Post-It reminders to Pelosi & Reid: a SPINE is a terrible thing to waste...

Pathetic, they're both just pathetic.

I'm still waiting to see how Nancy is going to hold Bush accountable for his actions. Hopefully, she plans on doing it during our lifetime.

their daily lives. If Pelosi and Reid showed half as much gumption, I'd be happy.

Steny Hoyer too. They just don't get "it."

screw us peons.

Repugs are doing. So exactly who do Pelosi and Reid think they would alienate by standing up to Bush
and hammering him on a daily basis, which is what we've all been waiting for? How much more
of a referendum would they need to stand up for this country, once and for all?

I'm a very patient person, but it's indescribably disappointing.

may result in a lot of voters becoming completely demoralized and apathetic
when it comes time, at last, to vote.

trying to figure this out too. Maybe still haven't recovered from being blindsided by Ray-Gun?...I actually hope, in a way, that they're being blackmailed (DC Madam type stuff etc.) or flat out threatened with things like anthrax, or Wellstone's "unfortunate little accident". At least it'd be more understandable and excusable . Right now its neither. And I also no longer think , as I did till relatively recently, that blackmail and/or threats are out of the question from this gang that has taken over our government.

Its pathetic, but he's one of the few people I've seen actually stand up to Bush. Americas in a bad place when 70% of the public has their feelings best expressed by a foreign leader.

Comprise works only if both sides give to get. So far Dumbya is getting all he wants and giving nothing, while Pelosi and Reid are giving everything under the sun to him, and getting nothing good for the country in return.

Not too bright or courageous, and certainly they are not doing the job in opposing him that they need to be.

impeachment *off* it.

She never should have done that!

on it. So who authorized her to do that, and why has she never retracted it?

Not how things are done here. Not under Pelosi. Not under anyone.

Virtually no Democrat running for re-election sought to make impeachment an issue or distinguish him/herself from the opposition on that issue. The handful of candidates that did espouse impeachment certainly didn't find any great support -- they mostly lost and lost big.

Even Howard Dean said impeachment was not on the table during the 2006 campaign,http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=1933534&page=1, so its hard to see how the 2006 elections could possibly have been a mandate for impeachment.

I think its safe to say that she had a good idea the day before and the day after the 2006 elections that the Democratic caucu, which had run away from talking about impeachment during the campaign, did not want to pursue impeachment.

have taken place, so that then - armed with verifiable information
either for or against - a decision can be made as to whether punishment is appropriate?

conducted by the Judiciary COmmittee. I have no doubt -- none whatsoever -- that the party leadership was well aware of what its members wanted or didn't want in regards to impeachment, and that most members did not want to go down the path of considering such a resolution unless there was some indication that it would receive at least a modicum of bi-partisan support. WHy? Because in the two most recent impeachment situations, the vote to start the process had bi-partisan support. (In the Nixon impeachment it was overwhleming: 410-4; in the Clinton impeachment, it was less bi-partisan but there were still 31 Democrats supporting the resolution to begin the process). You don't have to be a full time Congress-watcher to recognize that there are several dozen moderate/conservative/blue dog/swing state (call them what you will) Democratic representatives that were and are unlikely to ever support a purely partisan measure on impeachment, particularly since they didn't (and their constituents didn't) make it an issue less than a year ago.

between now and the next inauguration?

could something transpire that would change things? yes. What is it? Don't know, but it would have to be something that goes beyond what we already know. Is that likely? I doubt it, unfortunately.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070904/pl_cq_politics/bushsuccessratingathistoriclow

Bush Success Rating at Historic Low

President Bush’s success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.



The previous low for any president was in 1995, when Bill Clinton won just 26 percent of the time during the first year after Republicans took control of the House. If Bush’s score holds through the end of the year, he will have the lowest success rating in either chamber for any president since Congressional Quarterly began analyzing votes in 1953.



A study of House and Senate floor votes, compiled by CQ over the August recess, also showed that House Democrats have backed Bush’s legislative positions this year only 6 percent of the time, making for the strongest opposition from either party against a president in the 54 years CQ has kept score.



(...)

what I might do if i came face to face with all that ignorance.

a record low .140, compared to the previous record low .260

I was when I read it.

quite a successful anti-dem propaganda effort here.

I might as well get my news from Fox. Lately, some posts sound just like they are coming from there.

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

I don't see anything new or significant here. Just a routine slam.

is a terrible thing to waste?' - and then, from the OP, it progressed into a give-and-take
discussion which, apparently, some people found interesting, and... aahh, never mind.
You do have the prerogative not to recommend this (or any other thread), though,
so why let it bother you?

Really, you have other issues to deal with...

And recommendations are being used for a turf war for DU.

were "i" "c".

You think this thread is anti-democrat?? I wouldn't vote for anyone or anything in this election
that isn't a democrat if Bush were sitting in my kitchen right now, threatening to moon me.

You must be one of those who thinks that discussing the war in Iraq is unpatriot.
Or, as most of us would say, 'unpatriotic.'

Where do you get these ideas?

It called Reid and Pelosi spineless.

You don't say you would vote for a Democratic. You just say you won't vote for anything else.

Where did you get the idea that I think discussing the war in Iraq is unpatriot?

I didn't think Democratic would fit, too many letters. And the thread is against Democrats.

I tried to type in with the "Democratic." I'll post and see how it comes out.