Our government is so utterly fucked up that it was only by accident that we even discovered that Bush's surveillance had been ruled illegal! So, your beloved Nancy Pelosi responded by making his crimes NOT-CRIMES. Yes, she did, Joseph.No, she did not.
This is hardly the only such comment I've received, although I've elected not to publish the others. I feel confirmed in my suspicion that misogyny plays a role in such conclusion-hopping.
Nancy Pelosi did not vote for that bill. She opposed it. She said that the measure "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."
The official list of who voted for the bill is available for all to see. Notice that it skips from Poe to Pomeroy.
I can hear some of you sputtering: "Yeah, well, she still should've done something!"
Done what? Why blame her when direct blame rests with 41 Democrats from conservative districts?
The Fuehrer principle comes naturally to conservatives; Republicans instinctively think in terms of the equation "Leader = Daddy." If anything goes right, praise Daddy; if anything goes wrong, blame Daddy. But Democrats should know better. They should know that politics is a complex business, and one individual does not decide everything.
Here are Dems who deserve your boos and hisses -- and who do not deserve your campaign contributions:
Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia)
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois)
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma)
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida)
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania)
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky)
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee)
Jim Costa (20th California)
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama)
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee)
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana)
Don Edwards (16th California)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana)
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota)
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana)
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas)
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia)
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah)
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana)
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota)
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas)
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas)
John Salazar (3rd Colorado)
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina)
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio)
John Tanner (8th Tennessee)
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi)
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio)
Turning our attention to the other side of the big domed building, I am outraged, but not entirely surprised, by Diane Feinstein, the California senator who supported this atrocious thing. That lady is far more conservative than most non-Californians realize. Boxer is the good senator.
In the meantime, we have to pause to consider why some conclusion-hoppers have immediately decided to blame Nancy Pelosi for something she did not do. What is the psychology at work here?
13 comments:
Nancy Pelosi has written a letter to John Conyers asking him to amend the FISA bill: http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=661
The Dem leadership found it necessary to make it impossible for the Dem bill (such as it was) to pass by requiring a 2/3 majority, while the Bush get-out-of-jail-free bill only required a simple majority. On top of that, the Senate adjourned at midnight Friday night, making it as plain as day they expected the House to pass Bushs' bill, as they had just done. Why? Because if the House passed a different version than the Senate, the House and Senate would have to get together and hammer out the differences in the two Bills and then send them back to both chambers for another vote before sending it on the the WH. The fix was in. Pelosi and others didn't have to vote for it, therefore saving face, because of the rules SHE was responsible for.
Joe,
I checked the role calls in the Senate and the House before I allowed myself an opinion. Yes, Pelosi voted no and so did all presidential candidates and most Democratic leaders.
And yes, Republicans would not have allowed this if the situation was reversed. But here is the point I want to argue.
Your argument has been that Democrats need to keep their eyes on the ball (win in 2008) and not get side tracked by inside fighting. That Pelosi can not publicly endorse impeachment of Bush(since she would come across as wanting to be President) until there are enough votes and public support for impeachment. People that agree with you (at large) have argued that the first step toward impeachment of Bush is to go after Gonzales, since that process would uncover and expose the crimes of Bush and Cheney and his removal would bring some integrity back to the DOJ. Giving Gonzales oversight over wiretapping American Hadley fits in with that maneuver.
Also, if putting petty arguments aside for the sake of unity in the Democratic party(and among the voters) is essential to winning in 2008, how can division among Democratic representatives specially over this important subject fit in with the unity scenario?
If you are conceding that Pelosi or Reid etc. do not have the ability to unite their colleagues, how can you ask us to be united behind them? The most important mark of a good leader is the ability to unite and inspire(specially given the fact the yea Sayers were mostly newly elected democrats and not the rank and file).
If you praise Democrats for not acting like sheep that blindly follow the boss, then how can you expect us to not question our leaders and their strategies in a time when our very freedoms and Constitution and Republic hangs in the balance?
As for attacks on Pelosi, I grant you your point. She should not be the only one blamed for all that ails the Democratic party (even though as speaker she invited the burden). Hillary Clinton who according to the MSM is the front runner Candidate ought to have a bit more influence on her colleagues in the Senate. But there is plenty of blame left over for Reid and Obama and all the others with penises as well. I for one have nothing against women, I just don't cut them any slack just because they are women.
ps
Everyone knows that Feinstein is no liberal and her vote was also pivotal in confirming the nominee for the 5th circuit court of appeals as well on top of her disgraceful vote on this issue. The fact that she is a woman does not let her off the hook on either case, nor does it add to the shame she ought to feel.
J Cannon-
Been reading for a long time, been wondering why you seem so willing to defend Pelosi.
My view is our Dem party is a lost cause, no balls, backbone, fight, or clue.
If we had half of the Rep willingness on our side, Rove, Meirs and Gonzales would all be in a jail cell via the congressional sergeant at arms.
I am convinced, more than ever, that the Dem party is running out the clock, intending to do nothing because they smell a victory in the 2008 election.
Bad news. Dems may win, but we will lose. The reason is all this horror of the last 8 years will be allowed to solidify and in 20 years Rep hacks will point to the things this administration got away with to justify future actions. How often do you hear X and Y precident as set in the Nixon administration? I hear it all the time. This will be our future, when our short memories allow this monsters administration to be repeated.
Bush is worse than Nixon, and the trend will continue, we will have someone worse than Bush in about 3-4 election cycles. The reason? The Democrats dont have the courage to stand up to what is right, they would rather indulge in self interest and try and win the next election.
Please stop defending Pelosi. She is not doing what needs to be done, neither is the senate.
Oh, and to boot, they get to go and relax now, who cares if the Rep party makes recess appointments.
Priorities, priorities.
anon, why are you here? Go elsewhere. I think my readership stats could stand to be halved.
(Heh heh. How many bloggers say shit like THAT?)
Joseph, if you want to quote me, go ahead and give me attribution. Even when I am furious, I take responsibility for my words. In this case, I see no reason to retract them.
As far as I'm concerned, Pelosi's credibility as Speaker has expired. If after seven months on the job she has so failed at schmoozing or strong-arming her party members that this awful bill (arrogantly demanded by such a dreadful and unpopular President)could be passed, then she isn't fit to be Speaker.
Pelosi could have taken to the bully pulpit like Sheila Jackson Lee. She could have threatened to resign her position as Speaker. She could have promised favors, twisted arms, offered re-election cash. The Speaker of the House is arguably the second most powerful person in the Federal government.
And back to the impeachment-is-off-the-table defense you continue to tout: as I said before, let Pelosi announce in a press conference that she is seeking articles of impeachment, but is taking herself out of the line of succession. Now THAT would be a profile in courage. For God's sake, this is not about Nancy, it is about the survival of our Republic.
And don't get me started on Harry Reid, because I am convinced he is being blackmailed by Rove. He's worse than Pelosi, physical balls notwithstanding.
But to lighten things up, I did see a bumper sticker today that said:
If you can read this, you're not the President.
Today I had the opportunity to talk briefly with Senator Schumer face to face. There was a street fair on Columbus Avenue in Manhattan. Not only did I not know Schumer would be there, I didn't even know about the street fair, I just came upon it while walking with my family. I was very depressed about the vote and all of a sudden my wife says, "Here's your chance to talk to Schumer." He was very approachable, obviously wanted to meet constituents. He was not surrounded by crowds or anybody else, I just waited quietly while he spoke to two other people, then he turned to me. I shook his hand and thanked him for not voting for "that FISA thing." He made a face and said "that was bad." I said, "What the hell was that about?" The following is as close as I can remember to the conversation.
Schumer: They don't care about democracy. And some of my colleagues have no guts. But there's one good -- at least a little good thing-- not even a good thing, but something -- in it.
Me: What?
Schumer: It sunsets in six months. We won't let them get our backs to the wall next time. We won't let it happen again.
Me: I hope not.
I also posted this at the Booman Tribune.
Great story, pri. Senator Schumer said all that need be said.
And uni...what can I say to you? "Me no get ice cream! Me blame Mommy and Daddy! BAD Mommy! BAD Daddy!"
As for Pelosi, her response seems to echo Schumer's:
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002567347.html
this from Buzz at Buzzflash. Soon Cannon you will be left standing with the Swastika swaggering crowd cheering some megalomanic (messianic) father figure and simultaneously soiling yourself with enthusiasm.
Buzzflash below
Democratic Leadership is Letting the Republicans Sovietize America. Weep for This Tyrannical Tragedy, as the Weak Democrats Play the Role of the Pro-Democracy Party in the Weimar Republic, Who Gave up the Power of the State to....Well, You Know Who.
O by the bye Cannon, here is the smoking frigging letter as proog of Pelosis arm twisting of her collegues that you need for some peculiar reason to see the light.
August 4, 2007
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Silvestre Reyes
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Conyers and Chairman Reyes:
Thank you for your leadership on matters affecting the security of the American people and the protection of the liberties that define our country.
I know that your committees have been working diligently on a proposal by the Administration to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I also understand that your work has been hindered by the Administration’s refusal to provide all of the documents you believe are relevant to your consideration of the proposal.
Tonight, the House passed S. 1927, a bill approved by the Senate yesterday, which is an interim response to the Administration’s request for changes in FISA, and which was sought to fill an intelligence gap which is asserted to exist. Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, and, although the bill has a six month sunset clause, I do not believe the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken.
Accordingly, I request that your committees send to the House, as soon as possible after Congress reconvenes, legislation which responds comprehensively to the Administration’s proposal while addressing the many deficiencies in S. 1927.
Thank you for your attention to this request and for your service to our country.
best regards,
Nancy Pelosi
under suspension of the rules (Pelosies gambit, if we ,(Democracy and Constitution lovers), make it trhough the summer, it will only be by the Grace of God, Cannon. It will have absolutely nothing to do with the Dummycrats, remember that)
this quote is from
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/
news110-000002567347.html
"Democrats in the House preferred their own legislation to fix an intelligence gap created by a hitch in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA — PL 95-511) and a recent court ruling. The Democrats’ bill, defeated by a vote of 218-207 the night of Aug. 3
under suspension of the rules,
which required a two-thirds vote for passage, would have clarified that FISA does not require warrants for surveillance of communications between foreigners — the main problem cited by Republicans and Bush administration officials and the one primarily caused by a recent court ruling."
Well, I get to be furious at both my Democratic Party Senator (Ken Salazar) and my Representative (John Salazar). Each of the brothers have been a tremendous disappointment to me time and time again. Both should have run as Republicans, because those are the only constituents they give a rat's ass about. Salazars are marginally better than Lieberman. THey vote with the Democrats when it does not take any courage to do so.
anon 8:07 (ALWAYS, these creeps are anonymous) could you possibly be MORE of an asshole? That letter proves precisely the opposite of what you think it means. She opposed the Bill and she does not want to wait even six months in order to change it.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002567347.html
Do you actually read this stuff? Or do you just skim it -- see it dimly through a fog of anger?
Post a Comment