Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Congressional Briefing

National anti-war group may target Boyda in ads, but she'll still vote to finance troop surge

Advertisement

U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda has become, in her first week in office, a cautionary tale for other Democrats.![][1]After Boyda last week [told ABC that she would vote to finance a troop surge in Iraq,][2] she raised the ire of antiwar activists nationwide, [the L.A. Times reports today:][3]It did not take long for Rep. Nancy Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Kansas, to learn the price of defying her party's liberal base. After she said she would support President Bush if he proposed an increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, antiwar bloggers fumed and MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group, considered running a television ad attacking her."If a member of Congress is wrong on Iraq, that is not what we voted for," said Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington director. "There will be people watching to make sure they do the right thing."MoveOn.org, meanwhile, is planning a series of radio and television ads attacking lawmakers who support the Iraq war and its expansion.Just hours before she was sworn in, Boyda said on ABC that she would support funding for a troop increase because Bush, not Congress, had the authority to make the decision. "I think we're going to vote to support what the commander-in-chief and head of the military asks," said Boyda, who won an upset victory over a Republican incumbent in a conservative-leaning district.Her staff did not respond to a request for comment.Her statement on television was met with angry responses on the website of the Lawrence Journal-World."As a constituent who gave money to and campaigned for Nancy Boyda, my disappointment is deep and real," said one correspondent. "Boyda will be a one-termer if she does not get this one right."_That comment came in this blog, from commenter [blackwalnut][4] - who can now begin appending his-or-her posts: "As quoted in the Los Angeles Times!"We kid.In the meantime, though, Boyda is trying to do damage control. [The Topeka Capital-Journal:][5]_Rep. Nancy Boyda apologized Tuesday for a comment concerning the war in Iraq that she made to ABC News' Charlie Gibson last week."I want to apologize for an unclear and poorly stated response," she said during a morning teleconference. "Just the whole interaction there could have been done better."President Bush will address the nation at 8 p.m. tonight on the situation in Iraq. He is expected to propose a surge in troop levels in Baghdad.She attributed the gaffe to "first-week jitters."While she said she was sorry for her phrasing, Boyda didn't back down from her position that she would vote for funding a surge of troops into Iraq even though she is against the idea._"I have always said I would support our men and women (in the military) and certainly their families as well," Boyda said. "I think that's going to leave me with a very troubling vote, and that is to fund military operations that I consider to be misguided."_If you haven't seen it, here is the ABC report that started the tempest:Also: [Here is what the blogosphere is saying.][6]Other headlines today:Sen. Pat Roberts (R)![][7][(CattleNetwork.com) KLA: Roberts Says Expanded Assistance Needed Immediately:][8] U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts told the Bush Administration yesterday that western Kansas needs assistance "immediately, not next week, next month or next year." He said the 44 counties declared federal disaster areas due to the December 28-31 winter storm need federal government resources to restore power and clear massive amounts of snow. Roberts noted the administration only declared states of disaster in two areas: debris removal and emergency protection. Specifically, Roberts is requesting that snow and deceased cattle be included in the technical definition of "debris removal." He said additional aid needs to be approved for assistance with public utilities, roads, bridges, water control facilities and public buildings. [1]: http://www.actblue.com/images/entities/9536.gif [2]: http://www2.ljworld.com/blogs/kansas_congress/2007/jan/05/boyda/ [3]: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-antiwar10jan10,0,7871587.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines [4]: http://www2.ljworld.com/users/blackwalnut/ [5]: http://cjonline.com/stories/011007/kan_136854887.shtml [6]: http://www.technorati.com/search/boyda+abc [7]: http://roberts.senate.gov/Roberts-020405-18060-080-CFFflipped.jpg [8]: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=96420

Comments

budwhysir 7 years, 3 months ago

So I think there was evidently something said that people didnt like.

0

werekoala 7 years, 3 months ago

Tempest in a teapot. Does anyone really think that it's a good idea to deny funding to the toops over there dying?

The troops are going over, orders have been given, etc etc. Only question is are they going to be hamstrung or not?

I thought the war was a stupid idea from the begining, and I'm highly dubious that this whole "surge" idea will work. But hell, what else to do? As much as I hate Bush, etc, I don't see how running home with our tail between our legs really accomplishes anything.

I'd be more interested in seeing a differnet slant to the political/diplomatic aspects - get more power/infrastructure rebuilt, and teach the population a way of life other than "let the big man do it". But this is what we get. I really do pray it works, because otherwise, the troops are coming home, and there's a whole world of excrement that's about to hit the fan.

/Voted for Boyda //Eating your own ain't smart. ///Moveon, etc - needs to grow up.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

"More of the same of the past 12 years?"- laughing

I could only hope.

0

couranna1 7 years, 3 months ago

she's a kansan, what can you say.

0

laughingatallofu 7 years, 3 months ago

At least with Ryan we knew exactly what we would be getting. <<<

Yup. How low can one's standards be?

0

laughingatallofu 7 years, 3 months ago

Posted by preebo (anonymous) on January 10, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a thought...

Call her office right now and express your opinion. That is what we are charged with as members of this Representative Democracy. We are responsible to hold our elected officials responsible for their decisions. I have already contacted her office via phone and email expressing my dismay regarding her vote. I suggest all of you who have an opinion on this matter do the same.

Here is her Topeka office # (785) 234-2251 Washington office # (202) 225-6601

... or visit her congressional website @ http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webr...

Heaven forbid that the Boyda Bashers would actually express their displeasure directly to Nancy or her office. That would mean that they would have to tell them who they are (i.e., become un-anonymous). Un-imaginable!

0

laughingatallofu 7 years, 3 months ago

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on January 10, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems Dems far and wide are doing a 180 since November '06. I'm not a bit surprised. This is why Dems are only going to be the majority for two years, thank God. <<<

And then what? More of the same of the past 12 years?

Ooooh booooy, I can't wait!

0

Agnostick 7 years, 3 months ago

Hhhhmmmmmmmm...

And if Congress giveth... can Congress taketh away...????

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Godot 7 years, 3 months ago

agnostick, I believe that is what all those resolutions and votes were about in 2003 - congress gave the president the power to conduct this war.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 3 months ago

Quick procedural point that maybe somebody can answer, about presidential powers, troop deployment etc.

I seem to recall, back from the Desert Shield/Storm days... that a president can deploy troops to a region, without congressional approval, for up to 90 days. After 90 days, the president then has to go before Congress and make the case for keeping the troops in place... or issuing a formal declaration of war; otherwise, Congress can somehow "force" the president to recall the troops.

Can somebody unmuddle all this for me?

My point is... in the heady days post-9/11, it would've been political suicide, generally for any but the most seasoned senators and representatives to call the president on the carpet. After all, we're "fighting terrorism," right?

Is it possible for Congress, at this point, to say "Sign a declaration of war, or bring the troops back"...?

Thanks

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Mkh 7 years, 3 months ago

Brownback has now come out Against "W"'s tropp surge! Is Sam now more anti-war than Boyda?

Come on Nancy! Get with the program!

0

Godot 7 years, 3 months ago

Bush was obviously under strict orders from his producers not to emote or improvise in this speech. The wording was so NOT Bush. Who is writing his speeches now? I would rather have seen him making an emotionally charged, though grammatically incorrect, speech, than the one he made tonight.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

The live, long version of Loggins & Messinas' "Angry Eyes" is an ass-kickin' tune!!

F-it all! Bartender, bourbon on the rocks please.......

Bush' speech was a snore.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

"It appears that all GOP '08 candidates are now "Bush haters."-Jamesaust

It's a safe bet to be a "Bush hater" these days. This will seem trivial when Iraq is overrun with "America haters".

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 3 months ago

I suppose I should also make a note of the fact that Brownback says something actually notable (something overshadowed only by a Presidential Address to the Nation) and the LJW website, which will note the most obscure happenings, carries not a word about it.

Hmmmm........

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 3 months ago

Ooopss...I wish to amend my 4:14 observations after reading today from own own Sammy B "I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer." http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/16429391.htm

It appears that all GOP '08 candidates are now "Bush haters."

0

Godot 7 years, 3 months ago

Good point, Agnostick. Our soldiers deserve a pay raise.

0

gccs14r 7 years, 3 months ago

Pilgrim,

You're the one who wants to trash the planet, not me.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

"The Republican/Nationalists on this board are so hopeful of a Democrat screw-up ....." -KUDB99

Not hopeful, absolutely sure of it.....it started last Thursday and is moving along quite nicely.

I keep hearing "Highway to Hell" in my head.

HEHEHE!!!!!

0

Agnostick 7 years, 3 months ago

A truck driver that generally makes $35,000-40,000 a year goes to the Middle East to make $80,000 in KBR money.

http://americancontractorsiniraq.com/ (Click the link, listen to the audio at the top of the page)

How much do our soldiers get paid?

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Agnostick 7 years, 3 months ago

"BS, Pilgrim. She was elected to yank on Bush's reins, not spur him."


Wanna really yank on Bush's & Cheney's chains, reins, and everything else?

How about a proposal to freeze any and all monies to KBR, Halliburton and that bunch? Along with any other companies that got "no-bid contracts," for that matter?

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 3 months ago

Posted by Shelby (anonymous) on January 10, 2007 at 3:43 p.m.

I think drewdun needs some companionship.


Reminds me of the Robin Williams line from "Good Morning, Vietnam," referencing his commanding officer.

And don't forget, gccs14r wants to be one of the pigs.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 3 months ago

"Here's a thought, standup....turn of Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Fox News/whatever redneck Nazi diatribe that you are dialed in to and realize that you are no longer in the majority."

Here's a thought, stop listening to CNN, NPR, and MSNBC< and MOVEON.ORG, and Mediamatters. Use your brain and come up with a coherent and cogent forign policy. BItching about the other guys and calling them NAZIs is no plan DA!

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 3 months ago

The Repukes that lost were mainly ones that were outed as being sympathetic with the illegal aliens, or in the COngressional districts that the Deomcrat ren harder on an Enforcement platform.

NO ladies and germs, the illegal alien thing is FAR from over, those that vote in favor ot illegal aliens will be likely be recalled. Remember Ryun's stance on it? Sammy boy would have lost as well. Conservatives do not cotton to lawbreakers and border jumpers getting to stay here let alone being reqaarded with Social Security Benefits, Medical Benefits, and Citizenship.

Funny that the Dems in their first 100 hour blitz, passed the 9/11 commission recommendations EXCEPT CONTROLLING AND SECURING OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!!!!

Liars!!!

0

KUDB99 7 years, 3 months ago

The Republican/Nationalists on this board are so hopeful of a Democrat screw-up that they latch on to just about any little thing they can. Here's a thought, standup....turn of Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Fox News/whatever redneck Nazi diatribe that you are dialed in to and realize that you are no longer in the majority.

The liberal universe is almost as bad, but at least most of their goals seem altruistic, if not realistic. What the world needs right now is a bit of moderation. Perhaps a Democrat elected from a highly Republican district that will not vote with the prevailing winds and put a stake on doing their own thing. Once again, good for Nancy, for voting for what she thinks is best, and not for folding to radicalism in either direction.

I am a staunch anti-Bush/anti-war person, but I don't think it's congress' place to pull the plug on the troops, b/c it's not going to make any difference to Bush anyways. History proves he's going to do whatever the heck he wants to anyways.

0

yankeelady 7 years, 3 months ago

I hate the idea of sending more troops, but as has already been pointed out, the president can do that without congressional "permission". Once they are there we can't hang them and their families out to dry. As a Viet Nma era person, I remember all too well what the guys faced when they came home, or dared to wear their uniforms in public. And a lot of them were drafted, they weren't there to get special training or money for college. We need to get the troops out, and it will probably be as much of a debacle as the fall of Saigon was, at least this time we know why we were there---big oil.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 3 months ago

Drewdun:

"Hey, whatever you need to get through the day, loser. And by the way, the American public is most assuredly against the war and wants to 'cut and run' and 'surrender to the idiots' as you so eloquently put it. In fact, only TEN PERCENT of people support sending more troops to Iraq..."

So that is why those newly elected "moderate democrats" are not cutting and tunning? A "Majority of the USA" voted the Republicans out, and that "Majority does not want to send more troops, however you spin the poll, the MAJORITY of AMERICANS want to WIN in IRAQ and want us to STAY until the job is finished. You misrepresent the gallup poll stating that the majority of Americans want to surrender and want to get out now.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"If you still support Bush and his criminally insane 'mission' in Iraq, face it - YOU are the traitor."

You are th trator and the wingunt here drewdumb. The war is NOT illegal nor criminal. The COngress VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY FOR IT! They voted with THE SAME INTEL the PResident had. IF they saw a problem they should have spoken up then. NOW is a bad time to change your mind after price has been paid.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Ever get the feeling the national democrat party is like the Titanic headed for an iceberg? Enjoy your two years."

That is true, but the Republicans were no better. With a Majority in BOTH HOUSE and SENATER, and the WHITE HOUSE, they ended up DOING NOTHING!!!!

And all those A-hole Republicans in the Senate that voted for "Amnesty" and making illegals legal citizens, it what has alienated the Republican base. These people are PISSED. I am very afraid that if those jokers vote fora pro illegal alien stance, I strongly believe that some senator and/or representatives will be attempted to be shot. I think there will be vilgilantes that start patroling the border to shoot the drug dealers and the Mexican Armyu that comes into our territory regularly. This is vacating national security and soverignty, and abdicating their oath of supporting the consititution and the protection of American Citizens and American lands.

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 3 months ago

"Moderate Republicans can be Bush haters too."

Yes, that explains why the most conservative GOP '08 name is Brownback (2% support) and the alternatives are varying degrees of 'un-Bush':

McCain- W vs. McCain, sort of like cats and dogs. Giuliani- pro-gay, pro-choice, and anti-gun (43% GOP support, btw) Romney- to the left of Teddy Kennedy on gay rights, has IMPLEMENTED socialized medicine.

Today's rising GOP star? Mississippi Zombie Trent Lott - fresh from his Dixie-Can grave. (Maybe he should run for President like his hero Strom Thurmond did!)

Newsflash: extreme, regional political parties - like today's GOP - cannot hope to win nationally without latching onto candidates having little in common with "the base."

0

scenebooster 7 years, 3 months ago

"Ever get the feeling the national democrat party is like the Titanic headed for an iceberg? Enjoy your two years."

That's Colbert-style BALLS coming from a republican, given the last seven years under W.

0

Rationalanimal 7 years, 3 months ago

Ever get the feeling the national democrat party is like the Titanic headed for an iceberg? Enjoy your two years.

0

Shelby 7 years, 3 months ago

I think drewdun needs some companionship.

0

drewdun 7 years, 3 months ago

If you still support Bush and his criminally insane 'mission' in Iraq, face it - YOU are the traitor.

0

gccs14r 7 years, 3 months ago

BS, Pilgrim. She was elected to yank on Bush's reins, not spur him.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 3 months ago

"If a member of Congress is wrong on Iraq, that is not what we voted for," said Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington director. "There will be people watching to make sure they do the right thing."


Why should anybody in Kansas, especially an elected representative of this state, give a flip what moveon.puke thinks about anything?

Nancy Boyda is wrong on just about everything except making sure the troops under the leadership of the commander in chief are fully funded and supported. If she caves to the Soros sycophants, she betrays her state and her nation.

0

drewdun 7 years, 3 months ago

"This is pointing to the position that the Dems did not WIN in the elections, the Republicans lost and gave away the election. THe Radical left wingers are the loudest, and loudest does not mean the majority" - ASBESTOS

Hey, whatever you need to get through the day, loser. And by the way, the American public is most assuredly against the war and wants to 'cut and run' and 'surrender to the idiots' as you so eloquently put it. In fact, only TEN PERCENT of people support sending more troops to Iraq...

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26080

Once again, the right-wingers on here are confusing vociferous disagreement with Bush and his insane policies with radicalism, when in reality this so-called radicalism IS THE POSITION OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY.

But that's okay, wingnuts. Keep on spewing your pathetic little lies. They probably make you feel like you're 'right,' but in reality the constant mendacity is only a really sad marker of a person's political beliefs causing them to disconnect from reality. From the right, this is definitely more than a trend. Its standard operating procedure, you know, what with them being wrong on EVERY ISSUE, especially Iraq. Too bad thousands have had to die, and thousands more will die, because these right-wing extremists care more about the Republican Party than their country or even life. Right-wingers are the true terrorists, worthy only of utter and complete destruction.

0

dizzy_from_your_spin 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey, Nancy, why didn't you allow tape recordings of your press conference? Easier to deny?

Have you already earned a trip to the democrat woodshed?

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

Moderate Republicans can be Bush haters too---don't take that away from them--it's not fair; they've earned it.

0

fletch 7 years, 3 months ago

One problem: Boyda wasn't elected by liberal democrats. She was elected by moderate Republicans.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

As the next 22 months leading up to November '08 drags along with one debacle after another with the Dems, you're average Bush hater who robotically voted Democratic will be hopefully be putting aside that hatred and vote correctly at that time.

You guys are WONDERFUL!! Keep up the good work!!

Dean Scream? Naaaah. I sort of feel bad for you guys---I hate to see anybody get snookered.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 3 months ago

ASBESTOS... 12:43pm post is on target. Good writing.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

shirinisb 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually her # is 785-234-8111.

Calling her does make a difference, her staff is very polite and they forward that information directly to her. So I urge any concerned citizen to do the same.

0

jimincountry 7 years, 3 months ago

Boyda's take on the NAFTA corridor: Is she still super sleuthing this conspiracy? The subject seems to be sliding toward oblivion along with Ryan

0

MyName 7 years, 3 months ago

Well, she's not my rep, but I would have voted for her in Nov. if she had been. This vote on a troop surge is not a referendum on the war in Iraq. It's a referendum on the Bush administration's latest plan to turn the war around. If it was part of a broader bill to end the war, and she voted against it, I would be annoyed, but as it stands now, I don't see this as going back on anything I remember from her campaign.

What's going to be more telling I think, is if there are any hearings on the war later on in the year and her response to that.

0

Newell_Post 7 years, 3 months ago

In economics, things like Iraq are called the "sunk cost problem." (You can't go back and "unspend" money that has already been spent or undo actions that have already been performed. You need to work toward the best future state from where you stand today.) We shouldn't have gone into Iraq to begin with, but we can't now undo the fact that we did under the dubious leadership of GWB.

I doubt the surge will work. I think the endgame for Iraq will be the same regardless, and the surge may only delay the timing. Northern Iraq becomes the independent coutry of Khurdistan. The area around Baghdad becomes Sunni Iraq, and the South becomes part of Iran. (Or a satellite of Iran somehow.)

It is worth the blood and treasure to delay this outcome slightly? I don't know. Maybe Boyda does.

0

prioress 7 years, 3 months ago

"Although I disagree with Bush, I do agree with Boyda and $10 says in the end after all the posturing, congress will in fact support his request. So she just cuts to the chase. Good for her."

I concur; Iraq is a disaster of Bush's making, but, clearly, Ms. Boyda has read the constitution.

0

belle 7 years, 3 months ago

Our politicians merely play a game...it's not about right and wrong, or how they really feel for that matter. Yet at the same time, it's impossible to please everyone. Lovers and haters, THAT is what hurts this country.

0

trainstop9 7 years, 3 months ago

At least with Ryan we knew exactly what we would be getting.

0

EXks 7 years, 3 months ago

Leadership from the Radical parts of either party is KILLING this Country!

---ABESTOS

You know ABESTOS, I with agree with most of your post. I think the majority of voters in this country are politically in the middl on most issues. Moderate on social issues and economically prudent. Problem is that most congressional districts are not drawn to reflect this. Personally I'd like to see a new political party formed.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 3 months ago

Boyda is better any day than Jim Ryun.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 3 months ago

This is pointing to the position that the Dems did not WIN in the elections, the Republicans lost and gave away the election. THe Radical left wingers are the loudest, and loudest does not mean the majority. This is what the Democratic Party has to contend with. Just as the Republican party is fractured between the Christian fundamentalists and the true political conservatives. The Democratic Party is being splintered by the racicals in their midst. The "Middle" of the Democratic Party and the MIddle of the Republican party si the majority in reality. I would say that 80 percent agree on things. For instance, Iraq is screwed up, but it was screwed up before with a danger. Leaving and cutting and running and Phased deployment all mean the same thing... surrender to the idiots. We cannot do that, and Bush has run the war terribly. But we cannot leave it nor leave it unstable. Boyda KNOWS this. Besides, the President acn veto anything that comes his way, congress ALREADY VOTED FOR THIS THING!!!

Another issue that the Moderate dems and moderate Republicans agree on (again I think the majority in the country) is Illegal immigration ENFORCEMENT! A new "comprehensive approach is not going to work, because we are not enforcing now.

First a wall, and secure the border, then we will figure out what to do with the illegals.

Did you know that th Bush admin with cooperation from the Dems (WHO ALL YELL about the BROKEN Social Security)_ put forthe a proposed "Social Security Totalization" plan with Mexico? Yeah, illegal aliens will be eligible for benefits in as little as 6 quarters. It takes an American Citizen 40 QUARTERS to get into the SS system and be eligible for benefits! Additionally, we will ad MILLIONS to the SS roles, for a system that is already going to be insolvent!

Leadership from the Radical parts of either party is KILLING theis Country!

0

consumer1 7 years, 3 months ago

Ceallach Deep dark depression, excessive misery. Owww If it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. Gloom despair and agony on me.

Good one :o)

Hey Grampa "whuts fer supper"?

0

consumer1 7 years, 3 months ago

"She's not speaking for the folks that voted for her. Big money already has it's claws into her."

Haw, haw, haw, haw...

Oh, yes she is speaking for the people who voted her into office. See that is the way voting works, you lefties vote someone into office based upon their ticket affiliation. Now you just have to live with it. Personally, I think she rocks and I didn't vote for her.

Keep up the good work Nancy. You rock !!

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 3 months ago

lol!

Boyda couldn't buy such favorable coverage. Maybe Cindy Sheehan will begin to protest Boyda? Maybe Hugo Chavez will denounce her an the 'Enabler of the Devil'? Boyda can only hope.

0

chuckdowning 7 years, 3 months ago

We often hear people claim that Kansas has become the laughingstock of the nation. Can you imagine LA Times readers and others outside of Kansas reading comments on the J-W forum? With the amount of hate expressed here (especially from the left), they'll start thinking Kansans are all like Fred Phelps.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

dacs23 -

Quality point. My sample size is pretty small. I'm going from opinions I've read in newspapers, other media, and message boards such as this. And, of course seeing what a few posters posted today. Nothing scientific nor psychic. If I was psychic I'd be elsewhere I imagine. See, I'm not even psychic enough to know what I'd be doing if I was psychic.

My gut feeling is the reason she won was because of 1) not being Jim Ryan; and 2) stand up to Bush type talk. If she had of said during the election she would vote for funding for additional troops I believe a lot of folks that normally wouldn't have voted would have stayed home.

0

Emily Hadley 7 years, 3 months ago

Having to ask congress for the money is supposed to maintain a power balance.

Would she give her 18-year-old kid money for drugs because he decides what he does, despite the fact that he depends on her for the money and couldn't do it otherwise?

0

Gareth 7 years, 3 months ago

tolawdjk -- I'm afraid your assertions are incorrect. Congress does have the power to say where and when....always has. Here are some examples from recent history:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/military_deployments.html

Neither Bush, nor any other president, gets a blank check simply by virtue of being Commander In Chief. Dubya and his cronies may want us to act as if we're living in a unitary-executive dictatorship, but our laws clearly state otherwise (despite his signing statements).

0

dacs23 7 years, 3 months ago

"She's not speaking for the folks that voted for her. Big money already has it's claws into her."

Careful T.O.B. people will start to think you are a mind reader as you seem to know the thoughts of all those who voter for her. Perhaps you set up your own psychic hot line.

0

preebo 7 years, 3 months ago

Here's what Congress should do...

Vote on a resolution to finance current troop levels.

Then vote on a separate resolution withholding funding additional troops. This could be done as an amendment to the appropriations bill that will most likely be presented after Bush announces his higly leaked, but somehow anticipated "new/old" plan for Iraq.

After we (Democrats) have shown Bush that Congress is now a SEPARATE branch of government then I would like to see a new resolution authorizing further funding for the war. This would undoubtedly be a political event, but it would serve as a symbolic benchmark where Bush and Cheney would have to bring about a new justification for continued operations in Iraq.

0

dacs23 7 years, 3 months ago

"support what the commander-in-chief and head of the military asks"

Although I disagree with Bush, I do agree with Boyda and $10 says in the end after all the posturing, congress will in fact support his request. So she just cuts to the chase. Good for her.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Godot - Good call.

Esq2eB - Just as long as we don't discuss water quality and fish!

0

preebo 7 years, 3 months ago

Here's a thought...

Call her office right now and express your opinion. That is what we are charged with as members of this Representative Democracy. We are responsible to hold our elected officials responsible for their decisions. I have already contacted her office via phone and email expressing my dismay regarding her vote. I suggest all of you who have an opinion on this matter do the same.

Here is her Topeka office # (785) 234-2251 Washington office # (202) 225-6601

... or visit her congressional website @ http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://boyda.house.gov

0

EXks 7 years, 3 months ago

Great post lawrencefan, I completely agree with your comments.

Appears some on this site need to REVIEW the ABC clip again and listen with their ears and NOT their emotions.

0

Esq2eB 7 years, 3 months ago

OG Bob and I agree on something.

0

dizzy_from_your_spin 7 years, 3 months ago

When are the troops coming home, Nancy?

0

tolawdjk 7 years, 3 months ago

She does have the correct idea though.

Bush is the only one with the ability to decide how many troops the US sends where. Congress doesn't have that power.

If Bush wants to send 20-30,000 more to Iraq and then Congress doesn't want to fund it, all that does is send the message that Congress is willing attack Bush at the cost of American lives. Sure, he can send you there, but we don't have to pay for the body armor, bullets, and logistical support for you to be there.

It is a giant game of chicken of the most disgusting type. Congress and the President will be trying to get the other to blink first.

She's just apparently of the opinion that Bush won't blink, which seems perfectly sane to me.

Sure, there may be constiuents that elected her on the idea that we should get out of Iraq ASAP. However, if the Idiot-In-Chief wants to send more troops in, her constituents are also the soldiers and familes that Peloski and Company want to send in undersupplied.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

Godot, your 11:12 says it all.

0

50YearResident 7 years, 3 months ago

It looks like Boyda will vote for anything Bush wants simply because "HE IS COMMANDER IN CHIEF" How sad!

0

traditional 7 years, 3 months ago

Wow. I didn't anticipate that Boyda would have that kind of courage. Way to go! It would be awesome if others followed her example.

0

Godot 7 years, 3 months ago

You guys don't get it. Boyda did not run "for" anything. She only ran "against;" she had no platform, just a series of questions based on conspiracy theories. You got what you asked for.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

"While she said she was sorry for her phrasing, Boyda didn't back down from her position that she would vote for funding a surge of troops into Iraq even though she is against the idea." from the above article.

I think that is plenty of info for folks that voted for her.

0

lawrencefan 7 years, 3 months ago

While I'm disappointed that Rep. Boyda's comments from last week were so black/white, her fickle support among her voters indicates we are so quick to jump to conlusions. She indicated that it is in the President's authority to increase troop levels in Iraq. She's correct. He can and has done so without approval from Congress. I interpreted her comments to mean she would vote to provide these troops with whatever it takes to properly protect them and allow them to do their jobs. That's not endorsement of the Bush strategy, but a commitment to support our troops; something I'm certain many of you suggest you also endorse with your metallic bows on the back of your cars.

0

oldgoof 7 years, 3 months ago

Does this mean the L.A. Times is reading Marion's posts? . I'm starting to get nervous.

0

jasonc_22 7 years, 3 months ago

i'm really disappointed, too..but, good grief folks, she made a mistake her first day on the job...she'll make more, but she'll also learn the rules.

Don't hate her yet, you don't have enough information to.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 3 months ago

Yet another great example why the Republican and Democratic parties need to be disbanded, disembowled, displaced, disetc... She's not speaking for the folks that voted for her. Big money already has it's claws into her.

I find it funny people think there is this giant chasm between the two parties. 90% of them are about 2 steps from each other. There's the minority on each side that talks louder but do they really ever get anything done?

0

bunnyhawk 7 years, 3 months ago

Clearly, a turncoat republican is still a republican.

0

classclown 7 years, 3 months ago

I am dismayed at the tones of some posters today considering all the gloating that was taking place a couple of months ago.

0

Ceallach 7 years, 3 months ago

You mean politicians sometimes say one thing to get elected and then do something all together different? Gloom, dispair and agony on me!

0

preebo 7 years, 3 months ago

The only hope this Congress, Boyda, included can hope for is that a resolution can be drafted that places funds for existing forces in Iraq, but withholds funding for additional forces. If that happens, and Bush still sends the troops in harms way then he will be the one, not Congress, that will have to answer for his folly. The only people hurt here are the troops, not Congress, and not the President, but our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers in a foreign country fighting someone else's civil war. I want them home as much as the next guy, but I want the home alive. Bush has put us all in this situation and it is his responsibility as Commader-in-Chief to utilize our military in a responsible manner and not to prolong a conflict designed only to privitize Iraq's oil supply.

0

trainstop9 7 years, 3 months ago

"I think she just discovered the learning curve is a little bit steeper than she originally thought."

Give her a break KUDB99? HELL NO, I GAVE HER A JOB!

I don't give a hoot to whom she is trying to endear herself. She ran her campaign on getting out of Iraq. The first chance she has to do something - anything about it, she turns her back.

This makes me sick.

0

KUDB99 7 years, 3 months ago

And one more thing...we do still live in Kansas, quite possibly the most conservative state in the union. Do you think that anybody in small town Kansas is going to look unfavorably on Moveon.org saying she's too conservative?

Come on people, this is probably a smart political play in many respects. If she can distance herself from the liberal wing of her party, she endears herself to the constituents back home. Plus she also will need to firm up the moderate base in her district to get re-elected. You don't get re-elected in the state of Kansas without supporting troops.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 3 months ago

Seems Dems far and wide are doing a 180 since November '06. I'm not a bit surprised. This is why Dems are only going to be the majority for two years, thank God.

0

KUDB99 7 years, 3 months ago

She's no more disappointing than the moron that was in there before her. I think she just discovered the learning curve is a little bit steeper than she originally thought. I, for one, am glad that she's not beholding to the party guru's.

Heaven forbid that we finally have a person in congress that can think for themselves.

Give her a break, she'll get better.

0

63BC 7 years, 3 months ago

Wow, the Republicans waited about eight years before abandoning their principles. Boyda didn't even wait eight weeks!

0

scenebooster 7 years, 3 months ago

Yep, so far Nancy is a serious disappointment.

0

trainstop9 7 years, 3 months ago

Good thing Rep. Boyda ran her campaign on getting out of Iraq and defying Pres. Bush. So, what did it take, 54 hours before she turns her back on her campaign promises?

Thanks, Rep, Boyda, for being a typical politician.

Pathetic.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.