Thursday, November 09, 2006

Working together?

Story: "We both extended the hand of friendship, of partnership to solve the problems facing our country."
She was accompanied by Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House's second-ranking Democrat. Bush was accompanied by a stony-faced Vice President Dick Cheney
."


Story: "Rep. Nancy Pelosi plans to sideline colleagues who are hawkish on national security in the Democratic leadership in the House.

Democratic Party sources said as House Speaker, Ms. Pelosi plans to block moves that would place hawks into important chairmanships. The sources said a key casualty would be Rep. Jane Harman, a six-term member of Congress who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic Party leadership said. "If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next session.""

Yeah. Thats how we work together to save the country. Try to stop the war on terror.

14 comments:

mg said...

just the same way Bush intends to push Bolton and Gates nomination through a lame duck congress...

just the way washington works, my boy...

Anonymous said...

Dems gonna push their liberal bills and Bush's gonna use his veto pen. Yah, lame duck's right.

Palm boy said...

Ok,lets look at the issue.
Why shouldn't John Bolton be approved?

On the other hand, why should the war be stopped?

Mercy, I'm afraid Bush won't use the veto. Ever. The first 2 years were the same as they are now, but he still let massive spending through.

mg said...

because he's divisive, he's NEVER been confirmed, he has no support by the Senate, including many Republicans and the only reason he got the position to begin with was through a recess appointment.

Detective J said...

My dad is a firefighter and has talked to dozens of liberal men who have gone to Iraq. They all feel the war on terror is stopping another terrorist attack from happening.

mg said...

"liberal men" - not quite sure what exactly you mean by that term.

they believe that because that's what they're being told by the President, Rumsfeld and the Sec. of Defense.

Palm boy said...

Mg,
Why, exactly, is Bolton desisive?

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Mercy, I'm afraid Bush won't use the veto. Ever. The first 2 years were the same as they are now, but he still let massive spending through. " --Palm Boy

I don't think I agree with you, Palm Boy. Your statistics are true, but I don't think it's logical to naturally assume that Bush isn't going to do any vetoing. Sure, he might let frivolous spending through, but the following list of things (which Democrats might try to do) won't fly--in all likelihood, anyways (in other words, I'm not making any guarantees)--with Bush's veto pen around and no chance at a two-thirds majority:
1. Raise taxes
2. Cut tax cuts
3. Revoke the Patriot Act
4. Pull out of or set a specific timetable to get out of Iraq
5. End terrorist surveillance
6. Close Gitmo
7. Stop aggressive interrogations
8. Anything liberal on the topic of homosexuality
9. Anything liberal on abortion
10. etc.

mg said...

One of many articles containing interviews with former coworkrs of John Bolton....using Google, you can find many many more...

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong word here...
But what's wrong with being decisive?

Kingdom Advancer said...

the earth can be moved:

I think the word mg is meaning is DIVISIVE. (Like someone who divides/polarizes, or something). I'm not saying I agree with mg, or even that I think being divisive is necessarily a bad thing, but I just wanted to clarify the argument.

Palm boy said...

Got it. Thanks Earthy and KA.

Ok, Bush's veto.
Things he hasn't vetoed that he should have:
1. Health care
2. Farm bill
3. Highway bill
4. Education(although this is debateable)

Just the same, I do believe your right about his steadfastness in the War on terror, which aside from immigration, is the biggest threat we face.

The Angel of Death said...

Being Divisive would merely mean that the democrats as a whole, specifically Nancy Pelosi, would have a stumbling block in their way to total control of the Democracy that runs this Nation. Democracy needs a good balance of power. The Right should not have total control, but neither should the Left. Balance will keep radicals from destroying the country that they govern.

As for the policy on the war in Iraq, many democrats are now saying that they have no better plan to leave Iraq than do the Republicans. The main question is, 1. do the Americans pull out of Iraq and risk the mass civil unrest and potential radicalist leaders taking control that would be sure to come as a result, (Ex. the Russians when they left the Middle East,) or 2. Do the Americans stay, wait till Iraq has settled and stabilized before pulling out. Either way it contains significant risk to not only the military but also to the American public that may be targeted by new terrorist organizations that would be the result of a massive withdrawl.

Either way, the situation is bleak and has no real alternatives.

John Bolton would merely be a check to Nancy Pelosi, and if she can not stand up to the scrutiny, then maybe she should be looked at even more. Perhaps the pressure would reveal what she really wants to do with the House of Representatives?

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

Ah...
My bad,
I had the wrong word.