th Congress can also do is oversight.

Boyda's office also told me that Ike Skelton (D-MO), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has announced (or will announce) that Gates will be called in front of the Committee and asked to justify the surge in troop levels.

*********

My comments and why I support Boyda. First, I'll start with reposting the transcript:

Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?

Boyda: I think we’re going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.

Gibson: If he wants the surge, he’ll get it.

Boyda: Yes…. He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.

Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, “We’re voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home.”

Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/congress-escalation /



Here's my take, Nancy's not real savvy in front of the cameras right now. After speaking with her office, I think what she meant to convey was encapsulated by her when she said, He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision. In other words, Bush, as commander-in-chief, decides to deploy troops, the Congress doesn't get a say. What Congress can do is fund or not fund the troops. What Nancy was saying is, if Bush does send the troops she will vote to fund them. Look at the question that Gibson asked her: would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq He did not ask her if she was in favor of the surge. Instead, basically he was asking her to assume there were an additional 20-40K troops on the ground in Iraq and if she would vote to appropriate money to support them. If she had said, "no" than people would be jumping on her for not supporting the troops. It was a question like "are you still beating your wife."

Additionally, what Nancy said, is in line with what the other two said in Gibson's interview. According to the thinkprogress website,

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’” Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution” but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.”

From their answers, I don't think they were asked the same question Nancy was, i.e., Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?. Murphy's answer sounds like it is in response to a direct question about whether the surge is necessary. Shuler's answer sounds like it is in response to a question about whether the surge is a solution to the problems in Iraq and he doesn't dismiss it. Then, it appears it is Boyda's turn. From what I can tell there is a progression in Gibson's line of questioning. Gibson has gone from "is the surge necessary" with Murphy to assuming the surge has taken place and asks Nancy if she would fund them. What's she going to say? No, let them starve? get blown to bits?

When Gibson asks her whether Bush will get a troop surge if he wants it, she correctly points out that he's the commander-in-chief. He has the ability to call up troops, not Congress. Congress can provide oversight. Remember that Nancy is now a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Perhaps we should reserve finally judgment on whether we've been sold down the river. I want to see how Nancy handles Gates when he testifies in front of the Armed Services Committee.

Oh yeah, as for that last bit about the voting in 2000 and 2004, I think she's saying that Bush was s/elected as commander-in-chief of our military, and basically, the American people are getting what they voted for. It wasn't really politic of her but I don't think it has the meaning that thinkprogress gives it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=153&topic_id=6926&mesg_id=6926
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. One thing that concerns me about her comments. Bush didn't win either election.
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 10:48 PM by shance
I believe someone who was truly committed to the truth and the facts as they are now known, would not reiterate such a false statement.

Democrat or Republican, Christian or Buddhist.

The truth and the reality are what they are.

That is what makes me think she will be more "go with the flow". I think we see where we are flowing to, and if we continue with such rationalized falsehoods, America is headed into a very polluted and toxic water.

If she protested the War, why did she? It appears that her previous actions totally contradict her current words.

If one of our kids were over in Iraq, and if one of HER kids were in Iraq, she may be less 'flexible'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I agree. Bush didn't win
I also think Nancy fucked up when she said that. I think she was trying to emphasize that Bush is the pResident and he can deploy troops.

fwiw, shortly after Nancy announced in 2003 (for the 2004 run) I talked to her about Greg Palast's articles and his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Since then I've had talks with her about election fraud. She thinks the 2000 election was stolen and she didn't trust the voting machines in 2004. She's a big believer of global warming and we've talked about Gore's speeches. In fact, at one of our Drinking Liberally meetings where Nancy was the guest speaker, she asked our group what we thought about Gore running for president. This was last year, before his movie came out. At that time there were a couple of people who repeated some MSM stuff about Gore but Nancy stood up for him and said that if he had been rightfully installed in office we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

I don't think her position is inconsistent. She's saying the same thing that Pelosi and others have said, Bush is the commander-in-chief (installed however dubiously in the elections) and he can deploy troops. Congress can't stop the deployments and it would be political suicide for her to say she would not fund them if they were, in fact, deployed by Bush to Iraq. Frankly, I have more faith in Nancy and I'll wait and make up my mind about her based upon the type of questions she asks, as a member of the House Armed Services Committeee and what recommendations she votes for that come from that committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. If she knows the truth, why won't she say it?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. You know, go ahead and bash Nancy
Don't give her a chance. Just walk away. No, better yet, just run. Run fast and run far. In the meantime, I will continue to call her office, talk to her staff and try to make sure she knows how we, the voters of Kansas, feel.

She misspoke. She fucked up. She knows it. She was nervous and she was frustrated but what she said was technically true. Bush was delcared the winner of both elections and he is the commander-in-chief and he can call up more troops and the American people are having to live with his decisions. She frustrated that Bush is in charge and she's frustrated that Congress' power is limited to oversight and appropriations. Think about it. If a governor wants to call up the National Guard, can that state's legislature stop it? No. If Bush wants to call up troops, can Congress stop him. No, they can't. What they can do is investigate the reasons for it and help expose more of Bush's lies.

So, just walk away. Get a good distance and start hurling your stones in her direction. In the meantime, I will continue to talk to her and her staff and I will let them know exactly how I feel. My first reaction was similar to yours (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=153&topic_id=6881&mesg_id=6915) then I called her office and talked to her staff. I will judge her according to what she does as a member of Congress and not for some television interview. I'm not ready to throw her out like a piece of garbage. Right now, she's voting with the party and she's being a good Democratic party member.

But, if for any reason, I start really doubting Nancy I will be on the front line with a giant torch going after her. Hell, I'll be handing the torches out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. I read that she even held anti-war rallies earlier.
I am inclined to give her the benefit of a doubt on this. I listened to her speak at the DNC conference just after the elections along with Tim Walz and Governor Dean....I was very impressed by her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. and she organized them
I saw a link earlier from someone in KC (on a Daily Kos diary) who said they never heard of Bodya in conjunction with anti-war rallies in KC in 2003. Well, Nancy wasn't married to Steve Boyda at the time. So her name wasn't Boyda. I can't tell you what her name was before she married Steve but, believe me, Nancy was there. In fact, Ryun used photos of Nancy on busses headed toward demonstrations in D.C. against her in 2004.

She used to come our Dean meetups back in 2004. In fact, Dean talked about Nancy in his "Consequences" e-mail from the other day.

Take Kansas, for example. In a state that had become an emblem in the media for the rise of the radical right, we put field organizers on the ground more than a year before the 2006 elections. By organizing locally and building a network of volunteers for the long-term, we re-elected Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius, took a U.S. House seat from the Republicans, and soundly defeated an extremist Republican Attorney General.

Thanks to a revived and strong Democratic Party, we've seen a trickle and then a flood of moderate Republicans changing their registration to Democrat.

And that U.S. House seat we won in Kansas? Freshman Representative Nancy Boyda says that she decided to run for the seat specifically because our 50-state strategy was in place to support her.


So, either Nancy has pulled one over on Democrats in Kansas and nationwide for the past three years or she misspoke. I, for one, think she misspoke and I'm willing to give her a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I have the video of her speaking at the DNC conference.
I will see if I can find it. She was impressive. She told Dean she ran because the 50 state plan was already in place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thatsrightimirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
13. It really was horrible
She said when asked about voters sending a message for change in Iraq, "They should have thought about that before voting for Bush not once, but twice." So what, you're just not going to represent your people anymore? Newsflash lady, there was an election in 2006 and YOU were elected!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. She's started a new party...
Kansas for Lieberman.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeremyWestenn Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
17. Read what Mabus had to say.

Instead of actively ignoring it, not responding to it, and purposefully pretending it isn't there. Nancy was write to ultimately say that she would support to fund the troops if a surge were set. She would not however support a surge, as has been stated by her office, her more or less, and sanity. I've met the woman a couple times and my best bet is that she just fumbled her words from nervousness of having her first real national tv interview. Think about and what the woman said rings true.

She, and no one in Congress, controlls the deployment of the troops, Bush does. She will vote to fund the troops, as any person would in a contested district that wants to be re-elected, and that is what she meant. Call her office and ask for an explanation, they'll more then likely have one by tomorrow. Or just apply some sanity to your brain and you'll figure it out on your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
19. And why does anyone here still give ANY credence to...
...ANYTHING they hear on Disney News?

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thatsrightimirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. it was an interview
she said it right on camera
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeremyWestenn Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. But when you break down what she said it makes SENSE.

She, and Congress, has no power over whether or not Bush enacts a troop surge. It's his decision. She said she will vote to fund the troops if he so chooses, and that if he wants to do that then that will be what he gets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. I like what she said about they should have thought about that before voting for Bush..
two times.

I think she is being blasted out of the water for not using just the right words.

We destroy our good politians before they get their feet wet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishnfla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
24. Impeach bush, then her
well, after Pelosi, and Rahm and the rest of them.

anyone whose step is out of lock

/sarcasm/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftyladyfrommo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
25. Come on - she is from Kansas.
Although Kansas is fast becoming a Democratic state. The Right Wing Republicans are just almost forcing anyone with half a brain to switch parties. They are doing just unbelievable stuff right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
30. GWU put together a good summary of the DNC meeting, Boyda, Walz, and Dean.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/900

Pictures and summary.

I hate to see politicians destroyed their first time on TV. C-Span search is not working, or I would find the video for you of her speech.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
31. I found the C-Span video of her from Dec. 2 with Dean and Tim Walz
http://c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=26

Democratic National Committee Meeting
DNC Chairman Howard Dean addressed the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee at the annual winter meeting. Congressman-elect Tim Walz of Minnesota, Congresswoman-elect Nancy Boyda of Kansas, and Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Executive Director Andrew O' Leary addressed the committee providing their perspectives on the 2006 election. There was also a discussion of the 2006 election results and the Democratic National Committee's fifty-state strategy.
12/4/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 4 min.

Please see her in another light in a very impressive speech, and then make judgement.

It is at the bottom of the page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Boyda follows Dean and then Walz, she starts about 23 minutes in.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC