Has the Democratic Congress ever walked in lockstep about anything except refusing to prosecute Bush

[tom_paine]

Poll question: Has the Democratic Congress ever walked in lockstep about anything except refusing to prosecute Bush

or Cheney or Gonzo, even with (in Bush's case) the Downing Street Memo which has been vetted by a Friendly Government as authentic and clearly shows Bush lied us into war, or (in Cheney's case), the weight of the evidence in the Libby case pointing right at him, with at least as much there for an additional investigation, which has and will never happen, or (in Gonzo's case) REPEAT PERJURY FELONIES ON VIDEO TAPE!

So I ask a simple question. Is the statement that is the title of this thread True or False?

Have the Dems kept the powder dry on everything except this, which they are all in agreement on in lockstep on, so evidenced by what they all have said, Feingold, Dodd, Pelosi, Gore, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, with literally a handful of exceptions.

True or False?

[tom_paine]

1. Can someone voting "Yes" give me a concrete example?

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Minimum wage increase

[OHdem10]

2. On any serious vote, one thing can be counted on--

Some DLC and Blue Dogs will go wagging their tales with the
GOP. Call this unified.

The Indepemdents are with us on the war now . That swing state
excuse by Blue Dogs and DLC is waring mightily thin. They
use this as an excuse for their own Conservative Views.

[tom_paine]

3. But what about the uniform dismissal of imepachment?

Which is more than just that, but a tacit admission that the Busheviks can perform ANY crimes they want without fear.

All Dems are united in that belief, and that and only that is what I am speaking of.

They are quite unified on this issue: No impeachment

[OzarkDem]

4. They seem to be in total agreement

in their support of the Bush administration, even when it comes to Iraq.

[tom_paine]

5. I don't know if I would go so far as saying they are in agreement with everything Bushie,

but I WOULD go so far as to say they fear the repercussions of angry Democratic voters MUCH LESS than they fear Royal and Loyal Bushies.

THAT much is abundantly clear.

They don't give a fuck if half the precinct walkers and phone bankers throw up our hands in disgust and don't show up in '08.

Mind you, I understand quite well this is foolish on some levels, but I simply CANNOT soldier on for these people WITHOUT SOME TANGIBLE PAYBACK for my efforts.

For me, this means to fucking stand up and defend what this country stands for while there is still the smallest chance of getting it back.

Not to game for 2008 by letting felons walk free, which always discourages them. :silly:

[Disturbed]

6. Didn't the Dems vote in a majority on these issues?

Yes for Stem Cell Research
Yes for Minimum Wage Increase
Yes for Sanction on Iran
Yes for No Torture

[TahitiNut]

7. Sure. on October 25, 2001 all but two voted to pass the Patriot Act.

Feingold voted Nay ... and Landrieu didn't vote. Gotta love how unified they are when it comes to accommodating the corporatist usurpation of power.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

Even in the House, the 'unity' was remarkable ... with Democrats 145-62 voting Yea (with four not voting). That's more than two-to-one in favor of abrogating the civil liberties of American citizens.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml


Think about it! If the Congress had nobody but these Democrats, that abomination of legislation would've passed, even over a Presidential veto!!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

9. Even over a presidential veto...

Well said..

[bobthedrummer]

8. .

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST