Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
Again, what has the Democratic congress accomplished other than going after this administration for firing attorneys...
|
Did you miss this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dcdux
I'll repeat them again - minimum wage legislation, rollbacks of tax breaks and subisdies to big oil companies and replacing it with new tax breaks for renewable energy sources, restoration of the Freedom of Information Act, restoration of habeas corpus and the rule of law regarding prisoner treatment, Congressional ethics reform, Medicare prescription drug reform (to require price negotiation by pharmaceutical companies), a new stem cell research bill, homeland security measures (enhanced rail and chemical/nuclear facility security, first responder communications interoperability), and just this week, a bi-partisan bill to make immediate improvements in the treatment of wounded vets returning from Iraq.
|
Look, they've been there for 2 months. That's not enough time to finish everything they want to. Things don't happen instantly like they do on TV.
Quote:
|
Pelosi already said impeachment is not on the table, when Bush has committed worse than impeachable offenses.
|
And that was a pretty smart move. I'll tell you why. Pelosi knows that even if they started impeachment proceedings the day they took office, there's no way they'd be able to get it done by the time Bush has to leave anyway. No. Way. Go look at the Nixon impeachment proceedings if you don't believe me. It took forever to get all the legal stonewalling taken care of before they could finally start on the actual impeachment. I recommend reading The Final Days by Woodward and Bernstein if you want to learn about all the bullshit tricks a president can pull to delay impeachment.
So maybe, if we're VERY lucky, they'll start the actual impeachment hearings a few months before his term is up. At that point Bush will pull a Nixon - he'll resign, get pardoned by Cheney, and that'll be that. He might even get creative and pardon everyone else just before he resigns.
Meanwhile the republicans will use the fact that the democrats tried to impeach him to try and show that the democrats are a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth loonies who just want to snipe at the party in power. Comments about Republicans doing exactly the same thing will fall on deaf ears because today's republicans are a lot better than the democrats at, frankly, lying and bullshitting their way into getting people to take their side.
SO, what's the end result of this great impeachment plan that you propose? We don't get Bush at all. We don't get any of the other architects of evil in his administration. We hurt ourselves politically, and we waste one holy HELL of a lot of money in our futile attempt to kick Bush out.
Yes, he should absolutely be impeached, but it had to start long before the democrats took office for there to be a chance in hell of pulling it off without it coming back to (admittedly, unfairly) bite the democrats.
Quote:
|
They are the comprimised, weak, do nothing party.
|
Spoken like one who gets his news from Limbaugh and O'Reilly. They've done quite a bit. Read what dcdux wrote again. See, this is the kind of crap I KNEW would happen when the democrats delivered their "thumpin" last election. People are used to seeing stories come to a happy ending in 30 minutes on TV, and because they can't seem to separate fiction from reality, they dimly expect the same thing to happen in real life. I KNEW that people would expect the democrats to eliminate the deficit and debt, stop the war, free Iraq, secure Israel, fix healthcare, and all sorts of other fixes to what Bush has screwed up. But instead of sitting back and thinking "ya know, it took bush SIX YEARS to get us to this point in this mess, maybe, just MAYBE it'll take a small majority of democrats in congress a little time to fix it all."
But no, the democrats haven't managed to save the world in 2 months, and therefore they're automatically the do nothing party. Let's get rid of 'em, which of course means the neocons masquerading as republicans will be back in office in 2 years and we can start screwing up the country further, but at least something's happening *fast* and *right now* right?
Quote:
|
I come to my original question pre-election question, why vote for Democrats over Independents or Libertarians?
|
Because there's a chance that democrats can win. That's not true of the independents and libertarians. I prefer to cast my vote where it can do some good. Anything that gets these morons out of Washington is doing good. Plus, the independents and libertarians and the other fringe parties aren't exactly coming up with stellar candidates themselves. Perot? Total nutcase. Nader? Used to be one hell of a guy, now slightly nuts and there's no way he's gonna win. Who would you suggest we vote for? Jesse Ventura? That went over real well when he was governor in Minnesota didn't it?