Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Lieberman might not be an issue today had the Democratic Party actually supported the Democratic candidate in the 2006 Senate elections.
Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/reid_vast_majority_of_dem_cauc.php
You are absolutely right, Glenn, on all points.
Harry Reid needs to rescind the "gentleman's agreement" on the filibuster.-- Conservativeslayer
You might as well tell a two year old to stand up to his or her parents by sending them to their room when they attempt to discipline him or her.
I'm not one for "me too" comments but your statement:
"...Democrats have been very effective at making themselves SEEM to be in conflict with the Bush administration and congressional Republicans..."
Is exactly correct.
Remember the motto "More and Better Dems" Well, we've got the "More",now its time to work on "Better".
Its horrible when you are betrayed by the people you trust, one of the very worst things to happen to a person, I think.
But we must keep on Treckin'.
Steered thru a neo-con-mine-fold
Came up from a groundhog hole
Breathed in a fresh change 'o Barack
Seven more year's 'o winter?
Or our glorious spring
Sprung outta Guantanamo
Juan ton-a-manura?
?
Dunno...
A Lieberdude likes step 'n fetch it
Uncle Tonous
Perhaps today a short leash
Preferably tommorow
A tight noose
Ain't no kinda country for no honest Ay-rab man
Shoulda listened to that Jehovah's Witness
And got my life time subscription
Ta the good book
Git on the good foot
Or fall ye hard
In the babblin' brook
Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."
Hey, f'wad, you're lookin; at it, you lying son of bitch!
Bush Administration actions in violation of Constitutionally mandated processes of government and infringements on Constitutionally guaranteed rights have set dangerous precedents in making the Constitution superfluous and irrelevant to governance. If the Constitution is to be rescued from irrelevance, if it is to me more than "just a piece of paper" to be venerated but not followed, the Congress and the new President must work diligently for its restoration. There are members of both parties in Congress who are eager to see an end to excesses of "signing statement" and "executive orders" that contravene legislation and even the Constitution. President Obama must specifically denounce the Bush doctrine of "unitary executive", which has no place in our Republic. The Congress as well needs to begin referencing all legislation to specific Constitutional provisions. Whether Constitutional restoration is accomplished by bipartisan efforts or just one party really doesn't matter. What does matter is that the charter document of the federal government, which legally authorizes and empowers it, is respected and followed. The alternative is a downward spiral toward tyranny.
Many Americans think -- and I am one of the them --that however great our challenges are, and however much we may disagree as to both the nature of the problem and the solutions, there is often common ground to be found and that common ground should be occupied and extended whenever possible.
If you aren't a pundit, then you better hurry up and toss your hat in the ring before it's too late.
First of all, one of the things that keeps the discourse substantive here is that posters are expected to provide proof of their observations. Basing Teh Thoughts of Teh American Electorate on your own does not qualify.
"Common ground" has been "occupied and extended" by Congress with respect to torture, renditions, illegal spying and countless other things over the past eight years. By your stated rules of engagement, you would be happy as a clam with all of this, if they would just tone down the inter-party nasty a bit.
"bipartisanship" is a necessary cover for the Washington nomenklatura--media, politicos, lobbysts, think tank parasites -- to prevent fundamental disagreement on foreign policy, primarily in dealing with Israel.
The real shock would have been if the Washington nomenklatura had failed to protect one of their very own, the slimy Joe Lieberman.
It's past a tub-swimmer time. Thee gold and white striped cat has only one eye.
A tomcat got into a spat, and lost a eye, The ears are all chewed up two. too. ay.
My granddaughter wants to meet you. None yet can decide. You sleep in a barn?
A rule here- 4- things. Death, judgement, heaven, and hell. Preserve hospitality.
If one keeps a consciousness alive, you will be faithfully greeted by the warbler.
oho. A song can introduce you and lift Pedinska to reveal itself "the other world":
okay, tease, because of hearing a unseen warbler. When you do visit, please sing.
Are you saying you trusted them!!!!
It's hard to get it off the ground
To give it a good start
But this shit here
Can make a man
Begin to lose heart....
Bipartisanship requires TWO parties. We have one party with two names.
If there were two parties there would be a whole lot of impeaching going on.
There is one party, the corporatist war party.
YEEEEE HAAAAAW!
What was the question again?-- something stinks
No one asked you a question, Stench.
FDs...
The bipartisan meme is also cover for having a Democratic majority, because they know they would be expected to act on that majority to pass legislation. Certainly the talk before the election was if Obama would have a mandate for "FDR like sweeping" legislation. That's all everybody talked about - Democratic majority, Democratic president, and what all it would mean for the changes Americans want.
"Bipartisanship" effectively kills any hope of that kind of legislation.
The bipartisanship described only applies until 2006, after that the Republican minority was extremely obstructionist, even filibustering bills they supported to make Democrats look ineffectual. I think they set some records for the number of filibusters.
The Democrats in Congress aside, I hope and would like to think that the bipartinsanship that Obama talks about is referring to the tone and substance of the discourse he hopes to engender in Congress. My hope is that he is talking about changing the debate from frivolities, distractions, terrorist baiting, and wedge issues into something more substantive. I won't hold my breath but might cross my fingers.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
