Morning Matt

Remember this ballot measure from last year?

"On the ballot last Tuesday in San Francisco was Proposition J calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It passed with more than 59 percent of the vote. In neighboring Berkeley, a similar measure passed with nearly 70 percent of the vote."

This is Speaker Pelosi's stompin grounds and as you can see, it is overwhelmingly leftist kooks that would rather spend their time seeking vengeance rather than becoming a united front on the war on terrorism.

It's articles such as these that are simple indicators of her/their mindset and unless these fanatics are exposed for who they are, we Conservatives will most likely fail in our quest for a terrorist free planet...or almost terrorist free at least.

Here is her response to the measure:
"Though Pelosi said she didn't want a Democratic-controlled House to take up impeachment of Bush, she did not take a public position on the local measure and no reporter pushed her on how she voted in her hometown election on the issue."

No comment typically means "I either agree or disagree", so which is it? If she doesn't agree, then why not just say so, but she won't.

Considering her constituency is primarily leftist who don't want this war...period, it's apparent that she'll look in every nook and cranny to find a way to please that constituency, starting with cutting off funds for the war.

I predict that this new Concressional leadership will have one heck of a time showing their faces in their districts once they're forced to support the funding of the war...especially by Cindy Sheehan...man she's got a big nose.

She was on Sean Hannity's show last nite and made a total fool of herself...what a kook. She simply cannot stay on topic.

pretty bad sounds like reaching matt. out of 482 dem legislators, you may have a stray voice here and there - but that hardly, HARDLY comprises some kind of prescient doom for pelosi. and let's be honest - biden is just fighting for relevancy in the pelosi era and needs to sound-off a contrarian position (and i would argue how truly contrarian their positions really are) to ensure his voice is still loud enough to be heard in the echo chamber.

and hoyer? what did he say:

But Pelosi's second-in-command in the House Democratic leadership, Steny Hoyer, told Fox News he doesn't "want to anticipate" that possibility.

how is that distancing? did you stop to consider that he may just be hoping to AVOID having to get to that point of confrontation with the executive branch in the first place in favor of a more amicable, NEGOTIATED approach?

my god - you rightwingers are always looking in terrific vain for any evidence of fractures in the dem leadership. you make no mention of trent lott's statement, nor the statements of other GOP legislators who have come out against bush's escalation plan (chuck hagel, arlen spector...)

Why does Nancy Pelosi always look psychotic when she smiles?

This is Speaker Pelosi's stompin grounds and as you can see, it is overwhelmingly leftist kooks that would rather spend their time seeking vengeance rather than becoming a united front on the war on terrorism.

i'll tell you one thing navydad, when it comes to spending billions and billions of dollars in iraq versus pumping that money nack into our own economy (another billion for job-creation in iraq???) why don't you go out and survey the american people and see how they feel about pissing away all of their hard-earned money in a country already deep in civil war. i have no doubt you'll readily find that these "leftist kooks" are in the GREAT majority. it is you sir who represent the sniveling sub-20 percent who still cling to the daddy bush agenda of nation-building and free-spending without accountability.

it is a new era THANK GOD - accountability is here!!

Con

Could you provide a link to the sites that quote these Republican's statements.

I'd like to research their positions.

"GOP legislators who have come out against bush's escalation plan (chuck hagel, arlen spector...)"

Thanks

"it is you sir"

Thanks for calling me "sir"

Umm..who voted to fund this war? Who voted to authorize the use of force? Don't even make me name them all or you'll be very, very embarrassed. All the backpeddlers did, including Pelosi and as soon as the war started to go south she and her kook pals leapt at the chance to bash Bush.

Sorry to poop in your punch bowl, but the "leftist kook" is NOT a majority in this country...try something other than a liberal talking point and then post those links I requested.

i tried to post the source but it looks like matt has surreptitiously blocked me all of a sudden so as to create the impression that i cannot come up with the links..

creative - i have to say.

not sure what happened but just as easy navydad - just google GOP, oppose, surge (you don't even need to include "oppose")

Con....riiiggghhhttt!!!!

Great conspiracy theory, kook.
Better go back to the Daily Hogs...son.

If you plan on playing with the big boys, you'd better come with a game!

sigh - here we go:

"It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposal. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

Hagel and Spector might as well join Jeffords and Kookspinach as "The Appeasement Team" and we'll take Lieberman and Zell Miller as an even exchange.

It's a three for two, but we're pretty sure that we'd get the better deal.

apparently my comments with links go direct to comment review (even though i'm signed in to typekey). in any event, anyone with two fingers can google and see NOVAK's article with hagel's statement in my prior comment. there are a litany of articles with plenty of comments. if you can't find them, you've not discovered the tool they call GOOGLE. check it out. denial and name-calling does not a constructive response make.

That's your citation? Your evidence that Pelosi has divided her party?
A rural Pennsylvania TV station's report based on what a couple of Democrats said on the Sunday talk shows?
Meanwhile you seem to be unaware that (and navydad claims to not know a thing about) some very senior Republicans are not going to support the escalation in Iraq and are speaking out publicly about it.
That's really beyond pathetic.

Ok, how about the clearly defined position of Joe Lieberman, you know, your past VP nominee, to support the surge? Or is he no longer a member of the Democrat party in your eyes.

It's evident that dissent and dissuade are not clearly defined in the left's vocabulary and if they are, they have their own definitions for each.

At least when we have dissenters on our side, they don't need to worry about being thrown under the bus upon dissent. Although if it were up to me, I'd simply move them to your side, because I cannot stand a weak spine.

Have you ever heard the term "Hung out to dry"? Well, your illustrious Speaker would do anything she can to "Hang out to dry" your's and my friends and relatives serving in this war. I have nine to be exact, including my youngest son, although he left the Navy after nine year last July.

Make no mistake, your party would love for nothing more than to retreat and then blame Bush for the mess, however, the aftermath would become insurmountable....guaranteed.

Remember Afghanistan after the Soviet Union pulled out? The Taliban in 1994 seized Kandahar and from that point until we kicked their asses a few years back were emboldened to rule the country as did Saddam.

Remember Iran in 1979? The Iranian's have been completely emboldened into thinking that we'll simply cave to their demands.

Remember what happened after we pulled out of Viet Nam? How many millions were killed by the North and on and on and on.....

"Nancy Pelosi, the new House speaker, and other Democrats stopped short of saying they would block funding but yesterday made clear that the administration would have to work hard in committee hearings to justify more spending."

My/our concern is that if we don't assmble a plan for victory, whatever that may be, and BTW re-deployment IS retreat, o matter how it's twisted, then you and your party better be prepared for the consequences.

Are you prepared or have you thought that far down the road?

My guess is that most of you libs only think of the here and now.

I'm still waiting for the Dems real plan, you know, the one they campaigned on?

Where is it?

These are tough questions, so take your time.

Unless I'm mistaken in my research, and I will stand corrected if proven so, the senior Republicans have not yet confirmed their "non-support" positions. It has been either "might not" or "maybe".

The DBM seems to be able to twist "might not" and "maybe" as "not" and "will".

Dad,
Sen. Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. He is an independent who ran against and beat the Democratic nominee for the position of Conneticut's junior senator. He does caucus with the Democrats in order to keep his committee assignments. Recall that Republican-turned-independent Jim Jeffords also caucussed with the Democrats, as does socialist Bernie Sanders.
But hey, the Democratic tent has never been a one-size-fits-all deal.
As for swapping -- you're welcome to Zell Miller (lol), I doubt that Lieberman's going anywhere soon (he likes to chair the Homeland Security Committee).
As for Hagel and Specter, I personally have a lot of respect for Hagel and, at least, some for Specter -- but I don't think either of them would be comfortable as Democrats (that's right, not supporting the Iraq occupation doesn't make you a liberal -- or a terrorist), though Specter might qualify as a Democrat in conservative (but blue)Pennsylvania.

Sal

Who do ya think you're fooling with these rhetorical statements?

Caucus with the Dems..lord help me! Please, for the sake of discussion, call a spade a spade and don't beat up or around the bush..no pun intended, and at least use some numbers or docs to support your assertions.

If you'll recall, the Dem tent wasn't a "one size fit's all" tent when granting Prsident Bush the authority to go to war either. In fact, if I recall, the Dem party OVERWHELMINGLY supported the decision.

As far as who supports the war. According to the latest CBS poll just five days ago, which should be favorable to your side since they're the DBM:
Support Oppose Un-decided
Republicans 51% 42% 7%
Democrats 6% 91% 3%
Independents 18% 77% 5%

Now, let's see if these numbers jive with the way congress voted to give the authority to go to war to our President, shall we.

Senate 77-23 passed 29 Dems voted for
House 296-133 This passing is greater than the vote for the first Gulf war!

Hmmm...looks as though we may have a bit of a problem here. It appears that back then in 2002, you know, when it was popular to kill bad guys, your side was pretty much favorable to going to Iraq and now that it's not popular, the cowards have abandoned ship.

Here's what CNN had to say about it then:

Headline:
"Resolution sharply divides Democrats.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Quite the retreaters those Dems are and have you noticed how the majority of Republicans have "Stayed the course" to victory, without some wavering sense of deafeatism.

Sorry but the numbers just don't lie.

Daddy-o,
What the heck are you calling an "assertion?"
The Democrats now control the Senate by one vote because the two "indpendents" (that's Lieberman and Sanders for those of you who are apparently clueless) have chosen to caucus with the Senate Democrats -- if you need a citation for that you need more help than I can provide.
As for how some Democrats voted four years ago -- they were divided then because they didn't know yet what this president was all about -- guess what?
They learned, and now are nearly universal in their condemnation of the White House's failed policy.
Also, the authorization to use force was not a declaration of war -- at the time it was seen by many as not tying Bush's hands in the matter. I personally never supported the authorization or the phoney-balogna excuses for this mad adventure -- but then I didn't have a parade of cherry-picked intelligence being waved in my face three days a week.

Oh look, here's one of those Republican disidents now - from the AP: "Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee who had just returned from Iraq, lambasted Bush's war leadership as lacking 'a clarity of mission.'
She spoke at a news conference against sending more Americans, saying the U.S. should be focused only on hunting for al-Qaida terrorists and ensuring Iraq does not become a source of regional instability.
Looks like more and more are leaving the reservation.
"We're talking about goals in lofty terms that are not vital American national interests," she said.

Salvelinus

Neither did I! I supported this war on terrorism and based my support on fact. Fact that was waved in front of my face by my friends that have performed countless hours of investigative research and review of intel reports that also support this action. Unlike you guys that only know by what you've seen or heard on the Daily Show, or from the mono-browed Keith Doberman.

One of my long time friends was the plant manager at the Rocky Flats Plant, another at Inel, another at Savannah River ( all highly credible and respectible people) and when we invaded Iraq the first time, I was still with the DOE, building the dreaded nuke that you pups hate so much, you know, the one that has prevented others from attacking us with nukes.

I saw the exact same intel then that I saw this time and only because it was never proven that the WMD's had been completely destroyed, did I, like a lot of others believe your friend and pal Saddam was in possession of WMD's. I'll bet you believed it to until the deal went south, so you decided to jump on board the Bash Bush Bandwagon with the other kooks....gimme a break!

You've asserted that Lieberman is an Inde...what are you talking about? He may have changed to an Inde, but his constituency was 100% Dem. That is my assertion.

BTW, if Senator Johnson isn't able to return to office, (and we all hope he can) the Gov. of that state "can" appoint a Republican to the position and then your mighty party would not control the Senate, in fact we'd most likely see some pretty major gridlock. Hmmm....Senator Johnson, please get better!!!

BTW, I kinda like that Daddy-:O thing.

Dad,
Sen. Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. He is an independent who ran against and beat the Democratic nominee for the position of Conneticut's junior senator.

Please, he's a lifelong DemocRAT who lost in the primary to anti-war Nod Lament, then registerd as an Independent, and kicked Lament's butt in the general election. And it's "Connecticut," if I recall my spelling correctly.

...especially by Cindy Sheehan...man she's got a big nose.

navydad, this sounds a lot like that fella who comments on Obama-sama's big ears. Oh, wait--that's me. Anyway, good observation; you'd think with all that money she's pulling in from the hate-America lobby, that she'd get that nose fixed, and maybe throw some money Obama's way so's he could get an ear reduction...

Bama

This was Salv's quote from 01:40 PM.

I had the same response that you did! Anyone that thinks different is whacked.

"Sen. Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. He is an independent who ran against and beat the Democratic nominee for the position of Conneticut's junior senator."

Speaking of "the nose"

She was on Sean Hannity's America last nite (taped airing) and all she could do was retaliate with cliches. What a loser! Did she lose her mind the same day her son was killed?

We need to compare people like her, Bill S., GM and some of these other kooks as totally brainwashed morons that can't speak for themselves.

Of course, they'll come back and say we're Bush's sheep...but who would want to possibly go down in flames like they think GW will? NO ONE would and after listening to Gen. Jack Keane last nite on Cspan, I truly believe that the surge IS the correct path to victory...man this guy's sharp!

He laid out the failures and successes and when he put it all together, if GW doesn't listen to this guys, then I'll lose all faith in him....but I think he will.