Who Is In Charge Of The Democatic House Caucus?

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2763

Who Is In Charge Of The Democatic House Caucus?
by: Chris Bowers
Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 17:56:00 PM EST

Nancy Pelosi on capitulation:



That just isn't true. More is possible, but Democrats aren't doing it because they think more is not politically viable:



More is possible, Madam Speaker. Your caucus isn't doing more because they seem to be listening to Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer. Do you agree with Hoyer and Emanuel on their advice to not do more, or are Hoyer and Emanuel actually in charge of the Democratic house caucus? Kind of makes you wonder…

funny how it doesn't matter whether Rethugs have a majority or a minority, either way they get exactly what they want at the end of the day.

even if I give her the benefit of the doubt about being a complete sell-out and complicit up to her eyeballs (against my better judgment),
I can NOT avoid the conclusion that she's a bumbling incompetent lackluster failure as a leader in the legislative context of congress.

Murtha?

...because he said impeachment ain't gonna happen. As for Kucinich... give me a fucking break. He'd get one vote - his own.

Show me a *real* alternative to Pelosi, and maybe I'll start to listen.

your circular reasoning makes an airtight case for more of the same.. congratulations

Name one person who could conceivably pull together the support necessary to oust Pelosi. Or were we talking about something else?

until someone takes decisive action. My impression is you are one of the "It'll never happen" crowd with regards to impeachment, ending the war, etc.

I'm old enough to remember Wayne Morse (i live in Oregon too), Eugene McCarthy, et. al. who's decisive and principled actions sent ripples of
change that turned into tidal waves of public dissent and opposition to the war in Viet Nam.

If someone like Conyers took such actions, standing up to the "it'll never happen" mentality that obviously has Pelosi et. al. in it's slimy
grips, then it COULD happen, or maybe it wouldn't ... never-the-less.. that's what our country needs right now and that's what the majority of
Democrats keep waiting and praying and crying out for.. and then at least we'd really know if it could happen or not.

short of that, we're just speculating. .. but constantly repeating a defeatist mantra does nothing to inspire real change so I choose to
continue to hope and pray for someone on the Hill to find a freaking backbone, and continue to write, call, etc. for that to happen.. but
sadly it appears that nothing short of MASSIVE non-violent civil disobedience in the streets around the Halls of Congress and WH will cause
anything to happen, or else it would have by now .. and even that option is dicey at best given the police state attitude of the Capitol Police.

Curious typo by the author of that article. Maybe "DemocRATS" was a little too obvious a choice.

the only thing that woman is firm on is that impeachment is off the table

fuck off

Personally, I'd like to hang on the majority. Perhaps even expand it.

...that Republicans would see the light...was an inaccurate one,"?

Following the Richard Nixon Watergate forced resignation, Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon to bring the country together, criminal prosecutions of Watergate burglars, The GOP power base resolved never again to work toward any end but their own expansion of power and self-interest goals. Since then, republicans have wanted it their way exclusively. So why would Nancy Pelosi believe that repukes would ever "see the light"?

When democrats and the people begin "water-boarding" the financial accounts of republicans, then perhaps they will cooperate, but never will they "see the light"! :wtf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3826686&mesg_id=3826686

Pelosi backs down in spending battle
By Alexander Bolton | Posted: 12/12/07 11:50 AM
December 12, 2007
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-backs-down-i...

In the face of stiff opposition from powerful fellow Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has abandoned a proposal she supported less than 24 hours ago to eliminate lawmakers’ earmarks from the omnibus spending package.

Pelosi told the Democratic chairmen of the House Appropriations subcommittees, the so-called appropriations cardinals, that earmarks would stay in the omnibus and that Democratic leaders would accede to cut spending to levels demanded by President Bush in order to save 11 spending bills from a veto, said sources familiar with a meeting that took place in Pelosi’s office early Wednesday morning.

<<snip>>

By leaving earmarks largely untouched and agreeing to Bush’s budget ceiling, Democrats have capitulated in their spending battle with Republicans. In the end, Democrats realized they would not be able to muster enough Republican votes to override Bush’s veto. The president vowed to reject any spending package that exceeded the $933 billion limit he set.

<<snip>>

As recently as Tuesday afternoon, Pelosi endorsed House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey’s (D-Wis.) proposal to yank all earmarks from the omnibus in order to save an estimated $9.5 billion. The money would have been used to minimize cuts to domestic programs important to Democrats.

When asked Tuesday afternoon if Obey’s plan was off the table, Pelosi replied: “Not from my standpoint.”

Every time they talk tough and cave it makes it that much harder to vote for them in November. I worry that there will not be a significant change after the election and we will just have Bush lite. I hope that I am wrong and we see the country turn around, apologise to the world and restore the rule of law.

More and more I wish we had only public funding for races and replace every single Dem and Rep.