Advertisement

Archive for Friday, December 28, 2007

Pelosi exaggerating Democratic success

December 28, 2007

Advertisement

— After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Washington Post poll earlier this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.

In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.

In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."

While surveys by The Washington Post and other news organizations show the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures - with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."

That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low - measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.

There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the press release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and to require drain covers on pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions voted on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed the bill.

One would think that high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term - and leave it up to him to make any compromises.

An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage, and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.

But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground - a potential weak point in the coming election.

The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.

That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.

- David Broder is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

mancityfooty:

"Those two statements could only be compared if you believe that Clinton killed thousnds of potential children by staining a dress."

See Christopher Hitchens' "No One Left to Lie to." He makes the case that there is a connection between Clinton's carnality and his carnage.

0

posessionannex 6 years, 3 months ago

if you believe that Clinton killed thousnds of potential children by staining a dress.

stained dress = Gore loses election.

by liberal (small l) logic, Clinton did kill thousnds (sic) of people.

0

Finding_Uranus 6 years, 3 months ago

Say what you will, but Pelosi is a drain on our country.

0

beobachter 6 years, 3 months ago

What mind? She's con-man in drag.

0

blackwalnut 6 years, 3 months ago

I do believe Dollypawpaw has completely lost her mind.

0

RonaldWilson 6 years, 3 months ago

I can't believe the media has the ability to totally BS everyone on this issue. WMDs in violation of the UN resolutions were found in Iraq. Just look it up. Here's a place to start:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And , here's an excerpt:

"When former weapons inspector David Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice.

Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:

A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?

"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."

"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."

"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."


What's worse is Bush doesn't have the nuts to stand up for himself and state the facts on what was found. He's totally justified in invading Iraq. Everyone knows that Hussein was up to no good. But, now it's convenient to forget that fact and call Bush a liar. Silly Lefties.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

"Certainly, there are an equal number of entries for Dems"

I'll say. Let's keep having fun, since while you acknowledge the Democrat lies, you never seem to quote them:

Clinton falsely claims guardsmen and reservists didn't have health insurance before she went to work.

In a recent ad, Clinton claims members of the National Guard and military Reserve didn't have health insurance until she and a GOP colleague took action.

We find the ad misleading. In fact, active-duty Guard and Reserve troops already were covered by federal insurance, and four out of five non-active-duty guardsmen and reservists already were covered by their civilian employers or other sources.

A labor group's ad supporting Edwards misleads about plant closings.

A new ad sponsored by a labor union PAC in support of Democratic presidential candidate Edwards implies that the closing of an Iowa Maytag factory and the loss of 1,800 jobs are due to "tax breaks to companies that move jobs offshore." And it says Edwards would end such breaks.

We found two problems: - The jobs didn't move offshore. They were actually sent to Ohio. - Eliminating the "tax breaks" in question probably wouldn't do much to keep jobs in the U.S.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois used an estimate of uncertain provenance when discussing Medicare savings: Obama: "If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars." Obama got this claim from a "candidate briefing book" put out by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. CAP cites the CDC and the Commonwealth Fund as sources for the estimate, but representatives from both organizations told us that the claim was unfamiliar to them.

A Shaky Claim on Health Spending

Richardson used a questionable figure on health care costs, saying that "one-third" of the $2.2 trillion spent on health care "goes to administration and bureaucracy."

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services does project that health care spending in the U.S. will be more than $2.2 trillion in 2007. But the figure for administrative spending given by CMS' National Health Expenditure Data tables is far lower than one-third. The data show 7.4 percent of all national health expenditures in 2007 will go to "program administration and net cost of private health insurance."

Richardson's statistic does have some support, however. A survey conducted by PNC Financial Services Group, which says it's "a leading provider of electronic financial services to the health care industry," said that nearly a third of expenditures went to administration. But that finding, released this year, was merely the opinion of the 200 hospital and insurance company executives queried. "There was no hardcore data or a number that they have," confirmed PNC spokeswoman Amy Vargo.

0

Corey Williams 6 years, 3 months ago

"Bush was told that the Niger information may have come from a less than credible source; however, Clinton was also warned that lying to a grand jury was a felony and may lead to impeachment proceedings. Neither man exercised solid judgment."

Those two statements could only be compared if you believe that Clinton killed thousnds of potential children by staining a dress.

"The Liberals killed Bhutto. Had they not been supporting the terrorists all these years Bhutto would still be alive. Enabling does matter!"

Just like Reagan and Bush 1 enabled Saddam through the 80s?

Everytime some of you people post, the terrorists win.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

Some fun with FactCheck.org!

"Operation Iraqi Gloss-Over September 14, 2007 The president cites shaky facts as he makes a case for keeping high levels of troops in Iraq."

http://www.factcheck.org/operation_iraqi_gloss-over.html

"Bush's False Claims About Children's Health Insurance September 21, 2007 Updated: September 24, 2007 The president mischaracterizes congressional efforts to expand the SCHIP program."

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

"Facts Of The Union January 25, 2007 Bush selects his facts carefully to dress up the State of the Union address."

http://www.factcheck.org/bush/facts_of_the_union.html

Certainly, there are an equal number of entries for Dems...but that's not my point - if FactCheck is so damn correct, then you'd have to say that here are just a few examples of Shrub playing fast and loose with reality...

0

Dollypawpaw 6 years, 3 months ago

Liberals enabling terrorists(Let's) killed Bhutto. Go to any website supporting the terrorists and you'd think you were logged onto media matters.

Let's will stop at nothing to spread their hatred among the good folk of the planet. Let's must be stopped.

Bush supports the voting process. He also supports Musharraff.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"The Liberals killed Bhutto."

That's funny - Pakistani media are laying on the Bush Admin's door for facilitating her return and supporting her as the opposition candidate...

0

Dollypawpaw 6 years, 3 months ago

The Liberals killed Bhutto. Had they not been supporting the terrorists all these years Bhutto would still be alive. Enabling does matter!

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"As I noted above, we can go down the list after you acknowledge that you were incorrect when you characterized Bush's 16 words in the 2003 SOTU address as an outright lie."

You are misconstruing my statement. When I said that "outright lies" were status quo for this admin, I wasn't specifically referencing the SOTU address. But to say, as you are, that Bush was unaware that the Niger claims were viewed as suspect by many in the intelligence community before the SOTU address is simply untrue.

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

beobachter:

You're wrong. FactCheck.org studied the issue and concluded that Bush did not lie. See http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

In addition, the Washington Post reported the following in 2004:

"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

From the Butler Report:

"There was "no recent intelligence" to lead people to conclude Iraq was of more immediate concern than other countries, although its history prompted the view there needed to be a threat of force to ensure Saddam Hussein's compliance

The inquiry is surprised ministers, officials, and intelligence agencies did not reassess the quality of intelligence as UN weapons inspectors failed to make finds in the months immediately before the war "

From the Senate Intelligence Report:

"The Intelligence Community (1C) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized."

0

beobachter 6 years, 3 months ago

Kevin, scenebooster is correct. It was an outright lie. Than occurs when someone ignores the evidence given showing it was questionable and probably un true.

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster:

"I notice that you have yet to comment on any of the other "mistaken" quotes:"

As I noted above, we can go down the list after you acknowledge that you were incorrect when you characterized Bush's 16 words in the 2003 SOTU address as an outright lie.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"Yes, some loser on a computer in Lawrence is probably a better judge concerning Bush's 16 words than FactCheck.org, the Butler report, and ther Senate Intelligence Committee."

From the FactCheck.org link:

"Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British."

I notice that you have yet to comment on any of the other "mistaken" quotes...

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

NavyVet, you are a wise sage. Welcome to this board!

0

NavyVet 6 years, 3 months ago

Apparently I did miss the point. But even after I re-read the earlier posted quotes, I still don't see how they relate to the fringe getting worked up about purported misinformation from the left. All I see is the quotes and an invitation to comment - albeit to someone else - on the same quotes.

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

Bush was told that the Niger information may have come from a less than credible source; however, Clinton was also warned that lying to a grand jury was a felony and may lead to impeachment proceedings. Neither man exercised solid judgment.

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster:

Yes, some loser on a computer in Lawrence is probably a better judge concerning Bush's 16 words than FactCheck.org, the Butler report, and ther Senate Intelligence Committee.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"Hindsight is a wonderful luxury to have."

Except shrub was warned before his speech. See how that differs from "hindsight"?

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

Hindsight is a wonderful luxury to have. In the immediate period after 9-11 the senses were heightened as to continued terrorist attacks and overreaction was inevitable. Bush did make mistakes and did the leaders of both houses of Congress- Republican and Democrat alike. Get over it!!! There is enough blame to go around without trying to pin the entire blame on one man or either party.

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

BlackWalnut,

Obstructionism isn't party specific either. Democrats did the same thing to the Republicans when they were in power. Unfortunately its the name of the game.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

I love, absolutely love that the fringe on here pick and choose so strenuously...howsabout the last three?

No qualms there? Have we reached the "last throes" yet, nearly 2.5 years on?

0

blackwalnut 6 years, 3 months ago

The so-called Democratic majority in both houses of Congress is nonexistant. A majority of 1 in the Senate, and a majority of less than 2% in the House, is useless.

Until the Democrate have a veto-proof, filibuster-proof majority in both houses, the blame remains with the Republicans who obstruct everything the Democrats try to do.

The Democrats do not have control of both houses - yet.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"The FACT is...."

...as I laid out above, that the President was warned by the CIA, the Director of the CIA, and the State Department that this information was "highly dubious", yet he included it in the speech anyway (gee, in retrospect, does that seem to conform to a pattern in this administration?)...

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

The FACT is that the intelligence of the U.S. and most of the other world intelligence agencies was apparently wrong about WMD's in Iraq. Leaders of both political parties share the blame. As Kozakid has aptly pointed out, leaders of both parties (including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden among other Democrats) had access to the NIE reports and reached the same conclusion as did President Bush (and Denny Hastert, Sam Brownback, etc.). Neither party can claim the high moral ground on this issue.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"You presented the 16 words from Bush 2003 SOTU address as a "out right (sic) lie."

That little bit o' love was more than just a matter of passing on suspect information, as it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

Care to continue down the list?

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster:

Hold on there. You presented the 16 words from Bush 2003 SOTU address as a "out right (sic) lie." I provided a link to an independent source that says Bush did not lie. I think you should admit that you were incorrect about that. And then we can address some other examples of misinformation in your posts.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

As usual, dagoman, R-T, NavyVet (not as usual for him/her, as I've never read anything from this person) and (especially) kozakid, miss the point entirely. No challenge to veracity here, only that the fringe on these threads only get worked up about "misinformation" when it originates from the left.

Out right lies from the right seem to be okey dokey.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says:

"It would also have been nice if she had hauled the idiots who got us into this thing before the house to explain how they so terribly bumbled their way into this morass, and to discuss the false reasoning they used to justify invading Iraq."

She doesn't have to "haul the idiots who got us into this thing before the house," they're already there, and next door in the Senate, for the asking. Or did you "forget" Shrillary, Edwards, Kerry, and how many other Democrats voted to send troops into Iraq?

(Although at least Kerry only voted for it before he voted against it, and Edwards now says what is probably the most significant vote of his brief Senate career was a mistake, and Shrillary currently says - wait, what day is this and which way is the wind blowing?)

0

truthhurts 6 years, 3 months ago

Dagopman - "the bottom line is that the Bush presidency and the current Congress are abysmal failures"

You nailed it.

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

NavyVet, how dare you trot out the facts! Shame on you!

0

NavyVet 6 years, 3 months ago

I'll comment scenebooster -

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." Bill Clinton, CNN's "Larry King Live", July 22, 2003

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam . . . will be emboldened [to] act with impunity, even in the face of . . . clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." Bill Clinton, Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, February 17, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth . . . developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." President Clinton State of the Union address, January 27, 1998

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."; Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, 105th Congress, 2nd Session, September 29, 1998

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone . . . JOHN EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go . . . And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good . . . for the American people . . . for the security of that region . . . and . . . for the Iraqi people. John Edwards interview on MSNBC's "Hardball", October 13, 2003

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm [but] . . . how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. Hillary Clinton, meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol, March 6, 2003

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself . . . And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that." Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign, LA Times editorial, February 6, 2003; Page B17

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that . . . Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Nancy Pelosi, Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq, December 16, 1998

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

Democrats always put a positive spin on their failures. I'm sure that Ted Kennedy bragged about being a great swimmer after that deal in Chappaquiddick.

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

BTW, see http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 3 months ago

It would be interesting to see who in and around the administration has an interest in big oil .

With SanFran Nan at the helm, we'll never know for sure. She lacks the backbone to pursuit it.

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster:

The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent. Sen. Hillary Clinton, September 24, 2003

The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared. Hillary Clinton, April 21, 2004

Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials. John Edwards, February 4, 2007

Care to comment?

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Mrs Pelosi will have a tough re-election campaign - the good citizens of her San Francisco district are very disappointed in her lack of results, and will hold her accountable. They were expecting her to tie financing for the war to a fixed timetable for withdrawal, and were also expecting that the house take a larger role in the oversight of this horribly mismanaged war.

It would also have been nice if she had hauled the idiots who got us into this thing before the house to explain how they so terribly bumbled their way into this morass, and to discuss the false reasoning they used to justify invading Iraq.

While she is personally rich (her home is worth way more that $5 Million) she did not profit from the war (like some) nor from the skyrocketing oil prices and equally skyrocketing market capitalization of energy companies over the past 7 years. It would be interesting to see who in and around the administration has an interest in big oil .

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

Staff04, thank you for your continued rancor! I do not hide my distaste for Nancy Boyda and everything she and her husband stand for. She is part of the current worthless Congress. Please read again:

The bottom line is that the Bush presidency and the current Congress are both abysmal failures.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

I believe Reid as I believe Bush---all our leaders do is tell what they think---we are to believe them at all times.

When they say something, I assume they believe it, therefor I do.

0

staff04 6 years, 3 months ago

Quick daGOPman, blame it on Boyda!

0

dagopman 6 years, 3 months ago

The bottom line is that the Bush presidency and the current Congress are both abysmal failures.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"This thread is really going to upset Liberals once they get out of bed."


Actually, all the hot air is a refreshing change from the frozen tundra outside.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"We must believe in what our leaders tell us."

""We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

Shrub, 5/29/03

""Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.""

Shrub - 1/28/03

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Shrub - 1/28/03

"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. "

The Dick - 1/22/04

""We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate."

Rummy - 7/13/03

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

Care to comment, R-T?

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

Dolly is only going on what one of our highest elected officials said publicly, that this war is lost---Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader. We must believe in what our leaders tell us.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"They lost the war on terror. "

Look, dolly hates America, and the troops. She says we've lost the GWOT.

Move to Turkmenistan, you America hating jerk.

0

Dollypawpaw 6 years, 3 months ago

Its a fact that she eats poorpus meat. Some Liberal huh?

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

"One of the most prominent is Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic minority, who lists assets of up to $92 million held jointly with her businessman husband Paul. They include two vineyards, one valued between $5 million and $25 million and the other valued between $1 million and $5 million, and a stake in a restaurant chain worth as much as $25 million. They also own three pieces of prime San Francisco real estate-one being their personal dwelling in the posh Pacific Heights neighborhood-each valued at up to $5 million. Rounding out their real estate holdings are two mountain townhouses and a share in a resort, worth up to $11 million combined."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/sen-j07.shtml

I thought you lefties would like this site.

I'm positive San Fran Nan cares deeply about you, me and every other poor sucker from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico.

0

Dollypawpaw 6 years, 3 months ago

This thread is really going to upset Liberals once they get out of bed.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

Here's one for you lefties....you wanted San Fran Nan....you got 'er!

What a sad, wretched woman---what a sad screwed up mess liberals are---always have been.

0

Dollypawpaw 6 years, 3 months ago

Liberals have so little to be proud of. They lost the war on terror. The terrorists that they have supported are now killing people like Bhutto.

Their gut wrenching hatered for Bush has jaded them to the point that psychoanalysis from Oprah wouldn't help.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

madmike, Pelosi & Reid Co. Inc. are undeniably THE hugest First Class, Grade AAA a&&hole politicians to ever hit the beltway.

0

Bowhunter99 6 years, 3 months ago

Democrats have accomplished n-o-t-h-i-n-g. Their approval rating is lower than Bush's. They claimed they were going to stop Earmarks, yet we just had an article about Boyda bringing money to her area because 'it would have been spent anyways'... What a refreshing tought.... She reminds of those people with Adjustable Rate Mortgages... spending everything she can find.

0

madmike 6 years, 3 months ago

While I believe that President Bush has not done well in the execution of his duties, I also believe that Pelosi and Reid are two of the most despicable politicians that have ever come down the pike!

0

beobachter 6 years, 3 months ago

rightwinger "insult everyone's intelligence and tell us what a wonderful job they've done for the American people."

Why do most of us think this is what Bush and Cheney have been doing for 7 years, And the idiot true believers can't see it.

0

americorps 6 years, 3 months ago

of course, whitehinker, Bushes approval ratings mean nothing to you, but the congress approval ratings mean everything...

Unless of course you compare them to the numbers of personal representatives....it is historic that congress as an entity always has low ratings, but individual seats have higher ratings, but you would never let facts taint your argument, who would you be without your lies, you would have nothing left.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

merrill, how many times have you copy/pasted the same text about fairvote & pubiccampaign? You're wearing a hole in the ozone.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

Reid & Pelosi Congress: The Final Insult

Obstruct the war effort and spend 90% of their time investigating every other member of the Bush Administration, hold up a budget beyond the last minute, then at the end of the year, insult everyone's intelligence and tell us what a wonderful job they've done for the American people.

0

KS 6 years, 3 months ago

Sounds to me like it MUST be Bush's fault.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

The primary caucus approach leaves much to be desired and cost way to much special interest money. What do people in Iowa and New Hampshire know that we don't? What makes this special? There is a lot about the current election system that does not mean much. So who cares what a newspaper thinks about who we should vote for? Why should voters give a damn?

Our choices are being controlled by the special interest political parties,the media and corporate special interest money. How is it all candidates are not allowed to participate in every debate? Why does any candidate stand by this crap? That is why I promote firing 95% of incumbents. Returning the lions share of incumbents over the past 30 years has not made much of anything better.

The news media and corporate america do NOT need to decide who OUR candidates should be for local,state or federal level representation.

The media takes in a ton of cash during our election periods and play a huge role in selecting candidates for all sides of the aisle. Then THEY decide who should participate in televised debates as if no one else matters to the voters. Yes they also seem to decide which issues are important to voters and many times miss the mark. The media has become a large part of the special interest takeover of our process as if they know what is best for all of us. Voters support this takeover by voting for those candidates who also spend the most money and the question is why?

Campaigns go too long,spend way too much money and do not necessarily provide the best available. It is up to us to stop the nonsense at the voting booths on the 2008 ballot. Not voting sends the wrong message and changes nothing.

Lets's demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ Demand a change on the 2008 ballot.

The big money candidates are more beholden than ever to corporate special interests due to the very long nature of campaigns. How do they have time to do the job they were elected to do? We need public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out.

http://www.publicampaign.org/

0

jmadison 6 years, 3 months ago

Politicians lie. Is this just occurring to Broder?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.