Okay, for those keeping score...

[Yonivore]

1) Nancy Pelosi gets smacked down on her attempted Murtha appointment;

2) Pelosi is severely hindered in her proclomation that the incoming Congress will be the most ethical in history by the fact that many of her Democratic colleagues are crooks and she's having to go three deep on the bench to find committee chairs.

3) Pelosi gets privately smacked down for even considering Alcee Hastings for a chair.

4) Freshman Senator Webb accepts an invitation to the White House and proceeds to be a boorish prick.

And, the coup de grace;

5) They haven't even taken office and they're going back on promises made to get elected...

Who Remembers this?

Democrat Press Conference - September 5, 2006 (http://wpherald.com/articles/1182/1/Democrats-say-US-more-dangerous-since-911/Ouster-of-Rumsfeld-demanded.html):


At a press conference yesterday, Democrats said the administration should use more diplomacy and fully implement the recommendations by the September 11 commission.

Remember how they claimed this failure was causing America to be less safe (http://www.allamericapac.com/node/439)?


Bayh remarked on how the Bush Administration’s failure to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission has weakened our nations national security…

Remember their promise that if they got into power, they’d fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations?

Nancy Pelosi - June 13, 2006 (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67432):


“Republicans’ misplaced priorities mean America is not as safe it should be. Democrats have a new direction for the American people — one that will fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and make the security of the American people a top priority.”

Harry Reid - October 9, 2006 (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2006/oct/09/566615247.html):


Reid said if Democrats take power, they would work to redeploy troops off the battlefields. Renew efforts to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Fully implement the 9-11 Commission’s recommendations. Rebuild the military, which some estimates show needs a $75 billion investment to bring it back up to pre war levels of readiness.

Guess what? They were lying. Shocker, I know. But look what they’re doing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html) in the post-election world:


Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation’s intelligence agencies. …aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the “first 100 hours” of the Democratic Congress.

Ok, so Democrats promised to fully implement the recommendations pre-election and have decided to not fully implement post-election… it’s not that big of a deal, right?

Or is it? Look at what the 9/11 Commission members think about the part the Democrats have decided to ignore:


…the commission was unequivocal about the need.

“Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important,” the panel wrote. “So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.”
…
“We think this is extremely crucial,” [former New Jersey governor and the commission’s co-chairman, Thomas H.] Kean said…

Come on, these are Democrats… did you actually believe them in the first place?

[clambake]

no

[ChumpDumper]

No. Too bad the Republicans were so inept and out of touch that these doofuses beat the shit out of them.

[xrayzebra]

No. Too bad the Republicans were so inept and out of touch that these doofuses beat the shit out of them.

And the biggest dummie of them all, in your estimation, beat you twice.
Mr. Bush!

[clambake]

Maybe Pelosi is someone that recognizes a mistake and steps away before making it.

That kind of calculation would have been useful in the oval office.

[ChumpDumper]

And the biggest dummie of them all, in your estimation, beat you twice.
Mr. Bush!Yes, turd sandwich indeed beat giant douche two years ago. And then he lost congress for all the other Republicans even though giant douche tried to help.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, she is a real smart gal. She makes such great decisions. Why I'll just bet
she makes all the decisions on which wetbacks to hire at her winery and hotels.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure she has managers for that.

[clambake]

You been hittin the sauce Ray?

[xrayzebra]

You been hittin the sauce Ray?

Why you need a drink?

[boutons_]

No matter what losing "score" picayune PussyEater comes up with for the Dems, it will never be as bad the the "score" the Repug losers have run up in the last 6 years.

[sandman]

No matter what losing "score" picayune PussyEater comes up with for the Dems, it will never be as bad the the "score" the Repug losers have run up in the last 6 years.

In all fairness, this statement can't be validated for another six years.

[Yonivore]

No. Too bad the Republicans were so inept and out of touch that these doofuses beat the shit out of them.
Flipping 26 Congressional Districts and 6 Senate seats isn't exactly beating the "shit" out of anyone.

Now, for today's stupidity:

In an effort to show just how obtuse she is, Pelosi announced that "the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion [al Qaeda was involved in the Iraqi insurgency] a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again."

Now Pelosi made that statement on November 28th; a mere 18 days after the November 10th claim, by al Qaeda, that they had 12,000 fighters working in Iraq.

That's two and one-half weeks. Eighteen days is enough time for even the idiot Pelosi to absorb the fact that Al Qaeda released a video tape claiming that they had 12,000 fighters working in Iraq. Al Qaeda brags of the number of fighters it has mobilized to battle American troops in Iraq, and Pelosi says she is sad that the president is saying that Al Qaeda has fighters in Iraq.

We should all feel sad that this stupid woman is going to be the new Speaker of the House.

Had a Republican leader been this confused, the media would have pounced. But since it was Pelosi, they didn't.

Oh no, to the contrary, NBC's David Gregory, who takes obnoxious exception to Bush administration comments at the drop of a hat, passed along Pelosi's claim as if it were true, and went on to suggest that Bush's rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House. It seems implausible that even the Dems would decline to work with the White House on the grounds that it mentions terrorism by al Qaeda -- imagine if the Republicans had refused to work with Pres. Roosevelt because he mentioned fascism -- but perhaps just this once Gregory knows something we don't.

There's more to this story than Pelosi's ignorance and Gregory's bias. Whatever was the case in Saddam Hussein's time, no serious and informed person denies that al Qaeda is present in Iraq now, and prominent in certain areas. And the Dems have said repeatedly that a primary task in the war on terror, from which we should not be diverted by "the wrong war," is fighting al Qaeda. Under these circumstances, shouldn't we fight al Qaeda in the portions of Iraq where it is prominent, rather than leaving these areas and handing the terrorists a victory?

That's a question that Nancy Pelosi would rather not be asked, and that's probably why she felt "sad" that the president brought up the subject of al Qaeda.

[clambake]

Damn Yoni, you might want to get some sutures for that wound.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why do I have the feeling that I if wanted to bother researching from 1994 to 2006 what the GOP promised to do and did not I bet I could find a few. But of course Yoni seems to think it's only democrats who say things to get eleceted and then never do anything about all of those 'promises'.. sort of like reforming Social Security, Securing the borders... etc..being a uniter, bringing civility back to Washington...

[George Gervin's Afro]

And the biggest dummie of them all, in your estimation, beat you twice.
Mr. Bush!


no ray it the 'dummies' who voted him into office (look in the mirror)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Flipping 26 Congressional Districts and 6 Senate seats isn't exactly beating the "shit" out of anyone.

Now, for today's stupidity:

In an effort to show just how obtuse she is, Pelosi announced that "the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion [al Qaeda was involved in the Iraqi insurgency] a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again."

Now Pelosi made that statement on November 28th; a mere 18 days after the November 10th claim, by al Qaeda, that they had 12,000 fighters working in Iraq.

That's two and one-half weeks. Eighteen days is enough time for even the idiot Pelosi to absorb the fact that Al Qaeda released a video tape claiming that they had 12,000 fighters working in Iraq. Al Qaeda brags of the number of fighters it has mobilized to battle American troops in Iraq, and Pelosi says she is sad that the president is saying that Al Qaeda has fighters in Iraq.

We should all feel sad that this stupid woman is going to be the new Speaker of the House.

Had a Republican leader been this confused, the media would have pounced. But since it was Pelosi, they didn't.

Oh no, to the contrary, NBC's David Gregory, who takes obnoxious exception to Bush administration comments at the drop of a hat, passed along Pelosi's claim as if it were true, and went on to suggest that Bush's rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House. It seems implausible that even the Dems would decline to work with the White House on the grounds that it mentions terrorism by al Qaeda -- imagine if the Republicans had refused to work with Pres. Roosevelt because he mentioned fascism -- but perhaps just this once Gregory knows something we don't.

There's more to this story than Pelosi's ignorance and Gregory's bias. Whatever was the case in Saddam Hussein's time, no serious and informed person denies that al Qaeda is present in Iraq now, and prominent in certain areas. And the Dems have said repeatedly that a primary task in the war on terror, from which we should not be diverted by "the wrong war," is fighting al Qaeda. Under these circumstances, shouldn't we fight al Qaeda in the portions of Iraq where it is prominent, rather than leaving these areas and handing the terrorists a victory?

That's a question that Nancy Pelosi would rather not be asked, and that's probably why she felt "sad" that the president brought up the subject of al Qaeda.


Yoni it amazing that you only scour consevrtaive sites looking for Dem 'lies' when there are jsut as many who document the GOP's 'lies' and you completely ignore them... Yes your right I am accusing you of being a hypocrite..

Yoni now believes the terrorists? They also have been saying they are winning and you in complete and predictablke fashion tell all of us that we are winning.. how do you decide which terrorist soundbites to believe? Let me guess the only one's that you can use aganst the dems.. why do you hate America and side/believe the terrorists?

[Yonivore]

Yoni it amazing that you only scour consevrtaive sites looking for Dem 'lies' when there are jsut as many who document the GOP's 'lies' and you completely ignore them... Yes your right I am accusing you of being a hypocrite..
Give me some links to Republican lie webpages. I'll give 'em a look.


Yoni now believes the terrorists? They also have been saying they are winning and you in complete and predictablke fashion tell all of us that we are winning.. how do you decide which terrorist soundbites to believe? Let me guess the only one's that you can use aganst the dems.. why do you hate America and side/believe the terrorists?
Okay, so you agree with Pelosi? There are no al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Give me some links to Republican lie webpages. I'll give 'em a look.


Okay, so you agree with Pelosi? There are no al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq?


Do I think there are elements of Al Qaida in Iraq? I don't know but you don't know for sure either. The proper question shoulde be if they are in fact in Iraq fighting..were they there before we invaded Iraq?

[boutons_]

Pelosi (or previously Hastert) are trivial side-shows (like Sheehan and MMoore), but YV keeps trying to detract from the main event, which is the WH losing Iraq.

[Yonivore]

Do I think there are elements of Al Qaida in Iraq? I don't know but you don't know for sure either. The proper question shoulde be if they are in fact in Iraq fighting..were they there before we invaded Iraq?
Well, the answer to both is yes, there are elements of al Qaeda in Iraq right now, and yes, they were there before we invaded. Zarqawi fled to Iraq when we invaded Afghanistan...which, by the way, was before we invaded Iraq.

Bone up on your history buddy.

[sandman]

Why do I have the feeling that I if wanted to bother researching from 1994 to 2006 what the GOP promised to do and did not I bet I could find a few. But of course Yoni seems to think it's only democrats who say things to get eleceted and then never do anything about all of those 'promises'.. sort of like reforming Social Security, Securing the borders... etc..being a uniter, bringing civility back to Washington...

I have no doubt that you could easily obtain that information. The Dems are simply doing now what the Reps did back then. It still amazes me how voters waffle between parties based on empty promises that they will not do what the previous group did, then turn around and do it. This cyclical behavior by politicians will live in perpetuity.

IMO though, I think this time around the Dems took advantage of the personal issues of Reps and the struggles in the WH to proclaim the dawning of a new day. All elections tweak this angle, but to me it seems like they hit it fairly harder than normal this year.

[Yonivore]

I have no doubt that you could easily obtain that information.
And, as for the specific items mentioned by GGA;

Social Security reform: Obstructed by Democrats.

Securing the borders: Obstructed by Democrats.

The president's attempts to bring unity to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.

The president's attempts to bring civility to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.

By breaking the promise of fully implementing the 9/11 commission's recommendations before they've even taken office they certainly can't claim Republican obstructionism, can they?


The Dems are simply doing now what the Reps did back then. It still amazes me how voters waffle between parties based on empty promises that they will not do what the previous group did, then turn around and do it. This cyclical behavior by politicians will live in perpetuity.

IMO though, I think this time around the Dems took advantage of the personal issues of Reps and the struggles in the WH to proclaim the dawning of a new day. All elections tweak this angle, but to me it seems like they hit it fairly harder than normal this year.[/QUOTE]

[clambake]

So you squandered away the last 6 years?

Bush says "bring'em on"........ It's on baby.

Bush calls Syria and Iran the axis of evil............... now he wants to sleep with them.

Bush fires Rummy and runs to daddy for help.

You do support this action, right Yoni?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Social Security reform: Obstructed by Democrats.

Securing the borders: Obstructed by Democrats.

The president's attempts to bring unity to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.

So I guess you wanted the democrats to rumber stamp Bush's agenda. Is it possible that they had some plausible disagreements with what was proposed? If you accept that then couldn't the President have negotiated or met them in the middle? No of course not he would rather have played the 'Rovian' brand of politics and govern as though the country wasn't a 50/50 spilt.. Bush tried to force his hard right agenda to the rest of the country..a country that is split right down the middle..Of course this would demolish your "Bush tried to bring untiy' crap argument. Predictably if the dems had given in you would be right back here talking about how dems lack principles for rubber stamping Bush's agenda... So when the Dem controlled Congress tries to pass it's agenda and Bush vetos prtions of it would that make him an obstructionist? What about of the GOP stuck together and blocked the dem agenda would they be obstructionist? My guess would be your argument would consist of " The GOP is standing on 'principle' for doing the SAME thing the Dems did for the past 4 yrs..

[clambake]

Secure borders, social security, homes for the homeless, eyes for the blind, ears for the deaf................why even bring this up Yoni?

He can never makeup for what he's done.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Guys, let Yoni have his fun; it's been a rough few months him. Denial is a stage of grief, and Yoni, bless his heart, is dealing best way he can.

[sandman]

And, as for the specific items mentioned by GGA;

Social Security reform: Obstructed by Democrats.

Securing the borders: Obstructed by Democrats.

The president's attempts to bring unity to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.

The president's attempts to bring civility to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.

By breaking the promise of fully implementing the 9/11 commission's recommendations before they've even taken office they certainly can't claim Republican obstructionism, can they?


The Dems are simply doing now what the Reps did back then. It still amazes me how voters waffle between parties based on empty promises that they will not do what the previous group did, then turn around and do it. This cyclical behavior by politicians will live in perpetuity.

IMO though, I think this time around the Dems took advantage of the personal issues of Reps and the struggles in the WH to proclaim the dawning of a new day. All elections tweak this angle, but to me it seems like they hit it fairly harder than normal this year.[/QUOTE]

My point was that neither party holds a patent on failed election trail promises. It seems that with all of our rhetoric as voters regarding choosing the lesser of the two evils, the politicians have realized that getting elected is really only about not being as bad/evil/stupid/unethical as your opposition.

I have a good friend here in town that is a lawyer who is heavily involved in the RNP. His wife is a lawyer also who was once on staff with a Rep Senator, and every election he is part of the RNP legal team that deals with election day legal issues. Basically, I would consider him a Rep homer, to state the obvious, but when even he makes comments that our party let us down this last election, that carries some weight with me.

I don't want my party to simply be less bad than the opposition. I want them to be able to be elected on their own merits, not on the lack of qualifications in the opponents. They didn't do that this time around, and we as party members should demand that loud and clear to our parties leaders.

Not saying that I don't have a ton of issues with the Dems, and that they need to get their house in order in a bad way as well, but it is hard to cast stones at this current time. Of course, that never has stopped some Dem supporters, but I am trying to hold myself to a higher standard as well.

Politicians are like children. They will not do what you expect, they will only do what you inspect.

[Yonivore]

I just think it's telling that Democrats are breaking promises before they even have an opportunity (or an excuse) to break them.

It's like saying, Fuck you voter, Sucker!

[sandman]

I just think it's telling that Democrats are breaking promises before they even have an opportunity (or an excuse) to break them.

It's like saying, Fuck you voter, Sucker!

Don't disagree with you on this one. And they shouldn't get a free pass simply because "the Repugs have been doing that for the last 6 years".

Man up, grow a pair, and show the country that you are not exactly like the bad people that you replaced.

[clambake]

I can't get over how you want us to fail...............wait a minute, where have I heared that?

Second verse, slightly different from the first.

I guess noone wants unity.

[clambake]

good spelling huh?

[sandman]

good spelling huh?

I was going to ask who noone was and if the had a blog

[johnsmith]

I've heared of noone.

[Crookshanks]

I don't want my party to simply be less bad than the opposition. I want them to be able to be elected on their own merits, not on the lack of qualifications in the opponents.

That is probably the most intelligent thing I've read on this forum in a long time! That pretty much sums up the past election!

[George Gervin's Afro]

That is probably the most intelligent thing I've read on this forum in a long time! That pretty much sums up the past election!


cough... Dems want us to lose in Iraq..cough..cough... we will be less safer if the dems win..cough,cough..

Oh and how do you know that your roght with that guess? Couldn't just as easily I say that America was tired of rubber stamp congress and was dissatisfied with the direction of the country under a GOP majotiy?

[sandman]

cough... Dems want us to lose in Iraq..cough..cough... we will be less safer if the dems win..cough,cough..


You make my point. My party was attempting to maintain the status quo by making voters scared of what the Dems would do, not because of the merit of their own accomplishments.

And the Dems were attempting to gain majority based on that lack of accomplishment, not because they necessarily had a better plan.

I am the lesser of two evils - the campaign slogan for '08

[clambake]

The whole thing is tragic. This country has erased it's integrity.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You make my point. My party was attempting to maintain the status quo by making voters scared of what the Dems would do, not because of the merit of their own accomplishments.

And the Dems were attempting to gain majority based on that lack of accomplishment, not because they necessarily had a better plan.

I am the lesser of two evils - the campaign slogan for '08



I agree I agree I agree

[ChumpDumper]

The president's attempts to bring unity to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.

The president's attempts to bring civility to the capitol: Obstructed by Democrats.:lmao :lmao :lmao

You can't expect us to take anything you say seriously after dropping that pantload.

[johnsmith]

The whole thing is tragic. This country has erased it's integrity.


This honestly isn't meant to start a Dems did this and repubs did this type of a debate, but I personally think our integrity was lost when our President had a blow job in the oval office and then somehow convinced us all that it really wasn't a big deal.

Or all those proxy wars we started during the cold war, that was an integrity killer too.

Or maybe the Nixon thing.

This list could probably go on for a while.

[clambake]

If Bush got a blowjob in the oval office, I wouldn't give one rat shit about it. BFD.

[ChumpDumper]

If Bush got a blowjob in the oval office, I wouldn't give one rat shit about it. BFD.Might help, actually.

[johnsmith]

Might help, actually.


:lol :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, grammar is important isn't it?

It might help.

[sandman]

If Bush got a blowjob in the oval office, I wouldn't give one rat shit about it. BFD.

Is the issue with Clinton the gratification of choice (blowjob), ruining a good cigar, or the choice of consenting partner (Monica)? Frankly the last two seem much more heineous than the first! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Hey if you're pushing 60 and can't go out in public without an entourage, you make do.

[sandman]

It was widely rumored that JFK kept a couple of "secretaries" on staff to help with stress management. I'm sure that there are bawdy stories from the Oval Office from over the decades that will never make the light of day.

[ChumpDumper]

Plenty of the stories have, the big difference is other politicians and the press didn't make such an issue of it as they do today.