Even Speaker Pelosi admitted a couple of weeks ago that the Dems have been ineffectual in bringing the Iraq debacle any closer to an end. (And don't believe that "We don't have 60 votes" mewling -- there are a ton of procedural things they could do if they had any political guts, or wanted to save lives instead of being chickens**t.)

They've rolled over on the electronic spying issue. Now they are about to rubber-stamp Mike "Torture? I Don't Know from Torture" Mukasey as the new AG.

As a recent NY Times editorial put it: "It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues."

All fully satified Dems here, apparently.

I'm anything but fully satisfied, but they are definitely better than the fcuking hateful Republicans.

A long ways from fully satisfied, but as someone else posted, better than what we had in Congress before Nov. 06. A lot better. The problem now is that suddenly Bush seems to want to veto everything because he claims he is watching the spending all of a sudden, which is really remarkable given that he is the biggest spending of any President in U.S. History....I am hoping for a Dem. Congress and a Dem. President next year, as I feel the country is in critical condition. There has been so much damage done to us, its almost incalcuable........and with a majority in Congress I hope, things should finally start to move, and the people hopefully will start reaping the benefits...at least that is my hope.

I'm not satisfied, and yes, as ineffectual and pathetic as they are, the Congressional Democrats are still 100x better than the fascist Republicans.

Still, Pelosi and Reid ought to hang their heads in shame, especially Reid. Yes, it takes 60 votes in the Senate blah blah blah, but when the Democrats were in the minority and trying to hold up the President's fascistic plans, what did the Republicans do? They harped on how the Democrats were FILIBUSTERING everything. They threated a NUCLEAR OPTION. They did everything in their power to drive Democrats out of office to increase their majority.

So what do the Democrats do? They never say a word about how the Republicans are filibustering everything. They whine and say they have no power, and let right-wing Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson support the Republicans' obstructionism, even though polls are consistently showing that a majority of Americans want the Congress to start bringing home the troops in a phased withdrawal at the very least, that they do not want the Democrats to keep funding Bush's requests, that they do not want the Democrats to do ANYTHING to foster Bush's plans. Who wants this? The wacko traditional media and the DLC. THEY are the constituency of none that want the Democrats to capitulate, and they have inordinate influence still.

The Democrats rushed through a FISA bill this summer that they admit they did not fully understand. They voted for yet another anti-consumer, racist Republican judge who Bush wanted to put on the court. They were going to give the telecoms legal immunity for possibly illegally spying on Americans EVEN BEFORE 9/11, until Chris Dodd placed a hold and vowed a filibuster. They were going to confirm Hans von Spakovsky, a notorious right-wing ratfcuker who is at the center of the voter harrassment issues at the Justice Department, until Obama vowed he would not allow Spakovsky's crap to go forward. They have AMPLE evidence of Republican malfeasance at the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales, but they can't even force members of the Executive Branch to testify, and when they threaten contempt the Bushies just scoff, because the Democrats keep proving themselves to be wimps who are all talk and no action!

Pelosi refuses to allow impeachment, and acted a total fool in 1) allowing the vote to condemn MoveOn.org to go forward despite the fact that Saint Petraeus knowingly misled Congress in his testimony while NOT pushing any sort of attack on Rush Limblob, who called anti-war soldiers and veterans "phony soldiers," AND she recently condemned and forced a reply from Congressman Pete Stark despite that fact that at the very same debate, a Republican openly attacked a fellow member of Congress, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. And they just keep doing this crap! WHY?????

These pathetic, sorry-ass Democrats are disgusting, but the truly sad thing is we have no other options, at least not now. Supposedly Massachusetts Democratic Congressman John Olver recently said that were the Congress to impeach Stalin Bush and Stalin Cheney, they'd bomb Iran and declare martial law, or some such crazy nonsense. Well, Congressman, if that's what's got you scared, you should be reminded that it's your job to uphold the damned Constitution, and if you can't or won't do it, you and the 500+ other House members and 100 US Senators, then resign en masse and let us elect people who will!

I don't know whats with them but they get on my f*cking nerves!!!! I'm a registered Democrat but to me they are a party that is the lesser of two evils. Thats pretty much been my choices in the last 2 presidential elections. As much as certain people pontificate AD NAUSEUM about how wonderful Al Gore is...lesser of two evils compared to Bush in my mind. I viewed John Kerry even less compared to Gore, but anything would've been better than Bush. I'm gay and black so obviously I'm going to vote for the Dems, but its ashame I don't have other choices. The Democrats needs some freaking backbone. It would make no sense in going Independent, other than just sending a message to the Dems that I'm so fed up with their BS, but since I'll never vote Republican, it wouldn't make a difference.

There are tons of procedural things they could do, but NONE would bring the troops home. You simply can't override an authorization to go to war with procedural gimmicks. Unfortunatley, this was bound to happen because the Democrats have a weak majority. They either need to get overwhelming control of Congress or take the White House...until they do that, it will be impossible to overturn any of the mistakes of the current administration.

And while a majority of Americans do want to see troops get out of Iraq, most don't support pulling funding out from under the troops. Even if the Democrats had the power, they would get smeared in the media and blamed for troop deaths.

But dammit, these are two different things. De-funding the war and scheduling withdrawals IS NOT "pulling funding out from under the troops"!!! If the Dems quake in fear about how the Repubs and the right-tilting mass media are going to lie about them at every turn, how in hell are they "1000x better"? Because they pay lip service and nothing else?

mdterp01, how will they be coerced into getting a backbone if they know they have your vote, no matter what?

There's two ways for Congress to get troops out of Iraq.

1) Pass legislation requiring troop drawdown
2) Refuse to continue funding the war at its current level

Method 1) would be the preferable way, but it requires presidential (and by proxy DoD) approval. The president won't sign any legislation requiring drawdown and the Dems don't have the votes to override him. Therefore, method 1) is no good.

Method 2) would require Congress to simply refuse to pass a budget that funds Iraq at its current level. This method could potentially work, but would be very ugly and drawn out. The Dems would undoubtedly be smeared and it could severely undermine them going into the 2008 election. A somewhat moderate Republican like Giuliani could use this as big ammo.

While I agree the Dems aren't currently getting the job done, they have to walk a fine line until the 2008 elections. Hopefully, they will win the White House in 2008 and keep control of Congress and then things should move quickly.

"Move quickly," how? Certainly HRC has no drawdown plan that we know of.

The Democratic Party and all the Volvo-driving, Starbuck-drinking, Ryan Adams-listening, self-defeating lemmings that vote for it have reached a point of hilarity I never thought possible: they have become an even sillier, sad sideshow than their corporate counterparts. All the yellowing Kerry-Edwards bumperstickers in Massachusetts can't cover up one simple fact: that faced with the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, they lost two elections, the second of which by A LARGER MARGIN THAN THE FIRST, which means that John Kerry is the Worst Presidential Candidate in American History, since he lost to the Worst President Ever by an even larger margin than Gore. In other words, having convinced themselves that the only good candidate is a bland (i.e., "electable") candidate, the Dems have sacrificed leadership for rhetoric, and in the process, continued to drag the long history of leadership shown by the party further into a cesspool of bullsh*t political sloganeering ("John Kerry, reporting for duty"... what a crock).

I blame the Democrats for the state of this country far more than I blame Bush or the Republicans.

Maybe they can go to a self-help seminar and do trust falls and sit in a circle and say good things about each other and emerge infused with such enthusiasm and desire to lead the country that they can nominate someone with true leadership qualities instead of bland retreads of past losers.

Oh, and don't tell me that Gore actually won in 2000. He f*cking LOST. In fact, last time I checked, the guy who won is still in office, seven years later. Maybe if they hadn't selected two of the most horrendous candidates for president in my lifetime (oh wait, forgot about Mondale and Dukakis), the whole issue of who lost by handfuls of votes wouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Put that in your latte and drink it.

Couldn't disagree with you more bud. You have a right to believe and say what you want, as do I. The Democrats have alot of room for improvement for sure, but this administration has done so much damage in so many areas, to me, its difficult to grasp. The price is going to be paid for probably a generation at least, given the cost of his war, and the defecits he has rung up the past 8 years. Yes, I wish the Democrats had more balls and would pull the financial rug out from underneath him. So far they have not....the choice for me is simple. Do we continue on the same destructive financial path to ruin ,we are currently on, or do we make a change. I vote for a serious change. Do I wish we had more choices in the country, or a seriously stronger alternative to both parties, I do, but everyone bitches about this, and it never goes anywhere.. Again, the Democrats are far from perfect, but we can no longer afford in my opinion, the path we are on. America is no longer respected around the world the way she used to be. Thats sad, and we can do much better. Just my pinion.

Precisely my point. There IS NO CHANGE. The difference between the two groups is negligible. And to choose between the lesser of two evils while NOT holding the party of change accountable for its lack of adaptation is blind faith.

This is not to say that the party hasn't had candidates in the past that gave the country more energetic leadership. But none of the Democratic candidates seem to me to embody any change at all. In fact, they almost appear reactionary in their desire to return us to f*cking 1992.

Katrina was our Dust Bowl, the wars are dragging on, the economy is in decline, the environment is reaching the tipping point, oil is running out, and you mean to tell me all that the Democratic Party can offer me is giggling sound-bite-fed trendoid talking-head Mediaphiles whose idea of "reaching the people" is to do a pre-planned YouTube "debate" so we can see how tech-savvy and hip they are?

You and I live in two different Americas, and believe in two different Democratic parties. I long for the party that fixed the country out of a much deeper mess than this one, yet the Baby Boom Dems have dropped the ball. Big time.

Keep on blaming the Dems, Frank. Look how far that has gotten us as a nation in the last 8 years. Face it, Gore DID win in 2000, there is documented proof. The Dems aren't perfect, but at least they did not run this nation into the ground like the Rethugs have. By the way, you think your taxes are high now? Just wait until the bill for this useless war comes due. It will take decades to pay off, and for that, you can thank the worst president in the history of this nation, George W. Bush. Put down the pipe and face reality.

Your rant is incoherent. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBE! They held power from 2000-2006, and under them we got

-The September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attacks
-the subsequent anthrax attacks (that have never been solved)
-the unfinished war in Afghanistan (why in the hell does the Taliban still exist???)
-the failed, mega-TRILLION DOLLAR war in Iraq, with extensive corruption and the total material and infrastructure destruction that country
-Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who planned the 9/11 attack are still on the loose
-Hurricane Katrina and zilcho response
-rampant borrowing from China and binge pork-barrel spending
-the economic disaster now unfolding with subprime mortgages, the housing industry, the financial services industry, and the plummeting US dollar
-the failure to enact ANY reasonable energy policy, because Cheney let the energy companies devise it
-corruption on a scale not seen since Warren Harding (Abramoff is the tip of the iceberg)
-the steadily decline in our ability to address global warming
-the US's abysmal standing in world affairs

OH, and we also got, UNDER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

-two of the most extreme, ANTI-GAY right-wing Supreme Court judges of all time
-SIX STRAIGHT YEARS of illegal, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, which is a FELONY
-the illegal and unjustified outing of a COVERT CIA AGENT, which is TREASON
-three straight elections marred by voter caging and possibly illegal behavior by election officials in Florida & Ohio, and by voting machine companies (2000, 2002, 2004)
-gross politicization of the Department of Justice and illegal firings of REPUBLICANS
-the wrongful DOJ prosecution of a Democratic governor in Alabama (Siegelman), while Republicans charged with the same or worse crimes were not prosecuted at all
-repeated perjury by a US Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales)
-the late-evening, sickbed refusal of another US Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General to sign off on crimes by the White House (Ashcroft, Comey)
-torture instituted as if it were legal and acceptable
-Abu Ghraib
-extraordinary renditions and torture of innocent non-US citizens
-worsening conditions in the Middle East and NO resolution of the Israeli-Palestine situation
-worsening relations with Russia, which has the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world
-signing statements and the imperial expansion of the presidential branch of power
-the failed abstinence policies (STDs are at their highest level EVER right now, under Mr. Abstinence Bush)
-rising crime (it has jumped since Clinton left office)
Etc.

This conservative, incompetent, do-nothing, blame-everyone-else, destructive Congress and its President have bequeathed a legacy of failure that will be hard to match by any subsequent president, ever. Hell, a true monkey could be elected and not do so horribly.

Also, Al Gore defeated George Bush by a margin of 500,000 votes, and the election was stolen from him. But it doesn't matter. He is doing a great deal to help humanity, while the man who stole the election from him is pushing us closer and closer to the Stone Age. So yep, you blame Gore (and Kerry and any other Democrat. Oh, and by the way, Dukakis wasn't "horrible"; in fact, unlike Reagan, or George W. Bush, he actually served in the military, which is one reason he was mocked so relentlessly for that tank photo. Republicans always project and humiliate when their own insecurities are in play. Cf. Larry Craig, Bob Allen, etc.)

But back to the FAILED GOVERNMENT that REPUBLICAN PARTY left us with. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Let me say it one more time, just so you grasp it. A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. A REPUBLICAN-LED SENATE. A REPUBLICAN-LED HOUSE.

They were more concerned with stuffing their pockets and those of the Halliburtons with your tax dollars, with passing laws to seize power from husbands if their wives were brain dead, to pass anti-gay marriage amendments and attack gays to gain power, than doing the people's business. They showed total contempt for the likes of you, me and everyone else who wasn't rich and connected. So when you rant about the Democratic Congress, which has been in office for only a year, or the Democratic candidates, every last one of whom would be a marked change from the ship of disaster we're on, just recall which party and which people got us into this horrific state of affairs. Remember, 9/11 happened ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S WATCH, and occurred despite multiple warnings that Osama bin Laden was going to attack in the US. Oh, and his sick Vice President never even convened the Terrorism Task Force he was supposed to be chairing. Gee, I wonder why?

*STANDING OVATION*

Agreed with the standing O to Fan. He puts alot of time and thought into his thought provoking responses, and I always appreciate that....and I agree with everything he said, as per usual....good job Fan!

Well done!

The funny (or is it sad) thing is right wingers can try to make up a list of what went wrong during Clinton's years and try to make it seem worse than Bush's atrocities. The list will be like

-He had an affair (which didn't hurt the world. It put a strain on his marriage maybe but had no effect on the world)

*end of list*

You guys remind me of people who differentiate between the nutritional values of Big Macs and Whoppers.

A list of poorly-conceived foreign and domestic policies of Democratic presidents would go on for pages and prove nothing. To list Bush's failures is a moot point (despite the fact that many of the items on that list could very well be blamed on previous presidents going back decades, but that's a different story). The point is not that "this president sucks". I know that he does.

But whose fault is it that he's been there 8 years? Is it his fault? Or can blame be laid at the feet of the idiocracy that put him in office twice?

I am a Democrat. I have never voted Republican.

But the reason for the list above is as much the fault of the opposition party in failing to provide leadership in the form of a candidate for president to run against Bush.

I am disgusted with the Democratic Party and its inability to get their head out of their ass. I am also pretty disgusted with people who are so blinded by their rage against George Bush that they fail to realize who the bigger villians are: the people who voted for him, and even worse, the people who tried to convince me that the "better than Bush" candidate was a real alternative.

The dearth of leadership isn't new. But it has to stop somewhere.

edit: To Fan, your statement "Hurricane Katrina and zilcho response" tells me two things: you blame the government for a hurricane, and you believe it was the sole responsibility of the (presumably) federal government, under Bush, to respond. I don't know how to convince you that the former accusation is unsound, and despite my sharing your opinion of the latter, I direct you to the example of California wildfires to see how state and local governments (acting in concert) can direct disaster relief irrespective of the halfhearted photo-op contributions of Bush. The blame for Katrina is huge, and Bush/Republicans bear much of the responsibility (especially in the long term). But all? Take off the anti-Bush blinders and look at the state of your GOVERNMENT. Not the state of one party.

Yes, it is. He stole the election. Twice. He put himself in office.



uh-huh



Can you point out where he blamed the government for a hurricane? No, you can't. Because he didn't say it. What he said is the response to the hurricane was handled PISS POOR by the republican administration. Oh, and what did Adolf Dubya's mother-a republican-say regarding the people who had to take up residence at the Super Dome?

"Well, most of them were poverty stricken anyway, so this is working quite nicely for them"

And what this man and his administration did was divide this country beyond belief. I never even paid attention to politics before his terms started. He has driven this country so far backwards it isn't even funny.

YOU GO BOY!!!!

Many of the GOP-initiated horrors listed by fantomas were aided, abetted and enabled by the Democrats. And why? For alleged future political gain. Like having both houses of Congress and STILL being totally ineffectual?

Chill-Trick, Bill Clinton made Dubya possible, and his actions in the White House likely turned this country more sharply to the right than Reagan. Corporate- and billionaire-tailored tax and economic policy, abolishing Aid to Families with Dependent Children, bombing an aspirin factory, signing DOMA, more expansive government surveillance -- all appallingly reactionary policies.

I have already criticized the Congressional Democrats on this thread so I am not going to repeat it. Yes, they are pathetic. But they are nowhere near as disastrous as these Republicans. Who, must I remind you, still want to amend the Constitution just to punish fags. Oh, and big closeted faggot Republicans like Larry Craig, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, and whoremongering hypocrites like David Vitter, are all for it. Is Bill Clinton to blame for that?

What turned "this country more sharply to the right than Reagan," if I recall, was the relentless WAR against Bill Clinton waged from 1992-2000 by the Republican Party, which culminated, as we'll all remember, I hope, in their attempt to impeach him in 1998. Have you forgotten that? The Republicans spent over $40 million trying to prove that he was guilty of every crime in the book, and guess what, they didn't have a thing on the man and all we got was Kenneth Starr's pornographic report, which provided the Beltway Racoons with masturbation material for months, even as they pooh-poohed Bill's "bad" behavior. No matter that he was having consensual sex with an adult intern, and that his affair was a matter between him and his wife, just as George H. W. Bush's, Ronald Reagan's, John Kennedy's, FDR's, and every other president's affairs were just that, personal matters. For that, they impeached him.

The "partisan" Republicans and their mainstream media allies said he and his wife murdered Vince Foster. They said he and his wife were selling bedroom space in the White House. They claimed that his attempts to kill Osama bin Laden were merely "wagging the dog." They said his Vice President was raising illegal cash at a Buddhist temple. They said his staff trashed the White House when they left. The Republicans and their conventional media allies LIED AND LIED AND LIED again, and guess what, they couldn't make a damned thing stick. Bill Clinton left office with 60% approval, and remains one of the most popular recent presidents we've had, as well as one of the most effective. He left the country with a budget surplus, which the Decider Guy promptly blew threw before deciding that we would just borrow from China till Kingdom come. The gross partisanship was not Clinton's fault, but the fault of the harpies and wretches who launched their "Contract Against America," oops, the "Contract for America," Newtie and the gang. And look where it got them. But they still were able to foist their Idiot-in-Chief on us, and Lord, have we all paid the price. I guess that's Bill Clinton's fault too. Getting your d*ck sucked consensually means that the Republican Party gets to run roughshod over the Constitution, the American people and the military. Oh well, I guess we'd better elect eunuchs or celibates from now on!

And no, I do not blame George Bush for Hurricane Katrina, though he lied to the nation and claimed he--we--had no advanced warning when he was later shown to have been fully briefed on the possible horrors to come, but hey, maybe he was just having an airhead day or something, one of far too many for the nation's good. His utter lack of response, which began when he gutted FEMA and put incompetents in power to run it--this, mind you, from a man who always goes on about "meritocracy" and is violently anti-Affirmative Action, unless you are rich, well-connected and Republican--and destroy it, IS worthy of the strongest condemnation. And put add insult to injury, not only did he PRAISE the gross idiot in charge--"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"--despite the fact that entire WORLD could see how horrible a job FEMA was doing, but he and the Republicans used the destruction as a pretext to gut union influence, destroy the public school system, give handouts to developers, and disperse the poor and working-class. As the Republicans and media mocked the poor people of New Orleans. New Orleans remains A MESS. Oh, and in Mississippi, run by his good buddy, that hog Haley Barbour, who was just reelected over a nutcase religious wacko Democrat, the government waived a rule that a portion of funds go to low income citizens, meaning that the rich and connected have had the cash funneled straight to them. While the rest of the poor, undereducated suckers just suffer. It's the Republican way!

Again Fan, way to go bud....your reply speaks for me as well. Good job!

Hey Dubya (Bill, not George).....and exactly how many U.S. soldiers were killed in action during the Clinton years? I'll await your answer.

Look, I understand that people have different views on everything. And that is life. Not everyone is going to agree. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why any sane homosexual could show ANY sign of support for a man that litterally wants to change the Constitution to include discrimination against gays. It makes absolutely no sense.

And for you to even try to show support and defend him says speaks volumes to your views on equality and fairness.

I never offered a word in support or defense of Bush; where the hell did you get that?

Quite a few non-American lives were lost in US military actions (as were some U.S. soldiers) under Clinton, "Chill-Trick," but I'm sure you don't think about them much.

I cannot for the life of me understand why any sane homosexual (though I disdain that word as a noun)could show ANY retrospective support for a man whose signing of the Defense of Marriage Act discriminated against gays.

Um...I got that from every post you make regarding politics.


Numbers please?



Probably due to pressure from his southern supporters. Yes, it was not a great move. But it was also 1996. If a Democrat was in office now, it's a pretty safe bet that they wouldn't try to rewrite the Constitution to include discrimination. But if you want to compare the Clinton years to the Bush years in terms of supporting the gay community.....don't even bother. They are worlds, make that galaxies apart.

I am no expert in these things, but I am going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that it has something to do with the fact that you guys decided to leave the war uncompleted and go play 'nation builder' in Iraq.

Another large part of it is that most of the countries that make up the ISAF don't allow their soldiers to actually engage teh Taliban. If memory serves, the number who do can be counted on one hand. At any rate, my brother deploys to Kandahar in January, and I gotta say that the complete lack (relatively) of US manpower and leadership in a war which they lead Canada -as well as many other nations- into is an absolute embarrassment.

Then you are, on the evidence, illiterate. Do you think one *must* like either the Clintons or the Bushes, cuz hell, those are the only options, right?

Um, that was my point. That BUSH--not "you guys"--decided to "leave the war uncompleted and go play 'nation builder' in Iraq." Maybe that wasn't clear enough.



Well, the other large part of it is that the Taliban have support from Bush's dear buddy, antidemocratic dictator Pervez Musharraf. This same dictator was sponsoring the Taliban's fight against India in Kashmir; supported their government in Afghanistan; has been hosting Mullah Omar, who lives in a major Pakistani city; and refuses to hand up either Osama bin Laden (if he's still alive) or Ayman al-Zawihiri (who most certainly is). Pakistan is also quite close to Saudi Arabia, which is one of the major funders of global jihad, supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as most of the foreign fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and continues to bankroll extremist madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere across the globe. Their hand-in-glove relationship, which also includes BUSH, is a major reason that global terrorism has spread the way it has. And don't forget A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist, the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear technology, who helped North Korea acquire its nukes. Did Musharraf punish him? I. Don't. Think. So.

No it was fine... I was mostly using your post as a segway to vent my frustration over your government, the ISAF and the fact that my brotehr is entering the most dangerous region of the whole clusterf**k which is the war in Afghanistan.

For the record I do agree about Pervez Musharraf