How would you react if a presidential candidate promised to try to remove Reid Pelosi from power?

[bryant69]

Poll question: How would you react if a presidential candidate promised to try to remove Reid Pelosi from power?

Granted the President's power in this case isn't such that he or she could actually do it, but if Edwards or Dodd or anybody got up and campaigned on a promise to punish Reid and Pelosi political for aiding the Bush administration, how would you react?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Poll result (70 votes)
Very Positively	(23 votes, 33%)	Vote
Somewhat Positively	(2 votes, 3%)	Vote
Meh	(5 votes, 7%)	Vote
Somewhat Negatively	(2 votes, 3%)	Vote
Very Negatively	(30 votes, 43%)	Vote
You know what I really react negatively to? Bullshit Polls!	(6 votes, 9%)	Vote
I like to vote.	(2 votes, 3%)	Vote

[dmallind]

1. So..

...a candidate for a leadership position in the Democratic party which involves working as closely as possible with other leaders in other branches to advance the party agenda comes out and says "these guys are tools and I want to work with somebody else". How exactky could that be a good thing? Even if they are tools, they are the legislative branch's tools, and it's their responsibility to deal with them if they are obstacles. Starting your campaign for a job by bitching about the checks and balances for the position is not a good idea. AFTER election and DISCREETLY is how you deal with such conflicts.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Meh

They should be removed, but not by the president, so a presidential candidate promising to do this would be odd. Separation of powers, etc.

[Asgaya Dihi]

35. Same here

I'm highly pissed at the leadership these days but we just had 7 years of a President who doesn't understand separation of the branches. It's not their place to run the House or the Senate, or to even try to. We don't need another who can't tell what their job is, no matter if it's for what we consider a good cause or not.

[shadowknows69]

3. I'd vote for them twice.

[Catch22Dem]

4. I would want a candidate to be removed from consideration for thinking they could or should

Separation of powers.

[blondeatlast]

6. Great minds--see below. nt

[aquart]

8. Exactly my reaction. None of his business.

[mmonk]

11. Why not remove those that helped

the executive branch amass unconstituitionl powers that betray their own? It would send a signal. One could then make separation of powers part of our system again once those that betray that trust are removed.

[blondeatlast]

5. It's that "separation of powers" thing, I suppose. I'm so old-fashioned and quaint. nt

[bryant69]

7. What if they just campaigned against them without actually threatening to do anything

"If you send me to Washington Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be put on notice; there's a new boss in town, and their kow-towing to President Bush will not be forgotten!"

Bryant

[CTyankee]

16. No. Nancy and Harry are answerable to the people of their state, who are the ones to decide

whether they stay or go. That is accountability.

Presidents have always had to work with difficult leaders in Congress. It's the give and take of politics in a democracy.

I think we should devote our energies to getting a president elected in the first place. All of this "circular firing squad" stuff is dispiriting to me...

[bryant69]

18. When Harry Reid is diligently doing all he can to give the administration

what they want on Telecom Amnesty, well, maybe he's not exactly in our circle.

Bryant

[CTyankee]

36. I certainly agree with your assessment of Harry Reid.

Perhaps we need another Lyndon Johnson, who, having been Sen. Majority Leader, as president gave Senators a working over to get them to his side. He was pretty rough some times but look how he got Medicare/Medicaid through and the Civil Rights Act passed. A president who is that tough a customer (maybe Edwards!) could probably get Reid to play ball...

[blondeatlast]

24. I'm not happy with our Congressional leadership now, but the precedent would be set and it would be

SEVERELY damaging to the party.

The fundamental principle of separation of powers is my main objection but to have members of the same party in different offices actively campaigning against one another would severely damage the party structure and public confidence.

[NoPasaran]

9. I'd prefer a candidate whose understanding of how the government works

Exceeded that of the average keyboard commando.

[mmonk]

10. Postively.

They would be doing something for me as a citizen.

[Marrah_G]

14. They would be unbalancing the 3 branches of Gov

Do you no longer believe in separation between the branches?

[mmonk]

32. They currently are unbalanced with the help of those two.

If we're going to correct the system, those that harm it should be removed. Since I don't think the party will, why not attempt to do it initially and then right the constitution? It's time to have zero tolerance to abuse of power and the constitution. The newly charged executive had at least ought to force the issue and see what the courts will do. If the courts do what they are supposed to do and say no, the message will have been sent and some restorative power to the other branches done.

[porphyrian]

12. That depends entirely on who the replacements would be. -n/t

[Marrah_G]

13. So you only sometimes believe in the separation of powers?

[porphyrian]

15. Nope, I just know that some solutions are worse than the problem.

Do you think it would be worth it to remove Reid and Pelosi if a republican from this administration ended up in their seats? Kneejerk attack much?

[Marrah_G]

20. Your question makes no sense

There was no knee-jerk attack. There was no attack period. Either you don't understand the system of government or you think it should be over-looked when you like the result.

[porphyrian]

22. Then you aren't very smart.

You attacked me in a snarky way by implying that I only sometimes believe in the separation of powers, which is both a totally ignorant assertion and an offensive one. And, given that you missed the main point of my response to your kneejerk attack, you must be either stupid or a troll. Either way, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, so get out of my virtual face.

[Marrah_G]

23. Personal attacks aren't nice.

"You attacked me in a snarky way by implying that I only sometimes believe in the separation of powers, which is both a totally ignorant assertion and an offensive one. "

I did not attack you in any sort of a way. I made note of the fact that you were sometimes not for the separation of powers, which is what your post clearly said. I'm still not sure if you really don't understand what your post was saying.

"And, given that you missed the main point of my response to your kneejerk attack, you must be either stupid or a troll. "

There was no attack, no knee-jerk. Calling names is against the rules.

"Either way, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, so get out of my virtual face."

I absolutely do know what I am talking about. If you do not wish to have anyone disagree with you I suggest you try a different sort of format where you can screen all responses. Perhaps a Livejournal account would work. Obviously open message boards are not what you are looking for.

[porphyrian]

33. I'm not nice.

I never said that I did not believe in the separation of powers, and you are obviously completely ignorant of my positions to think that or to infer it from what I said, which was simply that punishing Reid and Pelosi in a way that puts us into a worse position than we're in with them in place would be stupid and without foresight. I didn't say they shouldn't be punished or that candidates shouldn't say they'd take steps to remove them. Your comprehension problems are your problems, not mine.

I know the rules, you pissed me off, I broke them anyway. Again, you have comprehension problems if you don't think your attack was knee-jerk.

I'm right where I belong, and I don't need your advice.

[Marrah_G]

37. I agree with your subject line and even much of your first sentence

"If Edwards or Dodd or anybody got up and campaigned on a promise to punish Reid and Pelosi political for aiding the Bush administration, how would you react?"

You responded that it depended on who was replacing them. I took this to mean you would agree with it under some circumstances (or rather "sometimes"). If you disagreed with it completely and thought that separation of the powers was necessary always then it would not matter who they would be replaced with.

Do you see were I am going with this? Do you understand why I responded the way I did? There was no attack, no knee jerk reaction. You have turned this into some bizarre flamefest. There was no reason for the insults and general nastiness. Perhaps this is one of those internet things where one person means a post one way and someone else reads it another.

Anyway, that is my last post on the topic. It's Friday and I am in no mood to argue any more.

[truebrit71]

17. Send him even MORE money....I am sick and f*cking tired of the enablers in congress...

..they're a bunch of gutless cowards...

[Evoman]

19. Remove REID PELOSI from power?!!!!!!

What the hell is a Reid Pelosi?! Did they somehow genetically combine two supplicanting individuals to create a monster of epic mediocrity?

On the bright side, if we put them together, we might be able to cobble together a piece of vertebra.

[bryant69]

28. Sorry meant to put in a "/" but didn't. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

21. First...what right does a president tell congress who to choose

the House and the Senate choose their own. It is not the president who should do so....congress might be wrong, as far as we are concerned in their choice, but it is a democratic process, they vote and the winner gets the job. So the president, no matter who it might be should butt her/his ass out.

[Enrique]

25. if they did that, they'd be pandering

I hate pandering.

[zorahopkins]

26. You Do Mean A Democratic President Candidate I Hope

You do mean a Democratic Presidential candidate, I hope.

If one of the republican wannabees promised to remove Reid or Pelosi from power, I would react very negatively.

But if one of the Democratic Presidential candidates were to promise to try to, well, I'd have to think about it.

[L. Coyote]

27. I would question their sanity. Presidents need to allow Congress democracy.

It is up to Congress to choose their leader. Any candidate trying to interfere would be seen as idiotic.

[Occam Bandage]

29. I wouldn't vote for such an authoritarian megalomaniac.

[LynneSin]

30. How would you feel if any candidate promised Sunshine & Daisy with a snap of their fingers

This makes no sense - the president has no say over who the leaders are in Congress.

[blondeatlast]

31. And (insert your favorite divinity or none of the above here) help us if they do.

This president had to cheat, conspire, connive, cajole, lie, and strike fear in the citizenry to get Congress to do his bidding. At least he had to do a little "hard work."

[wildbilln864]

34. This is bullshit!

DK has and is trying to remove Cheney and no one's backing him hardly. He hardly get's any notice!

[Clintonista2]

38. Very negatively. I'm happy with the concept of a separation of powers, thanks.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Very negatively

any candidate who said such a thing clearly wouldn't understand the constitutional separation of powers, and would be a megalomaniac to boot.

[Marr]

40. I would cheer.

I hear alot of talk about how the Democratic Party is a coalition, how it has to have room for lots of types of democrats, including so-called "moderates". That's fine-- I'm all for having these moderates in on the boat. But they shouldn't be steering the damn thing.