*** I am a Democrat that likes Reid and Pelosi ***

[Zandor]

Their performance is imperfect, but much better than the alternative.

Once we elect a Democratic president in 2008 their effectiveness will be greatly increased.

So let's work toward that, not fracturing the party.

Who's with me?

If you are, give this a K & R !!!

[Skinner]

1. Count me in.

:thumbsup:

[Zandor]

12. Thanks boss n/t

[pork medley]

78. you're talking to the administrator of a web forum, not bruce springsteen or something

you're not in his employment for christ's sake

[Zandor]

92. He da man :) n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

125. theres no need to be so cantakerous for god's sake

[quinnox]

2. Both are wonderful

Reid and Pelosi are the best leaders Dems have had in years.

[Zandor]

4. Can I get some K & R's ???

[ronnykmarshall]

38. Here ya go

:kick:

[blondeatlast]

3. Hear, hear! It could be so very much worse.

:toast:

[porphyrian]

5. The idea that the party is "fracturing" is a myth. Don't propagate it.

Unlike the republicants, we can heatedly disagree with each other and still end up on the same side when it counts.

[Zandor]

10. Good point

I just hate it when I see progressives that seem to be on the hunt for these two.

[porphyrian]

34. That's healthy, too. It keeps us from doing nothing but fighting.

Think of us as a large extended family at Thanksgiving dinner. All the archetypes are represented.

[LynneSin]

6. Sign me up for your team - hell I even like Joe Biden

I don't want him as my president but I'll happily vote for him as my senator

[Zandor]

8. Freeeeeeeeeeep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How dare you! :)

[bigtree]

7. DLC Freeper!

:P

I'm with you.

[Zandor]

9. Thanks man n/t

[waiting for hope]

11. No. 5 ... Off you go!

[Zandor]

14. Woot!

[SharonRB]

13. I'm with you

[rudy23]

15. Sorry, it's a little more than imperfect. Impeachment should've never been taken off the table.

What a horrible negotiating strategy. We sold the farm to get elected (did we really have to?), now all the investigations we're conducting have no teeth. They can refuse whatever subpoena they want to, what can we do to them if we can't impeach on that basis?

I think we can dish out some criticism and still keep our party together. We're the party of critical thinking, and we always will be.

[bigtree]

22. there's nothing standing in the way of investigating

and the appointment of an outside investigator/ prosecutor when crimes are evident. I personally think that's the only way an impeachment battle could be sustained, both in Congress and in public opinion. I know there is already widespread opposition, but when you start talking about removing the president, and negating the votes of those who intended him to serve with their important contribution to democracy, there will be an inevitable hardening of opposition and defense of the Executive which has to be countered with something more substantive and supportable than a partisan-based collection of Articles. That's why I feel some outside prosecution is necessary to remove any tinge of partisanship from the effort, and to ensure that the charges are recognized as 'crimes or misdemeanors' which fall under the impeachment statute.

[endarkenment]

37. Ohter than the fact that the leadership won't do it. Nothing at all.

Outside investigator would be difficult as that law expired.

[bigtree]

43. the 'leadership' should not be posturing as if their every action was a pretext to impeachment

they set the right tone for their leadership, but there is nothing at all which would allow them to actually stand in the way of supportable charges which don't rely on some partisan instigation. Their position is the correct *one to take as they intend to effectively carry out their other important responsibilities which don't have impeachment as the ultimate remedy.

[endarkenment]

96. Their other important responsibilities

appear to be meaningless gestures in the form of legislation that goes nowhere and caving in on the one issue that brought them back into power. I am not impressed at all. High crimes and misdemeanors that may include treason have likely been committed and there is currently not even one investigation that is looking into either 9-11 or the bullshit that happened before we were taken into a fraudulent war in Iraq.

[BuyingThyme]

63. Wow, that's the most wrongest post everer.

There's no way for Democrats to appoint or otherwise cause prosecutors or prosecutions on the federal level. That's the whole problem.

The crimes couldn't be more evident.

[bigtree]

85. There's no way for Democrats in Congress to act on crimes they uncover?

really?

I think Congress could pass a 'sense of the Congress' resolution calling for a special counsel to investigate crimes they uncover. We, of course, no longer have the independent counsel law. That has expired. What we do have is an independent prosecutor set up by regulation throughout the Justice Department to create more of an independent review, an outside analysis. If Congress determines they have a prosecutable case, they should encourage and demand that a special counsel be appointed.

If the Attorney General should reject the request of the special counsel--to subpoena someone or bring someone to a grand jury or file some charges--a report has to be made to Congress. It is not a perfect mechanism, but it is the only mechanism available to Congress that would provide an independent way to address criminal wrongdoing.

As Sen. Rockefeller said when the Democrats called for an independent investigation into the Plame leak, "Under the Department of Justice regulation, the Attorney General is to appoint a special counsel when investigation or prosecution of the matter would present a conflict of interest for the Department and it would be in the public interest as a further matter to appoint an outside counsel to assume responsibility for the investigation in the matter.

The Attorney General faces a conflict of interest when an investigation leads into the White House. And it is unquestionably in the public interest to assure confidence in such a critically important investigation," Rockefeller said.


There are, in fact, levers of accountability short of impeachment which should be pursued. I don't see the point in expecting Congress to move forward with an impeachment, yet, assert that they shouldn't pursue any other legal remedy which intends to hold the administration accountable.

[BuyingThyme]

129. Impeachment is the only legal remedy available to Congress

at this time. Had it not been taken off the table, they would at least have some leverage. A sense of Congress resolution is as binding as this thread.

Rockefeller had almost as much to do with the Ashcroft recusal as did I.

[19jet54]

141. Not really a choice

It takes a super majority to impeach - We barely hold a majority at all?

Have you been smoking opium again? :hippie:

[BuyingThyme]

146. It's the only choice. It's the Constitution.

[19jet54]

147. Forgive my ignorance...

... but isn't a choice the "ability" to choose to do, or not to do something? If the decision is already made without you, how exactly is that really a choice for you?

[BuyingThyme]

148. No, when the decision is already made without me, it's called a Pelosi.

[bigtree]

149. Impeachment is NOT the ONLY remedy.

Where do you think Fitzgerald came from? Congress forced his appointment.

And, how in the world did Scooter get convicted without an impeachment? It's just amazing how you would ignore all of the other levers of our democracy short of removing Bush. Fortunately our legislators aren't as cynical.

[BuyingThyme]

150. Congress did not force Fitzgerald's appointment.

And Congress did not convict Libby.

[bigtree]

151. They absolutely did force the appointment of Fitzgerald

If not, then who?

And the 'Congress-conviction' argument is silly.


Democrats call for independent probe of CIA leak
Republicans say no need for special counsel

Wednesday, December 31, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Reports that the White House leaked the name of a CIA operative -- the wife of an administration critic -- have sparked an intense, if predictable, furor on Capitol Hill: Democrats are demanding an independent investigation, while leading Republicans say the matter, though serious, is being overblown.

Democrats say the White House is going after critics. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland compared the alleged move to the "Nixon White House enemies' list." But Republicans say Democrats are merely looking for political advantage.

"No one's covering anything up. No one's obstructing anything," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican.

Bush expressed confidence that the Justice Department would get to the bottom of the matter, saying "career" employees -- as opposed to political appointees -- will handle the investigation.

"I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job," Bush told reporters, decrying "too many leaks of classified information in Washington."

Senate Democrats took to the floor Tuesday, calling on Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter. Their efforts were rebuffed by Republicans, who hold a majority in the chamber.

"Reports indicate that senior administration officials were allegedly motivated to engage in potentially criminal behavior, risking our national security and the lives of our intelligence agents, in order to punish someone who raised questions about the administration's rationale for going to war with Iraq," Democratic Sens. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Carl Levin of Michigan and John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia said in a letter to Ashcroft.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article323311.ece



Congressional Record: September 30, 2003 (Senate)

Proposal for Appointment of Special Counsel in Wilson Affair

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I came to the Chamber this morning
because I thought we would be on the DC appropriations bill and was
prepared to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to that bill
concerning the appointment of special counsel to conduct a fair,
thorough, and independent investigation into a national security
breach.

I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress concerning the appointment
of a special counsel to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent
investigation into a national security breach)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO CONDUCT A FAIR, THOROUGH,
AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO A NATIONAL
SECURITY BREACH.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the national security of the United States is dependent
on our intelligence operatives being able to operate
undercover and without fear of having their identities
disclosed by the United States Government;
(2) recent reports have indicated that administration or
White House officials may have deliberately leaked the
identity of a covert CIA agent to the media;
(3) the unauthorized disclosure of a covert CIA agent's
identity is a Federal felony; and
(4) the Attorney General has the power to appoint a special
counsel of integrity and stature who may conduct an
investigation into the leak without the appearance of any
conflict of interest.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Attorney General of the United States should appoint a
special counsel of the highest integrity and statute to
conduct a fair, independent, and thorough investigation of
the leak and ensure that all individuals found to be
responsible for this heinous deed are punished to the fullest
extent permitted by law.

more: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s093003.html

[BuyingThyme]

152. As far as I can tell, it was basically me, Ashcroft, and Bush.

Yes, the Congress-conviction argument is silly.

[wryter2000]

107. There you go making sense

Who let you in? :)

[Cant trust em]

105. He speaketh the truth. Yea verily!

I'd really hate for us to turn into the Dem version of "Just trust the president." I think that it's totally fair to express some criticism and frustration at the way the party has been handled since January. We got pretty much slapped around by the White House with the war funding bill.

[Lil Missy]

16. Me too.

[elfin]

17. Count me in

They face a MOUNTAIN of work to investigate and correct the excesses/illegalities etc.of the past 6 years with a non-veto proof majority. They have organized amazing unity among the ever fractious Democrats.

Yes, they buckled under to reality with the Iraq funding vote -- my only complaint is that they did not explain clearly and loudly and succinctly what happened, and swarm the media to that effect.

[Grandrose]

18. K&R

:thumbsup: :kick:

[shenmue]

19. I am too

:patriot:

[Fresh_Start]

20. K&R

Dealing with reality is high on my list of requirements.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Then you're not for DU - lol! I'm with ya tho.

[Hamlette]

23. I'm in for a K&R

[On the Road]

24. It's Been a Little Shocking

at how quickly Reid and Pelosi have been thrown under the bus. I am glad that they voted the withdrawal benchmarks, but as a practical matter I really haven't expected them to succeed in ending the war by Congressional action during Bush's term. I am also concerned about a mass genocide once the US leaves, and believe that a Democratic president may be able to avoid that outcome by more competent diplomacy.

You could argue that Democratic congress was in a lose-lose situation. Although the public seemed to expect them to end the war, they obviously did not think this was possible with the distribution of votes in both houses. The prospect of playing chicken with deployment money was very, very risky. They seem to have misjudged the public mood, and I'm glad they're a little shocked. But there's no need to abandon our leaders

[BuyingThyme]

65. If you give birth to a second child,

you don't have to abandon the first one.

[mzmolly]

25. Sorry but we don't need this crap!

There is no NEED for such adult like thought processes being promoted here! :sarcasm:

[jgraz]

42. If you don't want Pelosi/Reid detractors to crash your love fest

you should probably stick to complimenting them and not calling out those who disagree with you.

But since you did, maybe you can explain how spineless capitulation followed by boldfaced lying is "adult".

[mzmolly]

46. "Love fest?"

"maybe you can explain how spineless capitulation followed by boldfaced lying is "adult?"

I'm afraid I'd have to be defending the afore mentioned shit in order to be in a position to have to "explain." Perhaps you should post your question to Skinner in post number 1? Unless of course you're a spinless capitulator? Then again, it's possible another board may better meet your needs so you don't have to taint your childish need for undying adulation?

[jgraz]

47. You continue to make no sense

though it's nice to know you're consistent.

Skinner seems to be perfectly able to handle disagreement without having to imply that people are childish. Maybe you could take a cue from him.

[mzmolly]

55. Skinner seems to realize that politicians have limitations.

Maybe YOU could take a cue from him?

[jgraz]

58. Save your silly appeals to authority for someone who cares.

With great respect to Skinner, I'm not particularly interested in what he would or would not do (unless it involves TSing me). You may want to explore that whole "thinking for yourself" thing one of these days.

[mzmolly]

60. I do think for myself thanks, and I recall doing so in 2000 when I worked

to elect Al Gore. YOU should learn a bit from recent history. :eyes:

[jgraz]

62. Ditto for your equally silly appeals to your own C.V.

Many of us have busted our asses for lots of causes and campaigns. That doesn't give anyone the right to spout complete bullshit and inist that everyone agree with it.

[mzmolly]

64. I said this position was adult..

*** I am a Democrat that likes Reid and Pelosi ***

Their performance is imperfect, but much better than the alternative.

Once we elect a Democratic president in 2008 their effectiveness will be greatly increased.

So let's work toward that, not fracturing the party.

Who's with me?

What specifically is ridiculous about that?

[jgraz]

67. Now here you have a point

I'd don't completely agree with the OP (as you might have noticed), but I wasn't planning on posting anything on this thread. However, I'd just spent a few hours being called a child and a paid provocateur when your post about "adults" appeared.

In the interest of non-fracturing, I'll take your original post in the best possible light (as opposed to my original reaction). Whatever our views, the latest polls show that the Dem majority in congress is in some serious shit. We need to figure out a way to work to correct that, and everyone needs to be part of that discussion.

[mzmolly]

68. We shall leave it at that.

"We need to figure out a way to work to correct that, and everyone needs to be part of that discussion."

:hi:

[uberllama42]

83. Limitations are one thing

We all realize that there is only so much that the Democrats can do with a one-vote majority in the Senate and an administration determined to ignore the law. I expect them to do whatever they can in spite of these limitations. Their capitulation on the war funding bill was disappointing but not surprising. We didn't fight to get them elected so that they would concede defeat at the first confrontation with Bush.

Reid, Pelosi, and the majority of the other Democrats in Congress are not meeting my expectations as a voter. I don't support them merely because of the letter next to their names, nor merely because they have replaced Frist and Hastert. When they take meaningful stances on the issues I care about, keep their promises about ethics reform, and show courage in the face of administration resistance, I will like and respect them. Until that time they are Washington politicians in the same vein as the Republicans which were rebuked in November.

[mzmolly]

169. To respond to your "points."

We all realize that there is only so much that the Democrats can do with a one-vote majority in the Senate and an administration determined to ignore the law. I expect them to do whatever they can in spite of these limitations. Their capitulation on the war funding bill was disappointing but not surprising. We didn't fight to get them elected so that they would concede defeat at the first confrontation with Bush.

I disagree with the "capitulation" talking point. As for "we" fighting to get "them" elected, did you? And why so, if you are not "surprised" at their "capitulation?"

Reid, Pelosi, and the majority of the other Democrats in Congress are not meeting my expectations as a voter.

A shame really, but it's good your not "surprised."

I don't support them merely because of the letter next to their names, nor merely because they have replaced Frist and Hastert. When they take meaningful stances on the issues I care about, keep their promises about ethics reform, and show courage in the face of administration resistance, I will like and respect them. Until that time they are Washington politicians in the same vein as the Republicans which were rebuked in November.

You might want to look into the reform bill entitled S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, as well as that Habeus Corpus thingy oh and minimun wage, to name a few.

In the words of Jack Murtha "this is not a game, the troops were out of funds next week."

Further I tend to quote the late great Paul Wellstone in times like this: "The differences make a difference..." so you see for me it's about more than a "letter" as well.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. You get my K&R

I like them. As someone said, they may be imperfect, but they're a damn sight better than Hasturd and Frist .... and even better than Daschle and ...... whoever the last Dem Speaker was (I'm not remembering right now ... old age, yanno :) )

[ComerPerro]

27. lotsa luck, the "all or nothing" crowd is pretty vocal

[saracat]

28. I'm in!

[JoePhilly]

29. Have my Support, nt

[depakid]

30. Pelosi, OK -Reid's another matter

I think his record as senate leader (including his vote for the bankruptcy bill) speaks for itself.

Personally, I'm waiting to see if he actually follows through (for once) with his threat to block Bush's recess appointments.

[Oak2004]

119. I agree - Pelosi looked like she had been pressured

The way Speaker Pelosi handled the capitulation looked, to me, like someone put a metaphorical gun to her head and told her to get this bill passed or we will challenge you for leadership/cut off your campaign funds/some other variation on throw-you-under-the-bus (I have my theories as to who might have been involved, but I'll bet plenty of people here, if granting this hypothesis, would suspect the same cast of traitors I do).

So Speaker Pelosi did what she felt she had to do given the circumstance, dragging her feet as much as she could (the speech, the vote) as she did it.

Senator Reid... well, that's a whole 'nother story.

[here_is_to_hope]

31. Would "the alternative" be

leaders who actually lead?

[endarkenment]

39. Nah too much to ask for.

And welcome to DU.

[nashville_brook]

32. a democrat "who" likes Reid and Pelosi...

not "that."

[mikelgb]

33. Impeach Cheney!

333

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

35. I'm in. n/t

[endarkenment]

36. Out. No. Nothing to like. Lots to dislike. nt.

[Vidar]

40. Your choice to bury you head in the sand. Best of luck.

[endarkenment]

41. *** I am a Democrat that dislikes being crapped on ***

By arrogant fools who, while stomping all over the party base, knowing we have nowhere to go, are terrified of the ruling party and refuse to stand and fight.

[bigtree]

44. how about that. So am I.

So why should I stand by and allow you or anyone else to constantly crap on our party? The only ones who are 'refusing to fight' are the ones who are posturing to abandon our party and leadership over their support for a Democratic spending bill.

The 'base' had opportunities to garner enough support for their proposals and initiatives in this Congress and they failed. Why should we (continue to) follow them wherever that failed effort leads? (It looks like their efforts intend to lead us to some dubious change in landscape sometime after January 2009)

[mzmolly]

56. Nice response.

:toast:

[Exiled in America]

57. Holy shit. You just handed DU the truth. Thanks. (See my sig inside.)

[rudy23]

103. Outstanding post! This is how I feel.

Harry Reid might be able to play a mean hand of bridge, but he can't handle a bully.

[ClayZ]

45. Pelosi 2007 Gore 2008

[here_is_to_hope]

48. *snicker!* n/t

[Nimrod2005]

49. Of course, I do too....I just want a 67 majority in Senate in 2008!!!

Pelosi and Reid will look much much better...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Hell Yeah I'll Give Ya A K&R! I'm With Ya All The Way.

And I think it's awesome that Skinner replied so quickly to ya; for if he hadn't others would've undoubtedly jumped on in here and tried to skewer you. But thankfully this thread has remained positive, as it should have. So hear hear Zandor!

:toast:

[trashcanistanista]

51. Okay, I will kick it for Harry and Nancy

(but don't tell anyone).:dem:

[mvd]

52. I'm mixed on this

Maybe they do know more than I do about strategy. We'll see. But we can't give our leaders a free pass. I personally would have kept sending similar bills with withdrawal dates and modified funding to keep the armed forces safe during withdrawal and help with reconstruction - without funding the occupation. The withdrawal date would set September for the start, and the modified/reduced funding would kick in if no progress after a year. I'd like a much stricter bill then that, but we face 49 Repukes in the Senate.

I'll continue to put faith in Pelosi and Reid, because every one of the Repuke candidates except Paul would be almost as bad or as bad as Bush. And Paul would be much worse than the Democratic candidates.

[uberllama42]

53. You must be joking.

They have made it clear to anyone who is paying attention that they have no intention of ending this war. I am surprised that you still have any faith in democracy at all. What makes you think that, after seeing how the Democrats have failed to deliver on their promise to end the war after the 2006 election, that they will end the war after the one in 2008?

[mzmolly]

66. Can you show me the promise to "end the war" in quotes?

They said we'll change direction and this is not over - yet.

[uberllama42]

84. Joe Sestak (PA-7), for whom I worked last fall,

promised to "withdraw from Iraq by end of next year," and he was far from the only one who made sucha a promise. Part of the "New Direction" touted by Speaker Pelosi is withdrawal from Iraq, though her date is August 31, 2008. Even if all the Democrats' promises had been as frustratingly vague as "we'll change direction," and that was all we expected from them, do you really consider their performance so far to be satisfactory?

True, this isn't over. But what reason do we have to expect that the Democrats are going to become effective at some time in the future? Do they have some form of leverage which is as effective as the prospect of cutting off funding for the war? The next spending measure will not be under consideration for at leat another four months. Even if a similar opprtunity presents itself, why should we expect that the Democrats will be more aggressive in the future?

I might support the Democratic leadership if I had some compelling evidence to justify that support. "Better than the alternative" is not enough for me.

[mzmolly]

134. I would have to see the full quote in context.

We attempted a deadline, and if we can get more Republicans we'll be able to set one. We need THEM to assist us in this goal. It's not just a matter of being "better than the alternative." Democrats and Republicans share a completely different world view. And, the differences in policy are felt world wide. I won't let my own desire for perfection effect others so deeply and tragically, sorry.

[William769]

54. Give em hell Zandor

K&R!

[Exiled in America]

59. I don't like anyone who cares more about career politics than doing what's right. (nt)

[BuyingThyme]

61. Why would you want to increase the "effectiveness" of the people

who sat quiet while we were lied into a war and who surrendered your habeas corpus rights to a Chimp (for starters)?

Don't you think it would be better if we had leaders who were interested in leading the Democrats in the right direction?

By the way: What is "the alternative"? The people who reflect our values?

[AnotherMother4Peace]

69. A Kick and recommend. They've got a garbage dump to plow through.

And they've got to do it methodically. There's been so much dishonesty going on in the past 6 years, sorting through it is not going to happen overnight.

[spoony]

87. Hear hear, they have a tangled mess in this admin

It's easy to say what we'd do differently, but actually doing it within the power structure in DC and with all the GOP corruption is no easy task.

[onehandle]

70. I'm a Democrat too.

K & R for the party.

[Buzz Clik]

71. Okay. I really like Pelosi, and I can tolerate Reid.

Close enough?

K&R

[stlsaxman]

72. kick, indeed!

:kick:

[kikiek]

73. Nice to see someone who realizes that we don't all have to think exactly the same.

And that we all have our ideas about what is most important, but recognize the importance in each other. There are days I feel differently.

[poverlay]

74. Right behind you(and slightly to the left)... K & R!!! nt

[rosesaylavee]

75. Me too. n/t

[opihimoimoi]

76. #44 here.....

:toast:

[tom_paine]

77. Reluctantly recommended.

But we must give them a chance and be patient. But patience has it's limits and they are already being tested by a lacluster and (yes) mostly spineless performance.

[UrbScotty]

79. I agree on all of your points. (nt)

[juajen]

80. I like them a lot.

I hate the trashing that goes on here most of the time. So much negativity is not good for our democratic soul.

[cyclezealot]

81. The general direction of the Congress is positive.

Plus, I understand the dynamics of Executive power vs Legislative and the Democrats fear of 'who lost Iraq.' As the Repukes took out on Democrats for fifty years in regards to China. Let's stay together, push Democrats with principal and fight for basic needs like healthcare , honest government , and minimum wage. That is what the American people expect. Speak to these populist issues and we will be in a position to present our case in 08.

[Diane R]

82. K&R

[Virginia Dare]

86. No, please give me back Hastert and Frist...

I miss them so.....:sarcasm: (in case it's needed)

K&R

[Labors of Hercules]

88. Yep. But the party needs to be standing up for them more! n/t

[urgk]

89. But....but.....but......that's utter garbage....

Ohboy.

"Once we elect a Democratic president in 2008 their effectiveness will be greatly increased. So let's work toward that, not fracturing the party."

How does this always happen? Not just here but everywhere. People set up a false dichotomy and argue between the two manufactured possibilities in lieu of actually trying to discuss the issues. The implication in the OP is that questioning or criticizing Reid and/or Pelosi means a lack of support for the 2008 elections? What!? With all due respect, that is absolutely not true. It's "not true" to the point of bringing up comparisons to barnyard animals and their digestive output. Of course we can, and should, question our Democratic leaders. And when they don't lead Congress in a direction that gets us out of the craphole we're in right now, we have an obligation to shout it out loud.

And what about this -- "Their performance is imperfect, but much better than the alternative." What!? There is only one alternative?! And that alternative, by implication, is the ousted Republican leadership? Please don't applaud or support that kind of pap. There are an infinite number of alternatives, at least one of which involves a hypothetical Reid and a hypothetical Pelosi who are much better at confronting the President, much better at unifying the Democrats in Congress, much better at convincing the Republicans that the ship is sinking and the rats should stop holding on to the other rats and start saving their own skin.

And, this is an aside, but what's with "I am a Democrat that likes Reid and Pelosi"? What does that have to do with anything? Likeableness is an incredibly small factor when compared to something like job efficacy. I like Will Ferrell, but I don't want him as my brain surgeon. I like our mail carrier, but that doesn't mean I want her piloting a plane the next time I fly across the country. The question is - are they capable of doing their jobs? Are Reid and Pelosi acting in the best interests of the Democratic Party AND the United States of America? If they aren't, it's our job to demand that they do. If they are, they deserve all the support we can give.

[annabanana]

90. just THINK of the pile of crap that they're dealing with...

elephant poop ain't no small potatoes, ya know.

[The Count]

91. I'm with you - Pelosi more than Reid - and we need to have candidates who

represent us not the DLC - as rahm Emmauel finegled - by eliminating - before the primaries anti-war candidates.

[ananda]

93. The few Dems I like are not..

.. Reid or Pelosi.

They are: Feingold, Boxer, Kucinich, Barbara Lee,
and a couple of others. That's about it.

[19jet54]

143. If you don't like Reid or Pelosi...

...then how about Bush, Cheney & Gonzales compared to Reid/Pelosi?

Because that is really our unifying democratic choice right now!

[NavyDavy]

94. I don't know you, but I like the way you think!!!!

a huge K&R.....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. I AM!!!! once they know they can have/retain power and their base wont desert them

they will take stronger stances.

much like the right moved furhter right with evey win. so we shall.

[Zandor]

97. Great point

The stronger they are, the more boldly they can move.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

98. the right didnt get where they are in four months either.

they slowly moved furhter and further right.

as much as i hate the republicans, their political tactics are worth watching. not the unethical tactics, but the ones of intelligence/patience and clever political calculations.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. We haven't seen even baby steps yet.

The right, immediately upon taking power, used it as much as possible.

The OP uses the word "ineffective" in a way which implies that they've tried and failed to do what they think is right. I don't think they've really tried.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. no, not really. the right has been gaining power slowly for a few decades

and i do think they tried.

[dkofos]

100. Dream on

[Morgana LaFey]

102. With 60+ rec's I was sure this would be a post worth opening

even tho I'd avoided it.

I was wrong.

Here's a clue for you: WE don't have the power to "fracture the party" -- who's here at DU is a bunch of political news junkies and a few activists. We don't run the party, we don't own it, and we certainly don't affect it much. All the talk here doesn't have a thing to do with what goes on in the party. Hah! There aren't even that many Democratic Party delegates here, or people active in the party. I can think of three, maybe.

So, you're both terribly naive about how things work, AND a bit overly impressed with all the power over the party you/we don't actually have.

[Der Blaue Engel]

104. They promised me ponies!

Thanks for posting something positive, Zandor, and a belated welcome to DU. :)

[wryter2000]

106. The Iraq funding bill

I contacted all my Congress Critters and asked them to vote now. (Two did.)

However, there is one thing that I think people don't consider in their very justified anger. I think it's entirely possible that Bush would continue his war without the money. He's proved himself utterly out of touch and incapable of caring about anyone but his corporate cronies. If he did continue his war without the money, our soldiers would be in much worse danger than they are now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. exaclty. he would have continued this war. any backlash on the soldiers in iraq would have been

blamed on the dems.

the corporate media would have a righteous orgasm over it.

[urgk]

114. So?

Let them say what they will. The tide is turning. Let the lies get bigger.

-- More Americans — 72 percent — now say that “generally, things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track” than at any time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The figure had been in the high 60’s earlier this year.

-- Sixty-one percent of respondents now say that the United States should never have taken military action against Iraq, up from 51 percent in a CBS News poll in April and 58 percent in the same poll in January.

-- As for Mr. Bush, 23 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Iraq, while 72 percent disapprove; 25 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, while 66 percent disapprove; and 27 percent approve of his handling of immigration issues, while 60 percent disapprove.

(NYTimes article --> http://tinyurl.com/33mojb)

I'd like to see a poll, conducted by a reputable, non-biased firm, that shows the percentage of Americans who would actually fall for that crap about not supporting our troops.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

116. americans bought into the swiftboat vets attack on kerry's purple heart

pardon me, if i dont think they are skeptical enough.

[urgk]

122. Americans don't see "weak" on anything as a political plus.

They bought into the swiftboat response in part because the Democrats in power have shown themselves to be weak-willed and easily run over. The American people bought into the Al Qaida/Iraq connection as a pretense for war because the Republicans said it and said it loudly, unwaveringly, every time they were asked, every time they appeared in front of a camera.

If you want to talk about risks the Democratic party runs because of its stance on an issue, what kind of picture does it paint when a Congress re-shaped as part of an anti-war movement absolutely fails to do anything about it? How do you think the media and the GOP will spin that in the next election? The Democrats don't listen to their base? The Democrats are weak? The Democrats can have the majority in Congress and still have to kiss the King's ring? Ask yourself this -- will the average, fence-riding American voter be more likely to elect "the party that doesn't even support its own base and its own core values" or "the party that doesn't support the troops"?

You always run a risk that the media will spin things. Sometimes, though, you have to suck it up and do what's right.

[wryter2000]

172. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this

Not too many people are saying it, unless that's what Biden meant to say in the debate.

[nam78_two]

108. There are many Dems I like

The two you mentioned are not among them.
Feingold, Kucinich, Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, Boxer and many many others. They are the reason I am a Democrat.

Reid and Pelosi-not so much...Not saying they aren't much, much better than the alternative, but I find it hard to muster up this sort of rah-rah enthusiasm for them.

[urgk]

109. How are so many people here supporting this nonsense?

Of all the ideas we could support, blind acceptance of leadership should be dead last on all of our lists. That's the kind of garbage that put us into this mess to begin with.

The OP wasn't a question of Reid's or Pelosi's competence or performance, either of which could have been wholly beneficial -- we might have debated strategy, we might have talked Washington politics and the qualities of effective leadership. But it wasn't a question, it was a call for people to cheer them on, to treat our Congressional leaders as if they are Special Olympians, who need our smiling encouragement, win or lose, simply because they try. I, for one, am not at all willing to sell myself, my party and my nation by giving them a gold medal and certificate for Participation. Reid and Pelosi are in positions of incredible influence and responsibility right now, and as such, demand our thorough examination, our most well thought out criticism, and, when they've earned it, our utmost support.

Somebody might do well to start a thread called "***I am a Democrat who prefers substance, logic and informed debate over political cheerleading and sheep-like acceptance of the status quo****.

[nam78_two]

111. Welcome to DU

:toast:
I agree with a lot of what you say.

[jonnyblitz]

118. Loyalty threads are becoming popular on DU these days.

I guess being a docile, obedient follower is a plus for many. I call them Stepford DEMS. very creepy.

good post, btw. :thumbsup:

[NoodleBoy]

131. You're right!! We're exactly like Germans supporting the Reichstag leadership after the Enabling Act

No, we should send bills to Bush we know he's going to veto OVER and OVER and OVER again, because one day all the ink in the pens at the White House will run out and then we'll win.

Right?

[urgk]

162. What in the world are you talking about?

I assume, since this comment points back to mine, that you're trying to argue with what I've said. If so, I hope this covers my defense -- Replacing what I've said with ridiculous exaggerations does not equal a valid debate point. Trying to borrow the emotional weight of Nazi references does not equal a valid debate point. While that brand of sarcasm may be entertaining, it does nothing to expand the discussion.

On the off-chance that it saves you the trouble of semi-paraphrasing and then arguing with your own interpretation of what I've said, let me reiterate: Unconditional cheerleading for Pelosi and Reid is of no help whatsoever. A post based entirely on encouraging such cheerleading is pure silliness. We should absolutely test every decision that the Democratic leadership makes against our individual insight into the way the world works, the facts we have at hand and the direction we feel the Democratic party should take. Pelosi and Reid may have made the absolute best choices possible under the circumstances. They may have screwed up royally and unforgivably. But neither of those cases is at issue here. What we're talking about is collectively agreeing to happily clap along and nod as they make decisions that affect the future of nearly everything.

If you disagree with any of those statements, please logically explain why and then I'll answer back with why I may or may not agree with your points. That's the way a conversation works.

[NoodleBoy]

164. This thread did not suggest we blindly support the congressional leadership

Rather, it was for those of us on this board who realize that governance is a complicated thing, not dictated by catch phrases and knee-jerk reactions, or influenced by the angry ravings of people on the internet, and that narrow congressional majorities will not enact everything you might want, and that when compromises are reached it is not the end of the world and indicative of the complete selling-out of the American people.

Now, please, condescend to me some more. Really-tell me how conversations work again, I'm obviously too stupid to know how they work since I don't agree 100% with you. Could you please tell me since you're so smart?

[urgk]

167. I would argue that it does.

I suppose I might have been reacting with condescension in response to yours:

"No, we should send bills to Bush we know he's going to veto OVER and OVER and OVER again, because one day all the ink in the pens at the White House will run out and then we'll win.
Right?"

Or, is it just snide, rather than condescending, to suggest that's the way I think things would work? In either case, I will absolutely take you up on your offer to condescend more, if you promise to assume I'm an idiot, then exaggerate and misrepresent what I've said and sprinkle in nazi references for effect.

And how does the following not support blind support of the Democratic leadership?

"*** I am a Democrat that likes Reid and Pelosi ***
Their performance is imperfect, but much better than the alternative.
Once we elect a Democratic president in 2008 their effectiveness will be greatly increased.
So let's work toward that, not fracturing the party.
Who's with me?
If you are, give this a K & R !!!"

Does that not say, in essence, "let's not argue about their performance, because that would fracture the party?"

[NoodleBoy]

171. no, the argument is "their performance is not perfect, but it's not worth swearing off the Dems

forever."

[Jesterstear]

112. Ridiculous...

They betrayed their party. They did the typical political BS, promising the lemmings something that they had no intention on delivering.

People like you that justify enabling them because it's "better than the alternative" are the reason why our political landscape is permanently blighted. Our elected "leaders" rely on you people to keep voting them in despite their broken promises.

[Zandor]

113. #1 on the Greatest Page! Thanks DU!

It shows where most of us stand!

[urgk]

120. No.

It shows where some of us have chosen to respond.

Let me be very clear on this. I, in no way, support your OP. In no way.

This is not a game. This is not our opportunity to cheer one team to victory so we get a check in the "Win" column. This is a battle of ideologies that will shape the state of our nation for decades to come. As such, it is a time for debate, a time to take an honest look at what our representatives are doing and to judge whether their leadership is representative of our cause or just bears the same label. I am not saying Reid and Pelosi are incapable of or unfit to perform the jobs they have been given, but there is absolutely no reason to hold them beyond reproach. It is our duty to watch them, to question them, to make our voices heard and to make damned sure that their actions represent what's best for our party and our nation.

I am absolutely in favor of the opportunity presented here for anyone to have a voice, but your need for attention is in direct contradiction with this country's fundamental need for rational discourse.

[NoodleBoy]

137. actually, you're wrong. pages get on the greatest page by being voted for

see the little "recommend" button? more than 5 puts it on the "greatest" page, and the most votes puts it at the top.

[urgk]

155. Still no.

Just to clear things up, I was talking about this.

"It shows where most of us stand!"

Nope. It still says nothing about the majority opinion. Just that some people recommended it.

[paulk]

115. I like them well enough...

welcome to DU

and buy some hip-waders

you'll need them.

[NoodleBoy]

117. rock. don't let the detractors get you down, 90% of them have never done anything besides complain

on the internet-- but they're the ones who are going to start a new political party.

[Oak2004]

121. I doubt that's the case

The people at DU, "complainers" included, are usually very involved in politics. At minimum they contribute, and, I'll bet, most of us have done at least some campaigning. Many of us have taken it a step further and run for office.

To denigrate DUers whose opinions you disagree with as people who "don't do anything but complain on the internet" is, simply, a baseless insult, no different in nature from when Rove's minions portray Democrats as supporting terrorists. You have no reason to believe that those who disagree with you aren't politically active, and plenty of reason to believe otherwise (example: if all your opponents were mere complainers, why do so many of them cite the bill's passage as a slap in their face after all the work they did to get the Democratic Congress elected??)

[nam78_two]

124. I agree

I am always stunned by how much anonymous people on the internet know about others whose opinions they happen disagree with :eyes:. Though to be fair, I am sure I have been guilty of that too (only I probably label them as DLC or Freeper troll in my head and thats probably mostly inaccurate too-except when it is true ;)).

Some of the vocal "cmplainers" here seem very active as for instance anti-war activists. Now the OP may find their activism "useless" or "going nowhere", but that doesn't mean all they do is complain on the internet.

[NoodleBoy]

130. actually, I've gleaned that from the lack of responses threads about getting involved locally get,

among other things.

One very notable time was right after the 2006 election, I posted something asking people what they're going to do on the local level now that there was a Democratic congress. The thread dropped like a rock, with a couple "I dunno" replies, and one guy actually posted a bunch of stuff about how he was going to push for impeachment of the entire bush administration, ending the war in iraq, universal health care, etc-- none of which have anything to do with community organizing.

And in several threads where people have complained, I've countered them and ended my response asking them what they did in the 2006 elections-- and usually got no responses. One guy who was complaining alot and was talking about starting his own party replied that he'd gone "to a couple of assembly district meetings," and basically nothing else.

From what I've seen based on the thread topics, and the relative popularity of GD and GD: P forums to state-specific forums and the Precinct-level Politics forum, most people who post here are more concerned with making jokes about how Bush is stupid, complaining about Rove, and trashing the Democratic leadership, than they are about what their local city hall, county boards, or even state legislatures do, things which, with great ease, they can get involved with and be somewhat influential in-- more influential, then, say, just someone who complains that the 51 Dem Senate isn't acting like they're a 100 Dem Senate, or trashing people in the news who may or may not be conservative.

Now on the other end of things, the things I see as a semi-professional political operative (yes, I'm actually getting paid for it, but it's not much), a great deal of the dedicated activists and staff on all the campaigns I've seen have rarely also been part of the supposed "netroots," with the exception, maybe, to read local political blogs.

I have worked very hard for years as a volunteer, as volunteer staff, and now at my current (but still low) level. So when I see people, who usually have admittedly done very little to help their professed political party or ideology win elections, whine when the people who are elected with very little of their help apply their ideological stance to the hard realities of government, I get astonished at how naive they are to think that once elected all of the world's problems are going to be solved and in some cases downright angry that they can't accept compromise as a very necessary choice to make in the governance of hundreds of millions of people, and not just the people who elected them.

So when this Democratic Congress forges compromises, I'm proud of them. The willingness to compromise and listen to the concerns of the minority in this country has been severely lacking for years, and elected officials acting as though they're only accountable to the narrow pluralities which put them in office is a practice that this administration has legitimized for too long, and would further divide America into a place I definitely would not want to live in.

[nam78_two]

153. I agree with part of what you say

But: 1) I don't think DU is the best guage of someone's offline activism. A lot of people treat it as a venting forum or even entertainment.
2) You cannot assume that a lot of people who might have been interested in what you were suggesting, including the people you perceive as complainers, even saw the thread. It is sad but controversial topics tend to get much more floor time than mundane yet important stuff. A very prolific poster here who jumps into every controversial topic once said he viewed DU as 2 steps above graffiti on a bathroom wall or something like that-explained a lot about his posts. But people like that can sit here and post 5 topics a minute and kicking them themselves-they probably don't even care in the slightest about what they post but it is fun to them.


I do understand part of what you are saying regarding the effort involved in actually pushing through legilation, getting candidates elected, getting things done locally etc. I have worked as a volunteer for the Democratic party for the last two elections (I turned 20 in 2000 and wasn't into party politics much at the time) and I have been volunteering for environmental/animal groups much longer and the political and issue groups just seem like very different animals to me. Though even within the latter group there are the groups that go with the less flashy more pain-staking route. I am ambivalent about it all really. But, I can see how people who sign up to go the route you did can find the complaints of what you perceive as purely keyboard warriors childish or annoying. I would tend to agree if ALL they did was moan about it on DU. But if you are talking purely in terms of the overall contribution to any movement, I think both categories are important-the more radical activists pushing for immediate change as well as the by-the-book patient people who are working the system so to speak. Imagine if there were no "radical lefties" left-I shudder to think of how much more right wing this country (in terms of attitudes if nothing else) would be-there is a value to putting out ideas or memes that are largely absent from public discourse.

As for the "netroots"-I think that they are going to be a much larger political influence in the future than they are now. Many of the people I have seen at the city hall meetings etc. are much older than I am and a fair segment of them consist of people like my mom, who only use their computers for online Scrabble. But, I think as my peers get more politically active, you would see a spike in the no. of people who are active on and off line.

Hmmm I am not sure if that made much sense-I am not much of a keyboard warrior for this reason- am not particularly coherent or articulate ;).

[NastyDiaper]

144. Yes.

"I am always stunned by how much anonymous people on the internet know about others whose opinions they happen disagree with."

I agree with this especially in terms of knowing motivation.

On the other hand, because we exchange ideas in print, sometimes I think that I know much more about some of the 'anonymous' people here than my neighbors. For example I'll bet that you and I both buy cage-free eggs. I should have no clue what primarily motivates that purchase for you. Is it nutrition? Better taste? Humane treatment, family farms, Allergies, Ind. Farm working conditions? Environmental impact? Maybe it's Religions/Medical, in that you fear God will deliver vengeance through a series of avian bacteria-resistant mutations from these filth-huts. Or something else that I'm not even aware of. Maybe I'm wrong and you are Vegan, and don't buy eggs at all, but still want to adress the problems of industrial farming. Do we have to even need to agree on the motivation?

Oops on the tangent. Anyway, it is fascinating just how much precept there is in these forumns with respec to why we wear our outrage, and what outrage we expect others should wear.

[downindixie]

123. not quite

As long as Ried is for amnesty for illegal immigrants,he will not get my full support.Why can't we build a fence and enforce the laws we have?

[Lochloosa]

127. 9 Post in almost 3 years and this is best you can do

:shrug:

[Jesterstear]

160. Attacking post count? How juvenile...

Criticize the opinions, not the post count. Else you look the fool.

[urgk]

163. I was thinking the same thing.

Of course, with a post count in the low oughts, I didn't think it would exactly sound unbiased.

So, thanks.

[Poppy Lee]

126. In part

I support Pelosi without reservation. I've had some concerns about Reid, but he seems to be finding a backbone . . . and a voice. Keep him until we find out whether Hilary gets the nomination; if not, she'd make a great majority leader.

[Lochloosa]

128. Welcome to DU Poppy Lee

:toast:

[blayne]

132. I think they are doing the best they can considering they are

going up against the biggest brick wall ever erected in Washington. Further, I feel better in my support since Gore thinks they are doing the best they can when dealing with this president/precedent.

[NastyDiaper]

133. Good people in a bad situation.

If you think that war trumps all, and anyone who voted yay to fund is freep-lite, that's your call.

I doubt that Reid himself would challenge your position.

With apologies, I'm staying on this Damn Mule. :kick:

[Gman]

135. I'm with you, Reid and Pelosi 100%

I trust their judgement as they have yet to steer us wrong in the last few years.

[sellitman]

136. Nope.

I will agree when Impeachment is on the table and Reid stops funding the illegal war.

Until then they are worthless to me.

[19jet54]

145. Hypothetical Situation...

... one senator dies (god forbid), and the GOP takes back over the Senate; What are your chances for impeachment now?

Impeachment was never really on the table in the real world; they simply don't have the votes! (but I know how you feel)

[Usrename]

154. If so, shouldn't they craft an amendment to the Constitution?

Or else you must think that a President should be above the law.

Is it really of no concern to you?

[19jet54]

166. Misunderstanding of the law...

... it is only illegal if you are CAUGHT AND CONVICTED - and you are innocent until PR OVEN GUILTY by a jury of your peers!

You forget our justice system was designed to allow 10 guilty people to go free before 1 innocent person is convicted. The new DNA system has shown so many flaws in that theory, but justice is different for the Washington crowd than it is for Harlem, Compton or New Orleans; sad but true! The reality is that most government officials are above the law, if done in an honest performance of their duty by any reasonable person. They are not GUILTY just because you say so, unless you are a juror with eleven others - and it withstands the appeals process?

But I agree, if you don't like it, change the law - Good Luck! But in my 50+ years I can count the number of amendments to the Constitution on my fingers, since it takes a super majority of Congress & States.

[sellitman]

165. One flaw in that "Hypothetical Situation"

They don't need as large a contingent to open hearings then they do to actually Impeach.

Start the hearings....let them sweat.

[19jet54]

138. Exactly - K & R!

Let the GOP meanies fracture themselves?

We are the party of unity and tolerance for freedom and democracy!

Basically, we're the GOOD Guys O8)

[ProudDad]

139. That's ok

You're allowed...

[Kajsa]

140. When you consider the alternative,

our team is better,
hands down.

K&R.

:kick:

[Zandor]

142. Exactly! n/t

[Jesterstear]

161. And that is why...

That is why our elected officials know they can screw us over and over again. They know that they have you so scared of the other side that you will vote for them no matter what.

Next time you see a Republican scandal, or you see Bush's latest assault on our freedom, or when you see a poll that says X% still support Bush, and you ask "how can people still support him," look back on your post here and realize it's for the same reason you still support the Dems even if they betray you.

[Kajsa]

168. Scared?

Hardly- don't attribute feelings to me
I don't have.

I don't want any more Republicans in the
White House.

Do you?

[DianaForRussFeingold]

156. K&R YES, I Try To Encourage The Leadership We Have!

:loveya: They Deserve our support with a little constructive criticism thrown in for good measure! keeps them on their toes! :applause:

[jmondine]

157. I disagree

You're a Democrat *who* likes Reid and Pelosi.
Don't objectify yourself. There are plenty of neocons around to do that for you.

[thethinker]

158. I love Pelosi

I think she is the best thing that has happened to Democrats in a long time. I think she has sincerely tried hard to make changes. I think the problem lies with a group of faceless, nameless folks in the house, with a D behind their names, that don't always support her 100%. I think the grassroot Democrats need to take a look at the voting records of some of these folks. We also need to keep an eye on the new ones we just sent to Congress. If they don't vote right, we need to have a progressive Democrat lined up with funding to challenge them in the primaries.

Reid, on the other hand, is too quick to compromise. Also, too quick to whine about a majority. A few good scandals (which are just waiting to happen) could change the make up of the Senate very quickly. Maybe Larry Flynn will give us a hand with this. I have my fingers crossed.

I do not believe in blind loyalty to the party. I believe they are suppose to work for us and the American people. I believe in keeping an eye on them and yelling loud if they fail us. And replacing them if they continue to fail us. Blind loyalty does not make for improvement.

Ok. I complain a lot. But as far as being active locally, I have been very active locally. I think the idea that DU is made up of complainers that aren't active locally is pure BS.

[LSK]

159. Kick

And Rec if I was here yesterday.

[happygoluckytoyou]

170. FRACTURING? JUST GETTING STRONGER

fracturing is a myth of the GOP who cannot hold on to their wide-right-christian base at the same time as their war-mongering-center... their border guarding can't keep up with their love of cheap labor...

i know many democrats with diverse opinions on: PRO-CHOICE vs PRO-LIFE.... some even own guns and discuss GUN CONTROL vs THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.... others disagree between LEGALIZE DRUGS vs ONLY SOME DRUGS....

(THOUGH NOBODY IN THE PARTY THINKS PARIS SERVED HER TIME!!!)

it is the true sign of a STRONG PARTY that we disagree...

equally strong that our primary candidates see things in various shades of gray...


GOD SAVE US FROM A PARTY (GOP) WHO DOES NOT DISCUSS ISSUES... WHO DOES NOT LOOK AT DIFFERENT SIDES TO AN ISSUE
...WHO IS EVEN SO AFRAID OF THEIR OWN MONSTER THAT THEIR CONGRESS REFUSED TO LOOK INTO HIS WAR...

---------------FRACTURE???? just building a Coalition of the Willing!!!!!