Why Won't Nancy Pelosi Just Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way?
Maybe she's not getting enough???
Because she's obviously sleeping with the enemy.
What kind of a leader would toss Pete Stark under the Bush bus?
Pete Stark, in a rare rant of speaking truth to power last week, gave Bush the lie. All of what was said was the unvarnished and long overdue truth.
And yet Democrat-In-Name-Only (DINO) Nancy publicly rebuked Stark and then allowed a motion of censure to come to the House floor. In part the motion said,
But all of this is Nancy's fault. She disgusts me. I am shucking my membership in the Democraptic party tomorrow. Furthermore, all my political contributions this year and next will go to Cindy Sheehan who can certainly unseat this DINO bitch.
Because she's obviously sleeping with the enemy.What kind of a leader would toss Pete Stark under the Bush bus?
Pete Stark, in a rare rant of speaking truth to power last week, gave Bush the lie. All of what was said was the unvarnished and long overdue truth.
And yet Democrat-In-Name-Only (DINO) Nancy publicly rebuked Stark and then allowed a motion of censure to come to the House floor. In part the motion said,
Mr. Stark, by his despicable conduct, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House and merits the censure of the House for the same. Resolved, that the member from California, Mr. Stark, is hereby so censured.The censure motion failed 196-173 (with five Democrats supporting it). After the vote, Stark came to the podium to offer certainly the most contrite, sniveling and pathetic apology ever heard in Congress:
I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president. his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve.Stark is assured the insignificance he thinks he desires. A gloating Fox News report said that,
After his mea culpa, Stark walked off the floor to the Democratic side of the chamber and for at least five minutes stood sobbing while fellow Democrats gathered around him.Entirely believable, based on the clip I saw. I will neither post it or link it because it's too grotesque, profane and obscene for my reader(s). It can be found on all reich-wing sites. They love it!
But all of this is Nancy's fault. She disgusts me. I am shucking my membership in the Democraptic party tomorrow. Furthermore, all my political contributions this year and next will go to Cindy Sheehan who can certainly unseat this DINO bitch.
posted by Vigilante at 10/23/2007 10:13:00 PM
27 Moderated Comments:
Ah -- the scent of masculine power...
I wish Vigil would quit beating around the Bush and tell us how he really feels.
Peter Stark the Dunce claimed George Bush sent young men into battle to be killed for his enjoyment.
If sending men into battle to be killed is for enjoyment who of the following had the greater enjoyment.
approximately
Franklin Roosevelt,(D) WW2, 408,000 killed
Harry S Truman, (D) Korean War, 54,246 killed
John F. Kennedy, (D) Vietnam war, 58,219 killed
George Bush (R) Desert Storm 363 Killed
George W. Bush (R) Iraq War 4,000 killed
I guess democrats have more fun
I admire Pete Stark, maybe for his outspoken opinions more than anything else, but he stepped over the line here. Only a complete fool would say the American deaths in Iraq are for the amusement of the president. Pete was wise to apologize (rare for Pete!) and I applaud him for that.
Yeah go ahead and vote for Cindy Sheehan. The Republicans will love you for it. Cindy hasn't a chance in hell of winning but she may pick up enough leftest loonies to split the vote and give Pelosi's seat, maybe the majority of Congress, back to the fucking Republicans. Sort of deja vu all over again when the Nader voting numbskulls in Florida gave us 8 years of George Bush!
Point well taken, Harvey. I was too steamed last night to read the fine print from the link I provided. Cindy says she is running unaffiliated with any political party. Nancy deserves a challenge in the Democratic primary, but America does not deserve any more Republican congressmen than we can possibly avoid. I could not support a 3rd party challenge.
At the risk of repeating myself, Wflt's and Harvey's comments are in line with other complaints I have encountered in my outreach efforts to reich-wing blogs. The complaint has been that Stark was out of line saying Bush was blowing the heads off our troops for his amusement. Well, nit-picking can only take you so far. Let's just say Bush was joking about not finding any WMD's while our troops were getting their heads blown off.
Thanks Vigilante, for pointing to Bush's war amusements in front of his elite supporters. For a right winger to conflate WW2 with this war is another symptom of their denial. They wish this was WW2, they wish we could fight terrorism with an army in Iraq and the Truman way. They are so deeply in denial it hurts our country and especially our soldiers. Thinking of George and his jokes, I'm about to post about how I'm beginning to notice how the rich and powerful (left or right) are having a huge hand in destroying our culture, intellectual heritage, and politics. This is all inspired by Joel Klein's appearance on Bill Maher the other night.
Well done, Lady in Pink!
The word is that Stark was told that if he didn't apologize, the censure vote would go through.
Boris, While I was messing around trying to learn to use the computer again after my fall, I saw your "interests." I just love it!
wflt, so Pete Stark, overcome by the foibles and failures of this president, got carried away. I'm not sure about what amuses Bush, but I am sure that this war is being carried on to satisfy his personal mania to think of himself and want to be thought of as a hero and savior. After all, how many times have we heard him refer to his job description by saying that it is his job to keep the American people safe. And in order to do that, he has had to create the enemies needed to keep us safe. That's the one thing I grant that he has succeeded at superbly.
Oh, I forgot, the Republicans have referred to anti-war Democrats as traitors more times than I can count, even in Congress.
Vigilante, Serious and thoughtful people do occasionally disagree with you. I am one of them.
Stark is an idiot and has been for years. This isn't his first foray into stupidity and it won't be his last.
That doesn't mean that the village idiots don't occasionally "tell truth to power." In the 15th, 16th, 17th century European kingdoms that was often the role of the court jester (or village idiot). They could say things that diplomats could not.
Still, I'll give Nancy Pelosi more than the benefit of a doubt on this one. She was doing her damnest to get s-chip back on track. Stark was an unwanted distraction from the real issue of the day (not an unusual position for Stark to be in).
Call me a "reich-winger" if you want, but Nancy Pelosi is trying to preserve the Democrat majority for the upcoming Clinton Presidency. Why hand the Republicans an easy target??
Hmm, interesting comment from the Wizard. I wrote to Nancy and asked her to condemn the guilty ones as much as she did Pete Stark--and to stop our violent occupation.
I believe I understand where harvey and Wizard are coming from by staying on the high road and not sinking to the Rovian character assassination level that the Repub depend upon to campaign. But with the approval rating of congress below that of the Glorious Ferret maybe it is time to make a real stand and call a spade a spade.
Um...speaking of Rovian character assassination, I'm not on Pelosi's side but "maybe she isn't getting enough"??? Sexist much you think?
Wizard, I can't go along with your implication that Pete Stark is a village idiot in the House of Representatives. He certainly is not a stand-out in that department. I note in passing for instance, that Stark voted against the original H J RES 114 authorizing Bush's invasion. In my book, that certainly means there are 296 Members of Congress more idiotic than he.
But let's acknowledge that what Pete Stark uncovered, in his unvarnished way, was the wounded elephant sprawled on the floors of both congressional chambers: every time someone on the GOP side argues that there is not enough money for children's medical care or health care reform in general - just to take two examples - nothing is said of the fact that we are pointlessly burning up $9.7 billion in Iraq per month. (compared with $7.4 billion a month in 2006 and $6.5 billion in 2005). Nothing was said, that is, until Pete Stark went on his rant.
Nancy Pelosi obviously cares less about removing this wounded elephant than about S-CHIP? Yes, as you say,
Stark was an unwanted distraction from the real issue of the day.
Wizard, (God loves you, and so do I) but business-as-usual is not the real issue of the day - not these days. Pete Stark is not the problem; those who successfully squelched him are. That includes Pelosi Inc, the GOP, and you, my friend.
BTW, as I went to bed last night, on C-SPAN I caught a bit of the House Budget Committee's hearing from a couple of panels on the costs of the Iraq occupation. It was pointedly asked (and not answered) as to why there was only one GOP Representative (Ryan) in attendance. No one had an answer. I do. Obviously, the GOP is hiding from the 'real issue of the day'.
To quote Stephen Colbert, "and so can you", Wizard.
Pete Stark's hyperbole stems from frustration born of seeing the Democratic leadership cave-in to the Bush Reich again and again and again. Were I a Californian, I would vote for Cindy in a Democratic primary, but for Pelosi in a three-way race with a Retaliban. Pelosi was an excellent minority leader, and was well suited for that role, but for majority leader, we need a Henry Waxman type.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm not sure he ever apologized for the remark:
"I apologize for this reason: I think we have serious issues before us, the issue of providing medical care to children, the issue about what we're going to do about a war that we're divided about how to end,..."
I think the remark was right on target and stands up to scrutiny.
"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
Bush is clearly ignoring domestic priorities as he spends more and more money sending more and more kids off to die, for a war/occupation that is completely illegitimate.
He went to war for oil and is using the kids of this country as playthings in his fanciful little global war on terror.
That's bad.
Nancy Pelosi has gone down the tube with Feinstein. It's time for some real change in California.
"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief."
People are dying so that George W. Bush can convey a tough guy image.
Truly sick.
I think it's worse than pride, people are dying so that Bush and his friends can make millions of dollars.
I think we have to kick out the greedy, the complicit, the weak compromisers. Any Republican will be as vulnerable or more so than Pelosi. Cindy Sheehan has my vote. I think we need a people's movement and I think people are ready for it. Maybe we need The People's Party.
Pinks, 3rd party/Naderite foolishness is how the Weimar Republicans got into office in 2000. Remember? I may de-register as a Democrat tomorrow if there's a voter-registration guy there at the demonstration for my convenience. Maybe if others do the same, it might send a miniscule message. Maybe not.
But I would never support 3rd-party candidacy. If Progressives can't take over the Democraptic party, they can't win crap as a 3rd party.
In response to WFLT (above):
Independent (London Oct 24) published that the current funding bill before Congress,
if . . . passed . . would put the total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and other counter-terrorism operations at $807bn since 2001. And it is estimated that the total cost of US military operations in Iraq could exceed $1trillion by the time Mr Bush leaves office in 2009. Such figures need some context.
A study by Washington's non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments calculated last month that, in today's terms, the first Gulf War cost $88bn, the Korean War $456bn and the Vietnam conflict $518bn. Iraq is on course to cost twice as much as Vietnam.
What has been gained for this financial outlay? Not much. Iraq is a state on the brink of implosion. The Middle East region is in turmoil. The threat posed to the West by Islamist terror groups has been heightened. The international reputation of the US and Britain has been gravely compromised.
Republicans may be having fun, but we won't, paying for it.
Does anyone notice how much Nancy Bellowsi looks like Laura Shrub? Yes, she's somewhat worked on SCHIP, but not as hard as Sen. Boxer.
I may disagree with her vote on the MoveOn ad censure, but she should have been chosen as Speaker of the House, rather than Bellowsi. I still admire her for standing up with Feingold on censuring Bush. Only five senators had the grit to do so.
Yeah Stella! Bellerosi looks so much like Shrubette that she was able to jump into the Lincoln room and wait for the Decider who never notices details and nuances.
Wha??? Who could have been chosen Speaker instead of Pelosi? Laura B? Russ F? Barbara B? I don't follow? Have I lost it?
Post a Comment
<< Home