Rec. this if you think it's time for PELOSI and REID to be replaced.

Pelosi "warning" Obama to govern from the middle (read: capitulate to the right whenever possible)?

Reid "pondering" taking away Traitorman's committee chairmanship?

These two are completely feckless at best and at worst they actually try to stifle progress. If President Obama is to get as much done as he can, it's time for a change of leadership in Congress. These two have had their shot and gotten nothing done, and now they're already preparing to help Obama get nothing done.

Enough!

I want to know why she took impeachment off the table. Is she blind to the corruption? Or is she part of it?

she had personally invested $250-300,000 in AIG stock, which would have tanked absent the bailout of that Wall street insurer.

Isn't it treasonous for a leader to govern on behalf of their own profits over the good of the people?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you're not even trying to play nice, are you?

I swear, if you just stick around and have actual conversations, you might learn something: namely that we're not what Bill Cunningham says we are.

Senate Majority Leader is also chosen every two years, even though Senators obviously serve six.

... is that although they were selling it as a filibuster-majority, after having seen them capitulate to the Repubs again and again, I had a feeling they were more focused on a veto-proof majority that could stop any and all bills President-Elect Obama would want to get through to help us non-elites.

I mean, Nancy didn't look all too happy after the landslide win by Obama when she came out to do her press conference. It was as she wanted to assure her huge donors and billionaire hubby that Obama will not have the reins.

I hate to say this but I am pretty sure that Nancy is no friend of mine.

Listening to your phonecalls without warrant.

The middle... God, I'd kill for the middle.

...bemoaning his centrist governing style and claiming bait-and-switch, or capitulation, or complicity.

He campaigned as a centrist. He's known as a pragmatist. Yet some here will claim to be shocked SHOCKED that he betrayed his liberal base.

People want to see action, not gridlock.

Not every idea Obama gets behind will be textbook liberal, but I want to see his plans actually HAPPEN and come out on the other side in some recognizable form.

These two never saw a Democratic policy they couldn't whittle down or help fail completely. (But the bailout - a Bush policy - passed pronto.) Pelosi and Reid's sent signals almost right away that they plan more status quo, and that is exactly NOT what Obama or this country needs.

... because nobody here has been critical of Obama up till now.

want. Obama will play middle of the road. He chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Can you spell DLC. We liberals have a long row to hoe.

http://juneauempire.com/stories/110508/opi_352386521.sh...

I believe the internets made it possible for us to network and mobilize. You better believe that Karl Rove is working on methods of stymieing our freedom of information and communications. We also need to protect the small publications that are currently under attack by the major media like Time-Warner.

???

It changes from year to year, and contrary to most DU posters, it is NOT a monolithic, dictatorial body.

Two days after the election the ultra left wing of the party (I consider myself in the left wing of the party) is already bashing the administration that hasn't even been sworn in yet. Either we're democrats or we're not. If those who choose to bash the "DLC" or Obama, or even the 64 MILLION Americans who voted for Obama, don't like it, form your own f*ing party!

No doubt Nader and Barr would outpoll you for decades (remember John Anderson?)

Playing down the role of the DLC, and pretending that they do not successfully assert their influence over the party as a whole is one thing we apparently dont agree on.

They are powerful, they are (were?) conservative, and they did spend a good bit of the last 8 years agreeing with Bush and his war, while constantly fighting and trying to marginalize the "far left" DEMS who were actually 100% correct on Bush & the war...

For me, Joe Lieberman (is he STILL a DLC member?) tells a DEM all he needs to know about the DLC of the past. Lets hope this "changed" DLC is different.

We do agree that it is too early to be second guessing Obama- I fully expected him to work with the DLC, BTW.

...for one or a few could cause one to lose them all.

Time to replace Pelosi and Reid?

That's a huge understatement!

They are not owed their positions.

we've/they've accomplished since we kicked some ass in 2006. WTF?

We did have a majority in the House....but not a huge overwhelming one.

Now, I'm not so sure why we need a huge overwhelming majority. To be veto proof I guess. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with sending in bill after bill to be vetoed. It just makes Bush look like what he is, a neocon obstructionist child.

And in the Senate we had a fake majority....with 2 indies....one of them someone named Lieberman.

So I can see why a lot didn't get done. But the opposition to the GOP was too weak, that's for sure.

by saying Ted Stevens needn't return to the Senate, I don't believe he'll work for the Dems in any way, shape, or form.

These two have been utterly feckless.

Let's have new leadership!

Regards

is do what the repubs did and push the extreme down everyone's throat. Would I like to make those fuckers pay? You bet, but remember their loses last night, and Obama knows what he is doing just like he told Rachel. An i would like to see those to replaced.

I am not happy with them at all.

filibuster. What was the problem Reid didn't want to stay the night so he couldn't stand up to a filibuster threat? Not one lousy time? No Reid must go.

Pelosi could have buried FISA and instead brought it up for a vote. The majority leader ought not bring up odious bills for a vote. She especially ought not bring up odious bill that the Republicans want and the Democrats do not. Taking things off the table without negotiation it's crap. Pelosi needs to go. We need leadership who can stand up to the Republicans otherwise we're going to end up like we have since the Republicans lost the house in 2006, with the Republicans playing obstructionist.

Regards

Had they ever shown intestinal fortitude, we might trust them to lead bigger majorities. Had they ever led.

I'd prefer Feingold, but I think Hillary deserves it if she wants it.

I'd like to see her and her hubby hit the road. During the NY primaries there were 80 NY districts that went without ONE single vote for Obama, not even in Harlem. ...Everyone would have to admit there was something fishy going on there.

Bill mentioned on the View that he was going around to 69 countries SELLING medicine. He's in thick with BIG Pharmaceuticals. ...Enough with these politicians with bulging stock portfolios.

Hillary would be perfect. She's got huge ovaries and won't back down. In the House I'd like to see Kucinich replace Pelosi. He needs to play a bigger role.

The only one in the House with the stones to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bushco.
That's the kind of leader we need.

The regressives bring a knife, she brings a gun. The regressives bring a gun, she brings an ICBM.

A jellyfish has more backbone than Reid, the demon-seed guzzling son of a bitch! Did you read about his cordial chat with Lieberman today? If Reid musters up enough courage, he may just decide on harsh measures against Lieberman for his betrayal. He will send Joe to his room without supper!

Pathetic!

We need real battles for Constitution - human rights --

labor --economic democracy, electric cars, nationalize oil industry,

environment, planet--

but agree with you on Reid...

Sanders would be great but he's an Independent. Feingold? Boxer? Webb? Schumer? It's hard but I would love to see Reid give it up. He has been worse than worthless.

any more --

DICK DURBIN would get my vote --

then .. Dodd--??

also I think my NJ Sen Robt Menendez ...

Tom Harkin --

John Kerry --



Schumer is dead over pushing Mukasey recommendation --


Webb is a hawk -- r-w

Boxer is good -- Feingold good --

I don't know if Boxer has it in her, although I do like her. Feingold is great but he, too, pulled some shit a few months back. I can't recall it at the moment (very tired) and am too lazy to look it up but I was schooled by someone on DU about it. Dodd is a possibility, as he stood up against the Telecom Amnesty.

The truth is, it's a hard decision and as no one is perfect, I would have to say Hillary because I know she wouldn't take any nonsense from the regressives. I wish Kucinich were in the Senate and Wexler could take over the House. That would be my dream combo.

..would be excellent, much better than Reid. And, admittedly, I wasn't a big supporter of Clinton during the primaries, however, she does bust her ass - as Senator and I do admire her very much for the hard work she does!

Anyway....back to the OP:

Personally, I honestly don't expect as some suggested that by asking for Pelosi and Reid to step aside as Speaker/Majority Whip, will get us or is even asking that 100% 'liberal' agenda will take it's place. Nor did I get that from the OP.

Pelosi really pissed me off when she said impeachment is 'off the table' - even if we didn't move to impeach for various reasons, it shouldn't have been said that we WOULD NOT. Plus a full and proper investigation with criminal charges a very real possiblity, should *NEVER* be implied to be 'off the table', unless there is nothing there in the first place - like Pres. Clinton.

And calling for an investigation is certainly *NOT* a 'left' or 'right' wing thing to do, when there is suspected, criminal behaviour in our elected officials. It is an American responsibility and moral obligation, especially, when there has been such obvious and blatant criminal behaviour with * and Darth Cheney, who have not even tried to HIDE or deny their crimes from the American people for years now.

Plus, lets be honest here, we all knew full well that Obama was never a hard-left liberal, we've just lived under the yoke of the far RW for so long, it would be easy to see Obama as a true liberal. Says a lot about the last 8yrs! Calling him a true liberal was just the RW re-thug spin-machine.

He is much more centrist than people, even those that voted for him, realize. But, I supported Obama (and will continue to support) with my vote, money, heart and soul.

Does he really, I mean seriously *need* Pelosi/Reid to tell him to lean toward the middle? Really? Obama knows how to get things done, look at how well he ran his campaign and the people he surrounded himself with through out his campaign!

As for 'Rove' working toward the next election - I don't think so, he's a talking head now and making money to do it. What would be accurate to say is, the right/far right GOP will be honing their 'Rove-ian' tactics for the next election, their next candidate will run a much better organized campaign and will be taking lots of notes from the Obama/grassroots playbook. We will need to make sure we as a party are a full step ahead of them, in the elections coming; Senate/2010 and Presidential 2012. My gut (which is normally quite correct) tells me Obama will carry 2012, for a full two term presidency. It will be 2016 after 8 years Democratic (much like it went for Gore after Clinton - so close it was easy to steal) our playbook/candidate *must* be as good if not better than Obama's - which says a LOT because his campaign reminded me of the old childhood saying, "I'm rubber, your glue - what you say, bounces off me and sticks to you".

Never has there been an election anything like this one, not in my lifetime, or any other generation before. It was in every way a very historic election (and not just because of the half of him that is black, although that too is historic) - but for me his win was one of the largest 'peaceful' revolutions I was blessed to be part of and can tell my grandchildren about, even my eldest son, who's nearly 19, voted with me on Tuesday, he to can tell his children and grandchildren about the 2008 election. An American revolution made possible with the help of the internet. The message was loud and clear Tuesday night - "WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE"!!!

I know I cried when he gave his speech, as did hubby, which is rare for him as it is many men. We even woke up our 15yr old at 11pm EST to tell him Obama won! Growing up in this household it's very hard to not be political - at least he will be old enough to vote for Obama's second term! He really wished he could have voted Tuesday. Our 5yr old daughter had a mock election at school Tuesday too. I asked her, 'who did you vote for'? She said, Obama - when I asked her why - her answer was awesome and perfect for a kid in Kindy - "Because he looks cool" LMAO!

Cheers
Sandy
pontificating....again...

edit: to fix bold - and clarity - and again for spelling error! D'oh!

That's why she blocked impeachment, because she knew any investigation
would show her culpability.

It's not necessarily about wanting the country to swing 'liberal' or asking for any 'extreme' legislation. If people think American government spying on Americans through phone taps is wrong, and if people think torture is a war crime (never mind a moral crime) and want to see it stopped, don't expect Pelosi or Reid to help in either case. If people want to see the perpetrators of torture investigated and brought to justice, neither Pelosi nor Reid will see that done. They won't lift a finger, because they'd have to point the finger at themselves for complicity.

They are morally and legally compromised.

That's just a fact, based on the record.

If the man had one lick of personal integrity, he'd be looking for a graceful way out as we speak.

Could you possibly have thought that he was trying ...?

But she sure don't govern that way.

And I wonder if Reid will hold true to to his promise of throwing Stevens out.

He's backed off his promises before.

which is something way too many people here are not. Most of the bitching and moaning about Pelosi and Reid comes from the fact that Pelosi didn't push for impeachment; impeachment would have been a thoroughly stupid idea, because even if the votes were there in the House, the votes were NOT there in the Senate to convict. It would have been a waste of time and political capital. It would have been seen by many as petty vindictiveness, a tit-for-tat for the GOP's politically motivated impeachment of Bill Clinton. Most importantly, though, it would not have accomplished a goddamned thing.

No bringing facts and/or rational thought into the conversation.

How can we know what the Senate would or would not do after Judiciary
Committee hearings dragged all Bush's crimes into the light, and coverage
on TV?

What you say is... We've got a hunch about who did the crime, but a jury
can't convict on a hunch, and therefore we shouldn't have an investigation.

Stop trying to disguise cowardice and criminal complicity as common sense.

Pelosi and Reid's defacto Mission Statement it seems.

Thats a tired talking point that explains nothing.

It would have shackled Bush from coninuing to be an idiot.

Pelosi stopped being a member of our party when she surrendered to Cheney and Lil' Dubbikins on Iraq death funding.

It would have been seen by many as petty vindictiveness, a tit-for-tat for the GOP's politically motivated impeachment of Bill Clinton.

It would have been explained as a defense of the Constitution, with all the
legal phrases becoming sound-bites on the evening news. A necessary civics
lesson for plumbers and caribou hunters everywhere.

Most importantly, though, it would not have accomplished a goddamned thing.

It would have restored respect for rule of law, the Constitution, and the USA.
People who claim decadence is pragmatism make me sick.

(not to mention human decency) would have restored our national honor
and our disciplined adherence to the principles we espouse, and educated
our citizens with a necessary brushup on civics.

Nancy Pelosi, most members of Congress, and YOU should be ashamed of yourselves.

Pelosi is complicit in torture and illegal wiretaps. Her only possible defense
is that she was blackmailed or threatened. It's time for her to come clean, and
it's time for the cowards to step down.

The votes were not there to convict Bush anymore then they were there to convict Clinton.

Case closed.

He lied in federal court. That's a very serious matter, but since
he lied about a private matter that probably most people would lie about,
it was hardly a constitutional principle.

Bush's crimes are crimes against the Constitution. If he is allowed to
wipe his ass with the Constitution, every president in the future can
claim the same right, and our system has decayed irretrievably.

A publicized investigation would have generated public outrage sufficient
to bring in the Senate votes, and I can not believe you are dumb enough
to think otherwise.

Bush. Impeaching him in the House would have been an exercise in futility. Republican Senators, Ted (bridge to nowhere)Stephenson being the most recent example, won't even resign after being convicted. Larry Craig, caught red handed as it were, remained in his seat. It is very naive of you to think that they could be pressured into voting guilty. They obviously could care less about public outrage.

Saying "The votes were not there" is as dishonest as "there is no relationship."

national TV daily. They respond by refusing to resign. Sure, they were going to do the right thing and convict their leader!

Wall Street. You have them confused with people who give a f*ck.

The bailout came all in a rush. Impeachment can be given time.

When the only counterarguments I get are illegitimate ones, it helps
convince me I'm right.

understand? He isn't going to be impeached, deal with it. You would have a better shot at petitioning the Hague to take action.

Is that what you tell your kids?

to be trusted under ANY circumstances. It's funny how they prove me right at almost EVERY turn.

Don't misunderstand, I would have loved to have seen Bush impeached, the math was simply not there.

would have been scrambling to throw Jonah Bush overboard.

Saying "We didn't have the votes" is like saying "We don't
have the evidence to convict, and therefore we're not going to
have an investigation."

Why people like you want Bush to get away with his crimes,
and why you want to justify the gutless Dems who violated
their oaths of office and did nothing when the most dangerous
President in US history had full imperial control of the
executive branch I'm not sure I want to understand.

have done NOTHING of the sort. The Senate would NEVER have convicted him and Pelosi would have simply wasted a great deal of time, ala Ken Starr.

That said, I truly hope that Bush Co is hunted (and haunted) for the remainder of their days.

Nixon was asked to resign by Republicans. There's no reason to
think Republicans wouldn't have turned against Bush too.

But you and Pelosi want to say "Oh he's suffered enough" and you
have no concern about the preservation of Constitutional principles.

of votes, 100. It's just simple arithmetic, nothing psychic about it at all.

I stomp it until the fire goes out!

impeached. Try donating to Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers like I did.
Even though they didn't make any head way I consider it money well spent.

President-elect Obama stated that he supported the prosecution of the Bush administrations criminals within the intent of the Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008. This is the only viable option at this time.

You can continue to whine about a lost cause or get up off your ass and actually try to accomplish something.

Letting Bush get away with it is leaving his turd floating in the punchbowl
and pretending it's not there. And you call that growing up?

"Facing reality," "only viable option," "lost cause". Your arrogance
astounds me. Who the fuck do you think you are? You act like Nancy Pelosi,
putting your energies into defending criminals instead of defending the
Constitution.

impeachment and he didn't get anywhere either.

I know exactly who I am, I realist. If you want to see some retribution for the Bush Crime Family then follow my advice and petition President-elect Obama. Perhaps he will order his DOJ to pursue it, perhaps not,
that is the only viable option other then the Hague. Nancy made up her mind along time ago and she's not going anywhere.

It's obvious why she wants impeachment off the table.

She knows that any investigation will show her complicity with Bush's crimes.
War crimes. She knew about the torture as part of the Gang of Four before others
did. She knew about the wiretaps too.

Nancy's got to go!

are bloody, no doubt about it.

chairmen failed to enforce subpoenas. She facilitated the FISA renewal and telecom immunity passage. In short, in any instance that represented a fight with Bush, she backed down.

We have had Republican minorities who were able to hamstring the Executive with their delaying and obstructionist tactics, yet our DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY couldn't do jack shit.

She's not a Democratic leader. She's a Republican accomplice.

It's time to clean our own house.

- elected officials that sets us apart from the GOP. Simple blind faith in who they voted for, without question, (except for the odd Santorum here and there which is rare) - the difference is, we question. It's important that we do.

There would be many more Re, publicans, most likely house re-thugs with better reputations if their constituancy rained in the lunacy a bit more - vote the nut cases OUT. Actually, stick to certain principles, without being bullies and telling us what Jesus/God wants for the US.

Cheers
Sandy

Get those feckless bozos outta there.

Hahahahahahahahaha!
Now we have Your Children's Money too!!!!
Hahahahahahahahah.......

In 2006 Fancy Nancy parlayed her Congressional seat into a seat at The Rich White Man's Table.
She has NEVER looked back.

Reid?.....Milktoast.
Sometimes he sounds like he has a crust, but goes all soggy at the slightest pressure.
Anyone want to bet whether he actually STANDS UP when Stevens comes to claim his seat?....
or will he lay down like usual.


We NEED a leader from a safe state who is a proven champion for Liberal causes....a NO vote on the IWR would be a good litmus test.

not to mention the wars, failure on impeachment, FISA...

up for the constitution.

Useless, both of them. We need the progressive leadership in Congress that America elected, last night, not more "govern from the middle" selling out, like the last 2 years.

and what is worse is that neither is particularly good at keeping our troops in line or making effective compromises. Especially Reid. Pelosi can be somewhat effective in getting legislation through but Reid is impotent.

Change is the word.

It's a new day, a new era. These two are mired in the Bush era.

Like Yesterday.

Replace Reid with Feingold, Clinton, Kerry, or Dodd.

Replace Pelosi with...I'll get back to you on that--I really have no idea.

Durbin is currently the Majority Whip. He is a strong liberal, and obviously would work well with Obama. I'm a little pissed at Feingold for his hissy fits during the campaign about Obama not accepting public financing.

Impeachment is off the table my ass!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.