Is this statement by Nancy Pelosi a lie, or simply the stupidest thing any politician has said to date this year:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., admitted Thursday that she had underestimated the willingness of Republicans to stand behind President Bush’s Iraq policy despite the drubbing the GOP took in the polls in 2006.
“The assumption I made was that the Republicans would soon see the light,” she said. Instead, the minority stuck to the president’s war policy in the face of unrelenting pressure from congressional Democrats and powerful lobbying campaigns by anti-war groups.
I vote for a lie, frankly. Pelosi is a lot of things, but she’s not that stupid. Everyone with half a brain knew that the Republicans in Congress, with a few very rare exceptions, would stand by their man regarding Iraq. It’s what their base supporters wanted after all. Her biggest problem wasn’t with Republicans, anyway. It was with all the Blue Dog Democrats who soiled their pants every time any Republican or conservative mouthpiece brayed that placing any limits at all on Bush’s ability to prosecute his war of choice in Iraq would show that the Democrats didn’t “Support the Troops.” They were the ones that made it impossible to place any real limits on funding the war in Iraq.
But Pelosi can’t acknowledge the truth that she has no control over her own caucus, so we get her rather vapid response above, instead. One echoed, by the way, by Senator Durbin, who also ignores the fact the far too many Democratic senators were afraid to place limits on Bush’s war fighting abilities (or his power grabbing ways in general) because they were overly frightened of negative criticism from the all the pipers of the right wing wurlitzer. Criticism they received anyway.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats’ biggest failure stemmed from expecting “more Republicans to take an independent stance” on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
Are Republicans obstructionists? Sure. You’ll get no argument from me on that account, but to claim that they were solely responsible for the Democratic leadership’s failures this past year is prima facie nonsense. The truth is that the current crop of Democratic Leaders far too often have been pushovers for the Bush administration. They voted to expand the President’s power to spy on American citizens even after they knew he had explicitly violated the law put in place to prevent illegal wiretapping by the federal government back in the late ’70s. They refused to even consider impeachment hearings to bring pressure on Bush and Cheney and those Republicans who continue to hide behind their skirts. Their vaunted oversight hearings have all but dissipated into the ether, broken on the anvil of Bush’s invocation of “executive privilege” and the refusal of his top aides to respect Congressional subpoenas. Gitmo is still open, and indefinite detentions, kangeroo court show trials and torture are still the order of the day.
In short, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, and their supporting cast, have no one to blame for their missteps, mistakes and failures but themselves. If Pelosi, Reid, et alia, didn’t know what the Republicans were capable of after two decades of the bitter partisan nastiness which Republicans have so memorably displayed time and time again throughout the Clinton and Bush eras, then they are monumentally naive, utter morons and fundamentally incapable of governing an elementary school student council, much less the United States Congress. I don’t buy that however. What they have shown themselves to be in my book are incompetents and cowards, and by attempting to claim they had no idea the Republicans would continue to support Bush, they are also demonstrating themselves to be liars.
Why not post it as a POLL? Might be the first poll that would have a ZERO as one choice!
How about a blog supported move to replace reid with Dodd?
However, if there was any micalculation on pelosis part, it was the simple fact that when you support the election of so many blue dog dems, you are going to get screwed BIG TIME!
Reid knew this and that is why I would vote for reid as the chimps secret weapon!
well, I’m surprised, too. I’ve never seen a party commit suicide like the current GOP. I did not think it was possible. It’s not that I thought they’d see the light on the merits, but that they could read a poll.
Can the Democrats make the case that the GOP has committed suicide? Can we pin the war, and the costs of the war, on the GOP? Can we pin the lies about the war on the GOP?
If we can’t, we will have a lot of trouble in 2008. Regardless of what we do, or how public opinion favors the Dems, if we cannot use the tremendous unpopularity of this disgusting war against the Repukeliscum, we will lose, and deservedly so.
Those are good questions, but the damage to the GOP is largely a done deal. If you just analyze the difference in cash on hand and open seats and (in the Senate) number of seats up for reelection, you have to conclude that the Dems will pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. We’re only talking about the size of the victory. It could be historic.
A lot depends on the nominees. If the Republicans pick anyone other than McCain (or Thompson, I guess) the GOP could face a real route.
Giuliani will never be able to withstand the scrutiny of a national campaign, he’s irritating, and his positions on social issues will depress turnout downticket.
Romney will not be able to overcome his flip-flopping, and his Mormonism will depress turnout downticket.
Huckabee is a great campaigner, but the Establishment will go to the Democrat with a fury we have never seen before….think anti-Dean on steroids. Republicans will lose all across the mid-Atlantic, upper midwest, and inner suburbs across the nation.
This is partly why I think McCain still has a chance. I’m almost ready to predict that he will win New Hampshire, and then probably Michigan, as he did in 2000. But this time, there is no consensus pick to knock him off. This time he is the establishment pick. If McCain wins the nomination and runs against Hillary, we won’t see huge gains in congress.
It basically is closing the deal. The American people have concluded that the Repukeliscum are a bunch of corrupt, incompetent warmongers who give contracts to kill Iraqi children to their friends in return for campaign contributions.
However, can we convert this into votes? 2006 will not be repeated. Many things came together to make this a special year. Take Mark Foley, for instance. I believe that Mark Foley and the scandal of his unfettered and unrestricted perverse access to House Pages was responsible for 2-3 seats. We won’t have that in 2008 – we have a house page scandal of our own, now.
Similarly for corruption. Corruption will be there, but less clear, and less partisan.
So, completing the sale will be the deal. That will take persuasion and a good campaign. It’s not going to go our way without some work and some sales pitch.
Can I vote for both a liar and stupid?
Stupid enough to expect us to believe such a lame lie?
Even the Republicans in congress are actual human beings. Members of congress have coworker relationships with each other. It is hard to paint real people with the broad and malign brush that we can from here. When the war started, didn’t you hold out hope that your friends and colleagues would come around? I did and most of them did.
This doesn’t excuse the Democrat’s failure to stand firm. If I had control of the House Democratic Caucus or even the Democratic Caucus, I would not let them pass any more money for Iraq. I would brave filibusters and vetoes and innocently sit back and point out that it is the Republicans who are whining and refusing to accept a perfectly good compromise.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Those strong collegial relations disintegrated during the years that the Republicans were in control. It will take more than a few years of Democratic leadership to restore them, if it is even possible at all. Sure, returning to a longer workweek will prevent many reps from being out of town most weekends, so that they could actually have time to get to know their colleagues better if they desired. But with many districts gerrymandered, there are often sharper ideological differences between Reps in the House than in the Senate, especially among some of the newer Republican reps.
Yet again, it’s the whining and complaining.
Please, Steven, explain to us in simple terms exactly how they get out of the box. And I am NOT interested in BULLSHIT like “Stand tall” or “Take a stand and the American people will rally behind you.” That is inane and useless tripe.
The FACT is that Bush has the pulpit, and the resolve. We have a 1 vote “majority” in the Senate and a 12-vote majority in the House. These thin margins, built on republican districts (KS-2, IN-8, IL-8, WI-8) which must be retained in the next election, are very sensitive to the kind of branding that Bush would put out.
Please explain a 3-step gameplan:
if you can’t get to 3, you are not in any position to criticize.
None of the whining, such as this diary, about the Democrats have even gotten to 2, much less 3. Yet it’s “Nancy is a poopy head” all day long.
The Repukeliscum tried this in 1997. It was not a success.
If your only idea is impeachment, you are not persuasive. Impeachment will do NOTHING but stiffen Repukeliscum resolve, bring public opinion to their side, and lose undecideds. It will do nothing to convince Republican moderates like Shays to vote for Democratic programs.
So, your grade is D-.
1998 Impeached
1999 Acquitted
Then entire debate was over a blow job and whether lying about about under oath was a high crime.
A joke.
The Bush crimes are not jokes. The VP isn’t a part of the executive office? The president doesn’t have to obey the law? The Justice Dept. won’t enforce congressional subpoenas?
This is not the same set of factors.
Impeachment sounds good but is useless and silly.
You “Pelosi is a poopie head” folks just seem to living in dreamland. Please, how about a PRACTICAL STRATEGY which will change outcomes? And, please, less of this “Stand tall, be resolute” That’s just bullshit, and you know it.
I’d actually open up impeachment hearings but not with the intent to impeach. First I’d subpoena all the people and documents the administration is least likely to cooperate with. When they stonewall, I’d bring in scholars to say the administration is abusing their power and undermining the separation of powers. And then I’d just play it by ear. The point is to create leverage and to highlight the obstruction of justice and contempt of congress. And I wouldn’t play it up in the press. Pelosi and Reid should just portray it as an investigation in light of contempt of congress and possible obstruction of justice, and go about their business.
OK, an investigative tool. Yeah, I agree with that.
In go, a Japanese game, there is something called “snapback”. Snapback is where you make a move that LOOKS like it will improve your condition by capturing an opposing piece, but it actually kills your several pieces by cutting off the oxygen (losing liberties).
That’s impeachment to me. There will be snapback. We will advance but this will put us into a huge corner, and that will make things more difficult in 2008, IMVHO.
Clinton — 50-60% approval rating when impeached.
Bush — Mid twenties at best.
Not the same situation at all.
You missed the first question. Whose side are the Democratic leaders on?
Looks to me like they are partners with the corporations, and against the people. They just throw us the occasional pretty speech to keep us voting for them. They figure that we don’t have any viable alternatives.
What exactly are you proposing that they do. “Land of the cowed” fine – say that if you wish. It’s just “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Exactly how does SAYING things like that get us to ACCOMPLISH something that progressives can get behind?
Well, the obvious answer is “It’s just talk, so that I can sound big and important, and more brave than those weenies in Washington.”
Hey, WHATEVER, dude.
We need to establish whether or not the leadership wants to fix anything. If their goal is to do nothing and look like they are doing something, there is no point expecting any more from them.
Many Democrats appear to be on the side of the corporations. They just give pretty speeches when they want our votes.
If this is the case, the first goal is to get corporate money and toadies out of the system. That requires a completely different strategy.
BTW, the cowed is not a reference to Congress. It is a reference to a common bumper sticker, “Land of the free, because of the brave.” It is usually sported by someone who thinks we should give up our civil liberties in order to stay safe.
OFff Topic!!! BUT important (in my opinion)
Question??? Did reid institute a pro-forma session for this recess like he did at the Thanksgiving recess?
Reid did institute pro-forma sessions for this recess. ALL is not lost…