What is, What could have been.

My most simple diary to date, posted on WoW because of SD's blessing.

What is.


Democrats cave to Bush.

Democrats fail to live up to promises.

Gonzalez keeps position.

What could have been.


Democrats stand strong against the Bush Occupation.

Democrats keep promise, tie hands of lobbyists in Washington.

Gonzalez forced to resign by strong pressure from Democrats.

Which Democratic Party would you rather give money to?

Which Democratic Party would you rather make phone calls for?

Which Democratic Party would you rather knock on doors for?

I'm finding candidates this year that I trust. Candidates that aren't afraid to say the right thing, even if it isn't politically expedient. Candidates that stand up for what they believe in, no matter the cost.


As kos wrote today...

We face a multiple-front war -- against conservatives, against an out-of-touch and corrupt beltway consultant class, against corporatist Democrats, or Democrats that long ago lost the fire in their belly, and against a compromised punditry elite. Those are tough opponents, and it'll be a decades-long fight.

Did any of you really think we won that war in 2006? I sure as heck didn't. 2006 was incremental improvement, just as 2008 will be. And hopefully 2010. Along the way, we'll likely lose some ground, but we must always remain focused on the long term.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

I tell you......For some reason, I saw the bottom graphic first

I got excited. I thought AG was really stepping down and we were really pushing for troop withdrawal. I knew I'd been out of touch with all this house stuff, so I really thought this happened without my being aware it could happen.

Damn...then reality sunk in.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Powerful Graphic

I love the graphic.

If only we were part of an organized party. I was originally for the dropping of the "deadlines" for "benchmarks", but then I learned today that the "benchmarks" were essentially toothless (Bush can waive if he chooses!).

That being said, let us remember that it is the incompetence of the administration that is causing all of these problems. Congress's role is limited and the whole process works better with a competent administration working for the best interest of the country.

the good & the bad

Democrats could get away with sending the same bill back to Bush if they were, at the same time, making real lobbying reform. They could take down Gonzales if at the same time they were making real lobbying reform. They need to stand up for EVERYTHING good, so that when they stand up for something it won't look like grandstanding.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

Would be nice

I would be nice if the bill doesn't include all the domestic spending in it. I hate it when either side pulls that crap. Why can't a war funding bill just be a war funding bill without throwing in minimum wage and other stuff? Politics as usual I guess...

Its not an Iraq bill

It is an emergency spending bill. The "pork" within it is things that would normally be in a spending bill.

If Bush had asked for this funding when he knew he needed it instead of not putting it in the budget, allowing him to make it look like he was balancing the budget, then none of this would be occurring.

Bush has funded this entire war through nothing other than emergency bills and deficit spending. You want a bill without extra funding? Send him a calculator.

Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue

"Keep the Faith"

I agree with both of you.

the pork in this supplemental bill is bull. Bush funding a 4 year war through "Emergency Supplementals" is even MORE bull. It's a recurring item.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

I agree

war funding should have been in the budget. I just get pissed when either side lumps in pork on something else(in this case a de facto "Iraq Bill"). If that other stuff is important, put it in another bill and put it to a vote. Bush wouldn't have had the "pork excuse" if they had not put it in before.

Dems batting 1000

Iraq, ethics ...

Took a pass on civil liberty - habeas.

Kept the powder dry on economic liberty - fair trade (with a splash of arrogance apparently).

These guys are 4 for 4 on my top 6 list and all within the past month. Maybe I'll get lucky and they won't take up health care or environment anytime soon.

Hope these links work. I didn't feel comfortable with them.

Updated: to attempt a fix on links.
Updated 2nd attempt - if this doesn't work, I am slinking away w/ my embarassed self. Durn amateurs.



As Peter Griffith would say

Holy Crap! And that is an intentional jab at Goodling. I wonder how you square lying with your uber-Christian "ethics". I know, it's a little of topic.

For the Dems, I'm torn.. On one hand, shut Bush down, give him nothing. On the other, it's hard enough herdin' cats, but congress critters? At least they are trying to move forward. That's the thing about inertia, brains, er, bodies at rest and all.

Pork or no pork in the supplemental...

The President would not have signed it......He is determined to be King.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Please splain why

she needed immunity if she had nothing to do with it...someone....

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

Progressive Discussions

Because She KNEW What She Was Doing

was illegal.

And you can see her lying again here.

Ms. Goodling: I don’t believe I intended to commit a crime.

Mr. Scott: Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those political considerations into account? You have civil service laws, you have obstruction of justice, any laws that you could have broken by taking political consideration into account, "on some occasions."

Ms. Goodling: The best that I can say is that I took political considerations into account on some occasions.

Mr. Scott: Was that legal?

Ms. Goodling: Sir, I’m not able to answer that question. I know I crossed the line.

Mr. Scott: What line? Legal?

Ms. Goodling: I crossed the line of the civil service rules.

Mr. Scott: Rules? Laws? You crossed the law on civil service laws. You crossed the line on civil service laws. Is that right?

Ms. Goodling: I believe I crossed the law—lines. But I didn’t mean to.

Freudian slip, Monica? You're an attorney and you don't know if it's legal to ask those sorts of questions?

Uh huh. If that's the case, you ought to be asking Regent University for a freakin' refund.