When Will Democrats Break With Bush?

In light of the news that President Bush authorized a top Administration aide to use previously classified information as part of an orchestrated political attack on a prominent critic of the Administration, a radio host asked me over the weekend: "What will it take to get Republicans to break with Bush? How bad will things have to get before they realize that he's a disaster for the country?"

I answered that, in small but significant ways, Republicans have been breaking with Bush for some time now. When the President travels to states around the country to pump up support for his war, he often does so without the accompaniment of GOP members of Congress who find that they are otherwise engaged on the days that the Commander in Chief drops by their hometowns. While most leading Republicans refuse to admit as much publicly, they are putting more and more distance between themselves and a President whose approval rating has dropped to Nixon-in-Watergate depths.

When Congress voted recently on whether to extend the Patriot Act, some of the loudest "no" votes came from conservative Republicans such as Don Young of Alaska and Butch Otter of Idaho, who argued with Democratic US Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin that the legislation was an assault on basic liberties and Constitutional standards. As but a handful of Senate Democrats and key House Democrats such as Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel were lining up with the Bush Administration to curtail civil liberties, Texas Republican Ron Paul, perhaps the most consistent critic of the Patriot Act in the House, complained that "one prominent Democrat opined on national television that 'most of the 170-page Patriot Act is fine,' but that it needs some fine tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party's proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties."

Perhaps even more significant than GOP opposition to the Patriot Act is the opposition from some of the most conservative Republicans in the House--including Paul, Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, and John Duncan of Tennessee--to the war in Iraq. These Republicans, among others, are now among the most ardent and articulate Congressional critics of the Administration's policies in the Middle East.

Last week, Paul, Jones and a moderate Republican, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, joined with three Democrats--Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, Ike Skelton of Missouri and Marty Meehan of Massachusetts-–in a push to get the House to hold a daylong debate on the war, declaring that: "Americans deserve an open and honest debate about the future of US policy in Iraq by their Representatives in Congress." While the debate demand of these Republicans stalwarts was stymied by their party leadership in the House, it is notable that House Republican leaders chose not to block a March 16 amendment by US Representative Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California, which put the House on record as opposing the construction of permanent US bases in Iraq. The decision not to fight Lee's amendment, which passed by an overwhelming voice vote, was a tacit acknowledgment by GOP leaders of the reality, pointed up in a recent University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll, that 60 percent of Republican voters oppose a permanent US presence in that country.

Indeed, while a predictable 80 percent of Democrats support moves to begin withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, according to the PIPA poll, a rather more remarkable 52 percent of Republicans now want Washington to begin bringing the troops home.

Although their President and Vice President and a few key Congressional leaders may still be clinging to neoconservative fantasies, Republicans who actually care about their country-–as well as Republicans who care about the political viability of their party at a time when a new Associated Press/Ipsos poll finds that Americans would prefer a Democrat-led House by the widest margin in recent history, 49 percent to 33 percent-–are indeed beginning to make meaningful breaks with Bush.

So the question of the moment is not "What will it take to get Republicans to break with Bush?" The question is: "What will it take to get Congressional Democrats to break with Bush?"

Despite mounting evidence not just of the President's unpopularity but of his reckless disregard for the law-–which was again confirmed by last week's news of former Cheney chief of staff I. "Scooter" Libby's testimony that Bush authorized distribution of previously classified data as part of a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had revealed that the "case" for going to war in Iraq was based on false premises-–most Congressional Democrats continue to resist calls to hold the President accountable.

An American Research Group poll conducted in March found that 70 percent of Democrats, 42 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans surveyed favor censuring Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders. Yet Feingold's motion to censure Bush has drawn just two Democratic co-sponsors in the Senate, Barbara Boxer of California and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

The same American Research Group poll found that 61 percent of Democrats, 47 percent of independents and 18 percent of Republicans are supportive of moves to impeach Bush. Yet Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has attracted just 33 co-sponsors for his resolution calling for the creation of "a select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before Congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." Most Democratic members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, have signed on. But House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and others in leadership positions remain aggressively critical of the initiative.

Where, at the very least, is the united Democratic support for Representative Maurice Hinchey's call for the expansion of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into White House leaks-–which produced the indictment of Libby and last week's revelation about the role of the President and Vice President-–to examine the motivations of all of those involved in the White House's political assault on Joe Wilson? Hinchey, a New York Democrat, has been on the case since last summer, when he got thirty-nine other House members to sign a letter he wrote to Fitzgerald calling for the expanded investigation. As Hinchey says, "Justice will not be served until all of these matters are fully addressed in the courts and in the Congress."

Hinchey's right. But the fundamental truth of American politics remains that justice will only be served when the opposition party moves, as a united force encouraged and supported by its leadership in the House and Senate, to demand accountability from this Administration. For most Democrats, that will demand something they have not yet been willing to make: a break from Bush. And Democrats had better be quick about making that break, unless they want their Republicans colleagues to beat them to the punch.

Comments (127)

1. The donks have been taking turns voting against some of the more appalling bills for months now, garnering figleafs they can take back home to prove they're Not-Quite-Republicans. Don't expect them to treat this issue any better than REAL ID, Yucca Mountain, etc.

   Lip service and empty gestures are the most you can expect from The Other Prowar Party - which The Nation will dutifully promote as decisions of great moral weight in it's flagging efforts to pimp the least lame of a rotten bunch of donkeys.

   Posted by AlanSmithee at 04/10/2006 @ 08:29am

2. Why are the dems sitting scared? Shrub and the NSA must have (illegally) dug up some dirt on these folks...that's the only reason I can fathom as to why it looks like they really are going to let the Rebublicans "beat them to the punch" as Mr. Nichols says. Never failing to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity indeed. How embarassing.

   Posted by Flarney at 04/10/2006 @ 08:49am

3. Huh? Is it me, or is there an odd contradiction in this piece? The sponsors of every one of the amendments, initiatives, etc. mentioned in the column is a Democrat. My guess is that there's not one Republican in Congress who'd have the guts to come up with similar pieces of legislation; that'd be seen as traitorous to the Republican Party. It's true that Democrats could be even on more aggressive as more of the President's hubristic lawlessness is revealed, but I also think it's prudent to proceed with caution. One of the biggest problems facing Democrats is the mainstream media, which even on its best days tends to bend toward conservative spin. Isn't that why so-called conscience-driven Republicans are the big story right now?

   Posted by kelvinw at 04/10/2006 @ 08:56am

4. I think when the W's job approval poll numbers hit the 20's, and that's not long in coming, that'll be the time dems won't be able to justify using the domestic spying, lying us to war, cowardly outing CIA cover to protect themseves and not our country, etc., as political bombs in November and use them as justification to pull repubs beyond their circle the wagons history on impeachment and censure of herr leader. At that point protecting the BC BS regime will be untenable. I beleive when more and more dems start disavowing their vote for the Iraq war as their biggest mistake, wishing to take back, that'll be the black hole with the gravitational pull paving the way for investigations that even the repubs can't resist.

   Posted by Bushfools at 04/10/2006 @ 09:00am

5. It's true that Democrats could be even on more aggressive as more of the President's hubristic lawlessness is revealed, but I also think it's prudent to proceed with caution. One of the biggest problems facing Democrats is the mainstream media...

   Posted by KELVINW 04/10/2006 @ 08:56am

   "Proceed with caution" is certainly an apt catch-phrase to describe Congressional Democrats over the last few years. It's as if they never got the memo that Bush is fair game after 9/11--a memo most received during the summer of '03.

   This is politics, right? "Caution" or prudence are fine things when the course is unknown, the sky is cloudy, the tides and currents colliding. But caution is the last thing that this country needs on issues concerning the war, a White House that not only lies and not only leaks but leaks lies, the shoving aside of new legislation like it's a plate of steamed tofu at an all-you-can-eat BBQ restaurant, the dishonest methods of "information gathering" used in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, or any of the illegal wiretaps, the willingness to spread nukes rather than limit them, the bankrupting of our country through poor fiscal, monetary, trade, and R&D policies, etc. etc.

   Democrats are, by and large, behaving no less selfishly than the Republicans, but I can at least understand the Republicans. At least they're becoming wealthy pigs as a result of their decisions. The Democrats seem happy with just being pigs, even if the trough is empty.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 09:23am

6. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/10/2006 @ 09:23am

   Awesome post.

   Posted by Flarney at 04/10/2006 @ 09:28am

7. Could it be that maybe those Democrats remember...oh, I don't know...history?

   They remember what happened THE LAST TIME an opposition party tried to "go after" a President, at the behest of their base who loathed him, only to see it blow up in their faces.

   Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 09:30am

8. I will never ever vote for a politician that isn't prepared to stand up for the rule of law and thus if no other senators other than the three that are currently on board with the Censure motion are not joined by either of my two Democratic Senators they will not have my vote ever again.

   If you can't put what's right ahead of what might or might not be expediant then you're not representing me. Period.

   Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 09:32am

9. My guess is that Republicans are not the only people getting wealthy under this adminiistration. If it's been true for some time that Democrats have been out of touch with their base constituencies, it's because most Congressmen are quite a bit more privileged than their constituents. The bottom line on "caution" and "prudence" is that Democrats need to make it safely to the midterms. Otherwise, party initiatives will continue to be hamstrung.

   Posted by kelvinw at 04/10/2006 @ 09:41am

10. a White House that not only lies and not only leaks but leaks lies,

    I like that

    Short, sweet... to the point

    kinda sums up the whole conservative double standard in a single sentence

    Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 09:43am

11. They remember what happened THE LAST TIME an opposition party tried to "go after" a President, at the behest of their base who loathed him, only to see it blow up in their faces.

    Posted by MASK 04/10/2006 @ 09:30am

    history eh?

    and shortly after they did this they took all three branches of govenment...

    and here we are

    Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 09:45am

12. There is an old saying "When you're in a hole, stop digging." But in politics when the opposition party is in a hole and continuing to dig, why do anything, other then stomp the ground around the hole once in a while. The Republicans are in self destruct at this point. If the Democrats speak at this time, the only thing they will do is give the Republicans something to attack. Some times the best attack is silence.

    Posted by The Dutch Man at 04/10/2006 @ 09:51am

13. Dutch,

    Ah yes, the politically expediant approach that is the ONLY sure way to lose my vote. The Democrats can do virtually anything and nothing and it will not affect my voting for them. But to sit by and watch a Constitutional crisis emerge and fester without raising a finger is absolutely not REPRESENTING me. Bye bye Democrats if you can't so much as support a censure motion.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 09:55am

14. Posted by WILL C. 04/10/2006 @ 09:45am | ignore this person

    They already had two of them, WILL....and the impeachment of Clinton drove down the Congressional Republicans' poll numbers, as well as drove UP Clinton's poll numbers in its wake.

    While it hurt Gore in 2000, unless Cheney gets the 2008 nomination (take a second to compose yourself, after THAT thought)...it won't really touch McCain, Allen, whoever....while the likely DEMOCRATIC nominee will come out of the Senate and have an impeachment move dogging them into the general election (with the tag "rabid partisan" from Right-wing Media).

    Even if Democrats win the majority in November, odds 10-1 they'll impeach Bush, and probably 3-1 they'll censure. All those moves would do would be energize the Republicans for 2008, and open the Democrats up to charges of "listening to the insane AND hypocritical Move On/George Soros/The Nation (hehe) Left" and not "trying to show they can actually GOVERN".

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 10:02am

15. Can you say GOVERNMENT ORCHSTRATED DIVERSIONARY TACTIC?

    You've got the Main Stream Media trumpeting the exact place and time of these demonstrations around the country.

    Have they EVER done this to inform those who might wish to participate in an ANTI-WAR protest?

    NEVER.

    Will they inform the public in the future as to the time and place to meet to protest the WAR?

    NOT A CHANCE.

    Your media is complicit with your government in a fraud against American CITIZENS.

    They are creating this immigration crisis...INTENTIONALLY.

    War? What War?

    Lies? What Lies?

    Crush labor, lower the working wage, win over the Latino vote and distract the masses from the imminent Nuking of Iran...setting up the justification to declare MARTIAL LAW just before the bombs start flying.

    Nicely done, Karl...you evil prick!

    Posted by plunger at 04/10/2006 @ 10:05am

16. Do what I just did....call and chastise your reps/senators....if enough express their indignation they eventually will get up off of their asses!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/10/2006 @ 10:24am

17. At the end of the day, for LoveLiberty and the many others here who have never understood the third party movement, and never will, it's about who wins this fall. But it isn't about who wins this fall, geniuses. It's about who's out in the streets now. The immigration struggle is only the loudest manifestation of what's coming. It's about a social force that can call tens of thousands out into the streets in mere days. It's about that force gaining some cohesion, and adding its various precepts together, reaching across borders, and smothering the reaction here at home in it's deathbed. That's happening right now. See it or fold. This is going forward with you or without you.

    Posted by redwingblack at 04/10/2006 @ 10:28am

18. LV Laugherty,

    Whoop de fuckin do! Wowweee one party gets to rule for several decades. Unfortunately, you idiot, the place that your party will rule over will not be called The United States of America. It is dying, my fellow American. The fabric of this country is its Constitution, the rule of law and its devotion to freedom and liberty. All of those are completely subservient to a fucockta "war on terror".

    About a month ago I asked if anyone was willing to have a serious discussion on disbanding the Union. Nobody was and I pledged not to bring it up again for another year. I wish I hadn't made that pledge.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 10:29am

19. now that he has become the contortionist-in-chief, the human Pretzeldent.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 10:32am

20. How can one love liberty and ,presumably, freedom and continue to support the president? Isn't that action oxymoronic? Or just moronic?

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 10:42am

21. 330,

    LV Laugherty doesn't care about about liberty or freedom, all he cares about is that his party beats the pants off the other party.

    America has become a raw chunk of filet mignon thrown between two rotweilers. While both parties tear it to shreds LV just wants the one with the red collar to get more of the steak than the dog with the blue collar.

    It's just pathetic.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 10:56am

22. LL, K330K, I'd say that the better question to ask is how can one love liberty and support unchecked one-party rule and unfettered executive powers?

    So much of the political discourse these days, particularly from the right wing, seems to strive for not just the marginalization of the opposition party but for the complete eradication of the opposition party, which is terrible for our country.

    Our little democratic experiment depends on a delicate tension between branches of government and between the majority and the minority. Many of the problems that have arisen over the past few years have been the result of more than just poor policy decisions -- they've been the result of an official interpretation of a two-percent edge in the popular vote as a broad mandate, a rubber-stamping congress and, not unimportantly, a feckless opposition.

    Each exists to hold the other in check. That's how the country works.

    Posted by breasonable at 04/10/2006 @ 11:02am

23. there's really no comparison with the clinton impeachment proceedings and this huge mess of scandals with bush. since they are drastically different situations, the outcome and consequences would be different too. these democrats need to grow a spine.

    Posted by loveloki at 04/10/2006 @ 11:07am

24. Quote from The Dutch Man post: There is an old saying "When you're in a hole, stop digging."

    Also: Never get between a man and his knife when he is trying to cut his own throat; you might get cut too.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 11:10am

25. Pelosi has GOT to go.

    Posted by ZERO 04/10/2006 @ 10:37am | ignore this person

    Sorry, ZERO....that's SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Pelosi to you!

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 11:15am

26. LL

    "I have freedom because we have not been attacked again since 9/11."

    Lack of evidence is evidence of nothing. You assume we would have been without the almighty Dubya? Well, you know what they say about assumptions!

    ...and how exactly did a tax cut increase your freedom levels? Are you saying that Dubya bought you with his tax cut idea? Gimme a dollar today and you can go ahead and spend a thousand tomorrow. How does that reconcile with your freedoms? But I guess as long as your grandchildren are paying for Dubya's folly, why the hell should you care, right?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/10/2006 @ 11:21am

27. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

    Posted by loveloki at 04/10/2006 @ 11:29am

28. How can one respect a liar? He says he will deal with leakers in his administartion but when we gind out who's doing the leaking nothng is said or done about it. He is a hypocrite. Plain and simple. Admiration, please. He claims to be a uniter yet the country is more divided than ever. He could have kept the damn tax cuts because the measly 300 dollars did nothing for me or for any body else I know. The cuts to the education programs for our children actually limited freedoms for many children to seek a higher education as well as many school-aged children from becoming involved in extra-curricular activities that would provide positive avenues for them. But that's okay, you are free from attacks that our DHS is ill-fitted to save of from, obviously. So, you go ahead with your delusions of freedom and my friends with children will continue to fight for their child's freedom to receive a decent education. Remeber No Child Left Behild.

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 11:32am

29. LOVELOKI, that's right Bush and his administration never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people. That is a classic Bush quote. What an idiot. Who's more stupid, Quayle or Bush?

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 11:35am

30. Mask,

    Pelosi has GOT to go.

    Posted by ZERO 04/10/2006 @ 10:37am | ignore this person

    Sorry, ZERO....that's SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Pelosi to you!

    Posted by MASK 04/10/2006 @ 11:15am

    Sometimes ZERO reminds me of people who can't see the forest for the trees. I believe that the forest-tree analogy was one of David Corn's points about Bob Woodward's embedded reporting on the Bush Administration.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 11:35am

31. k33ok, i guess bush slips up and tells the truth once in awhile.

    Posted by loveloki at 04/10/2006 @ 11:41am

32. Below is an excerpt from a CS Monitor article as to why the handle, "Leaker-in-Chief", hurts Bush:

    "Here's why this hurts: It reminds people again that the intelligence was bad and we're in Iraq without end for some of the wrong reasons, and that's at the heart of his 36 percent," says Larry Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, referring to Bush's job approval rating in recent polls.

    Leaker-in-Chief [csmonitor.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 11:42am

33. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 04/10/2006 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

    I wish you hadn't made that pledge, too - that seems like it would be a good discussion.

    Posted by LClaire at 04/10/2006 @ 11:58am

34. Taunts, jeers and sarcasm, that is the limit of your power. So, continue to fire away! This is not Europe or Latin America, your protest marches are not going to overthrow the country. If it wasn't so pathetic, your taunts would be laughable.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/10/2006 @ 10:37am | ignore this person

    The other day, he says we left-leaners are "dead to Christ" (cuz he loves to sanctimoniously speak for Christ). Today, he is laughing with monstrous hypocrisy at his fellow Americans who are unhappy with the current government and accordingly exercising their civic duty to dissent. Previously, he has waved off the deaths of thousands in Iraq becuase he just knows the innocent dead will be taken care of on the other side of earthly life. He still doesn't get that "no attacks since 9/11" is not because of imperialism and bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cannot be reached with humane or rational thought. He fails to see the contradiction of his own thought processes - he wrote a long list of grievances with Bush the other day, but today he continues to claim "[Bush] has done most of what the majority of voters elected him to do and we are mostly pleased". Death, lies, vanity - all okay with this "minister of God".

    Sick.

    Liberty - I no longer believe you are any kind of minister of God. I think you are a liar, either to us here, or to your flock. No decent human being could support a man like you, so conflicted between hubris and arrogance and shameless pride, any more than any decent American should support G.W.B. and his cronies.

    I am done with you, Liberty, which you will see as no big loss and neither will I.

    I hate your guts a little more every time you claim to be even remotely aligned with Christianity and God. You got more devil in you than half the people I know. Willingly blind, you support pride, intolerance, hate, and death, as far from Godly ideals as can be.

    Go to hell, Liberty. And don't respond. I don't want to hear anything else you have to spew.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 12:01pm

35. The Bush Administration, its supporters, and others argue that Mr. Bush has not committed any crime and that is because he can declassify information at anytime.

    Statutorily speaking this could be true; but constitutionally, what Mr. Bush did seems to fit very comfortably in the U.S. Constitution's classical impeachment suit of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:03pm

36. On topic: Democrats will not break with Bush.

    WHY AM I CERTAIN?: Republicans have already broken with BUSH.

    Democratic Leaders don't have to approve of Bush policies.

    As long as DEMS continue to designate BUSH as the voice of the GOP, it will leave GOP leaders no choice but to go further to the right to continue its attack on American freedoms and democracy.

    Of course, further to the right of this administration would be a DE-FACTO FASCIST MILITARY STATE.

    The many chuckle-headed neocons on this blog know futher to the right is more FASCIST than the Nazi party, but are too terrified of the wrath from their own kind to publicly admit it.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 12:04pm

37. When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

    Approve

    Apr. 2006 35%

    Mar. 2006 39%

    Disapprove

    Apr. 2006 63%

    Mar. 2006 58%

    Mixed feelings 1% 2%

    Source: Ipsos-Public Affairs / Associated Press Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,003 American adults, conducted from Apr. 3 to Apr. 5, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 12:05pm

38. Because -

    As in the above poll results...

    Way I see it, the people are slowly coming round as a whole... Rejecting failed policies, recognizing incompetence...

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 12:07pm

39. 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing as president, down 3 percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling on this key measure since he became president. Sixty percent disapproved of his performance.

    Bush's overall job approval has remained below 50 percent for nearly a year while the proportion of the public critical of the president consistently has topped 50 percent.

    Perhaps more ominously for the president, 47 percent say they "strongly" disapproved of Bush's handling of the presidency -- more than double the percentage who strongly approved (20 percent) and the second straight month that the proportion of Americans intensely critical of the president was larger than his overall job approval rating.

    The public is more critical of Bush's performance in specific areas. A third approved of his handling of immigration issues while six in 10 disapproved. And as thousands gather on the Mall today to protest efforts to tighten immigration policy, three in four Americans said the government isn't doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States.

    The continued bloodshed and political chaos in Iraq continues to drag down support for the war, the new survey found. Barely four in 10 -- 41 percent -- currently say the war was worth fighting, down five percentage points since December.

    Nearly six in 10 -- 58 percent -- currently say the war was not worth the cost while nearly half say they "strongly" feel the conflict wasn't worth fighting. The latest result marked the 13th consecutive Post-ABC survey since December 2004 in which a majority of Americans has questioned the value of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

    With support for Bush at a new low and continued broad dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq, the latest survey offers bleak news to Republicans but encouragement to Democrats poised to challenge the GOP in congressional elections less than seven months away.

    WAKE UP, AMERICA!

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 12:11pm

40. "Democrats: Get Loud, Get Angry"

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/ la-oe-power10apr10,1,4924725.story? track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 12:12pm

41. Sometimes ZERO reminds me of people who can't see the forest for the trees. I believe that the forest-tree analogy was one of David Corn's points about Bob Woodward's embedded reporting on the Bush Administration.

    Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/10/2006 @ 11:35am

    It depends on what you believe the trees and the forest are. If you believe that the forest is progress and justice as determined by the Congress of the United States of America, then I think you will find that the forest has a lot of GOP stumps. But you will also find that those Democratic trees--making up over 45% of the trees in the forest--are so frail and leafless that the most one can say about the forest is that it is a fire hazard. A forest of 55% stumps and 45% trees should still be a vibrant thing.

    I think you are reversed. You are seeing the goal as the Dems retaking the Congress, but to what end? Watching Boehner on the Sunday morning news shows yesterday, I was impressed with how the GOP continually puts strong figures into their leadership positions, people who are not looking to compromise with their opponents. I mean, the man is thoughtless and wrong on virtually every count, but he'll not cede that even when pressed with the most glaring evidence. Reid is no such figure, even when he is right. Pelosi and Hoyer are no such figures. Then I thought back to Tom Daschle who looked at every moment for ways to cowtow to the minority party. Why? Aren't his party's beliefs the better option? If so, push for them. If not, get out of the way.

    The party is only as effective as its leadership. I gotta think that if 245 of us gathered together and replaced the current democratic denizens of congress, they're might be at least a few of us with a firm grasp of and commitment to our beliefs, able to direct the defense of this country from the onslaught of greed, corruption, and callousness launched by the Right.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:14pm

42. Again, I just wonder...

    What is it about "having the majority in Congress" after November, that is going to make those "spineless" Democrats impeach Bush....or even censure him?

    Will there be polling post-November 8th, that shows that "the majority of Americans didn't support the Democrats on health care, education, taxes, the deficit, Iraq....but because they wanted Bush to 'do the perp walk'"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 12:14pm

43. An interesting question that should be asked in a poll:

    Do you think a Democrat-controlled Congress would effect in a positive manner the handling of the Iraq War?

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:18pm

44. Another interesting poll question for those who indicate they are leaning toward voting for a Democrat for Congress in November:

    What is the main reason for your leaning toward voting for a Democrat for Congress in November?

    A) Better plan for the Iraq War. B) Better plan for the economy. C) Better chance to reduce the level of corruption in DC. D) Better plan to keep the homeland safe (ports, borders, intelligence, etc.). E) Better plan for healthcare and entitlement programs. F) What the hell, could it get any worse?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:23pm

45. TJ, you'd need an F....all of the above.

    Mask, nothing is going to give the Dems a spine, thus, if you are interested in accountability then DON'T VOTE DEM. Vote for the "Silly Party" of Monty Python fame....they're more serious about the rule of law than the Democratic Party.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 12:26pm

46. It seems to me that British politicians are pretty mutch the same as your US counterparts.Iwill be the first to state my knowledge of your political systems is pretty limited.The cynicism Iread here by some commentaters regarding the Democratic party reminds me of the situation in GB around 1997,most people were absolutely sick to the back teeth of the Tory party after years of sleaze,boom and bust economy,3+ million unemployed etc.etc. Iwas a lifelong Labour supporter (until the Iraq war.)ecstatic that at last a Labour government was elected in a landslide,slogans such as "education,education,education." "whiter than white" to name but a few were bandied about.Fast forward to these days,what did we actually get? The friggin clones of the tories! Nowadays in the UK i cannot tell the two main parties apart.The tories ironically,are IMO like the Dems in the US. No unity, no policies,just a voice stating what is qwrong with the country,but not how to fix it!

    Posted by nick164 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:27pm

47. Tj, be careful, that sounds like you are longing for an iron fist dem,

    Oraibi, in short yes. a democratic congress would give cover to more moderate republicans, also since dems play well with others, maybe too well, there would seem to be a greater chance for bipartisanship to try and right the ship of state listing so badly now

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 12:29pm

48. TJ,

    I think you are reversed. You are seeing the goal as the Dems retaking the Congress, but to what end?

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/10/2006 @ 12:14am

    Reversed to what; it is not clear what you mean.

    To what end?

    1. Hold Bush and his minions accountable via the U.S. Constitution's oversight role for Congress.

    2. Force the Bush Administration to provide an effective and sensible foreign policy.

    3. Prevent the appointment of illiberal Supreme Court Justices.

    4. Save Social Security

    5. Ensure a workable healthcare provisioning system that will address the needs of all Americans.

    This list highlights just a few of the policy and program improvements I believe a Democrat-controlled Congress will provide to the American people.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:33pm

49. P.S. I'm not a spokesperson for the Democratic Party.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:36pm

50. ORAIBI,

    Sorry. I meant reversed about the forest and trees thing. I think you are caught up in the trees and not seeing the forest.

    Your list, for example. A very good list. But where is the effort, or even the appearance of effort, on the Dems' part during the last 4-plus years? Why does it take a Feingold or Conyers to put up a fight rather than Reid? Why is it that low-ranking members of the House will stand up for "Democratic" beliefs, but the leaders choose to sit? And, therefore, why are we to be convinced that switching the word "Minority" to "Majority" in front of the names Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid will lead to any of the changes on your list?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:42pm

51. Johannesrolf,

    Not an iron fist, but it would be nice to see more than a shrug.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:43pm

52. TJ,

    Appreciate the clarification of forest/trees.

    The amount of effort being put forth by the Dem leaders is in the eye of the beholder.

    No, I don't always agree with the actions of the Democratic Leaders in either house, but I never agree with the illiberal actions of the Republican Leaders.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:51pm

53. A Thought for Today:

    The interest, or apparent and supposed interest, of the king or aristocracy is to permit no censure of themselves, at least in any form which they may consider either to threaten their power, or seriously to interfere with their free agency. The interest of the people is that there should be full liberty of censure on every public officer, and on every public act or measure.

    From "Considerations on Representative Government" by John Stuart Mill.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:58pm

54. ORAIBI,

    I understand what you mean by the beholder. If your Representative or one/both of your Senators is actually fighting the good fight, it gives you a greater sense of hope in the party. Under so many layers of Republican rule in my town, the one and only Democrat who holds office is one of the milquiest of milquetoast Democrats, always looking to vote with the majority and then lending his voice loudly to issues that are "well duh" causes.

    I attended a dinner of about two dozen Saturday evening, all of whom I know or suspect are Democrats or, like me, non-Republicans, possibly the largest such gathering in my town this year. For the eldest, most established members of the group, it was "well, at least we have each other." For those in their mid-50s and younger (my wife and I at 37 and 40 were the youngsters), it was "well, not sure how much longer we'll be here." I guess there's always Vermont or Seattle or San Francisco, but we are in no position to live in such pricy climes.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 1:15pm

55. TJ,

    Do you live in Arizona? If not, it sounds like it; and I speak from first hand experience.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 1:22pm

56. In the Heart of Dixieland.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 1:25pm

57. Liberty posts (since he doesn't know when to quit):

    "For someone who hates as much as you do, to say you hate me is not exactly earth shattering. Your hatred and vitriol is your problem, not those whom you hate."

    No, zealot, my problem is with people like you who have earned my hatred, and that is no small feat.

    Like respect, I don't just hand out hate cheaply - it must be earned, and at a steep price. My hatred is reserved for sanctimiousness, dishonesty, and willing blindness propogated to the detriment of this great country of ours.

    You deserve how I feel about you, false man of God.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 1:39pm

58. FREEDOM

    Actually, I'd vote for the "Slightly Silly Party" candidate, Kevin Phillips Bong!

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 1:43pm

59. TJ,

    I live in the heart Arizona; a Dixieland wannabe.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 1:48pm

60. More good Bushiness, on the topic of our dealings with Iran:

    "The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," the president said.

    "... We hear in Washington, you know, 'prevention means force.' It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy.

    "And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation. Which is, kind of a -- you know, happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital."

    Bush on Iran speculation [cnn.com]

    The press speculates. The press receives lies leaked through official channels. Prevention means diplomacy. Preventive means bombs away. Everyone understand?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/10/2006 @ 1:49pm

61. Mask,

    Here's where some idiot most likely someone calling themselves Mask would say......"no don't throw your vote away on the Slightly Silly Party, vote for The Silly Party as they at least have a chance to defeat the evil Republicans and even though the Silly Party will not be perfect at least they will not chose the SCOTUS judges that we've come to expect from the Repub's!"

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 1:51pm

62. In Pew's most recent poll, 3/8-12/06, 33% ‘approved of W's job performance. AP-Ipsos' most recent poll, 4/3-5/06, states W has a job ‘disapproval' of 62%. When only a 1/3 approve of what W's doing and it's slowly moving into only a 1/4, can anyone doubt that the truth is getting out about the BC BS regime's level of incompetence, greed, lying, cowardice, and hypocrisy. That it's also shedding the clothes off the rest of the repubs that aren't rebuking their own administration, down around their ankles poised to evacuate their run for office, is priceless.

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/10/2006 @ 1:54pm

63. Bushfools,

    America hates being lied to. However, despite what America is loudly telling the opposition, the opposition party is not listening. America doesn't like being ignored either. Come November, America will decide to either reelect the Party of deceit or elect the Party of political appeasement.

    Did Sophie have an easier choice?

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 2:00pm

64. FREEDOMPLEASE,

    I understand and I believe that the dems in both apartments (per can't afford a house), are listening, but are busy setting up their own ducks and dogs, so they can actually accomplish something from a position of strength than from one of weakness. The perception of only whiningwill not accomplish anything positive and it's not really doing the hard work tfor positive accomplishments. True more needs to be stated as movement in the direct of correcting the messes of the repubs, soon, very soon. Is a day or two, too soon?

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/10/2006 @ 2:18pm

65. NICK164, are you going to vote in the next election? I honestly think that the dems are not going to be any better once in office. They need to get a game plan together and get it out to the people. I understand letting the repubs fall on their own sword but why aren't they dead already? As an opposition party, why aren't the dems twisting the sword instead of just watching the blood flow? I am so frustrated, displeased, disgusted with this political system right now I don't know what to do. I want to vote and make my voice be heard but right now everyone sucks.

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 2:36pm

66. Again, who is more stupid, Quayle or Bush? I already know who's more dangerous.

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 2:38pm

67. K330K -

    I've begun taking the e-mails from the DNC and dragging them into my trash box without reading them.

    That makes me very sad.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/10/2006 @ 2:39pm

68. They remember what happened THE LAST TIME an opposition party tried to "go after" a President, at the behest of their base who loathed him, only to see it blow up in their faces.

    Posted by MASK 04/10/2006 @ 09:30am

    If that's the way they remember history they deserve the abuse they're getting here.

    One of the best things they could do is counteract the Republicans' absurdly petty use of impeachment, by wielding the Constitutional power as it was intended: to remove an executive who, through misconduct, has demonstrated a lack of concern for law and the will of the people, and thus become a danger to the Republic.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/10/2006 @ 2:41pm

69. Little Johnny is at it again------"Despite mounting evidence not just of the President's unpopularity but of his reckless disregard for the law-–which was again confirmed by last week's news of former Cheney chief of staff I. "Scooter" Libby's testimony that Bush authorized distribution of previously classified data as part of a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joe Wilson"

    Bush's declassification of previous classified materials and then allowing them to be leaked is in no way a "reckless disregard for the law". The President is well within his powers to declassify anything he wants and release it anyway he wants. Little Johnny is just attempting a smear campaign. President Bush's actions have political NOT legal ramifications.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 04/10/2006 @ 2:44pm

70. It should be illegal. Ordinary Americans, who should have access to these materials, do not. Yet because somebody rebutted his administration's claims, proved later to be erroneous, they went ahead and smeared him and his wife. How petty can you be. To destroy a woman's career to further an unsubstantiated claim which in turn has affected thousands of young people's lives FOREVER is monstrous(lack of a better word). She did have a cover and it was destroyed thanks to Robert Novak and Judith Miller. Miller deserved to go to jail and Novak should be charged with treason. Why that dickhead isn't in jail as we speak is a wonder. People lik to throw the word "un-American" around, well the actions I've described above are very un-American.

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 2:52pm

71. The President is well within his powers to declassify anything he wants and release it anyway he wants.

    LEN MOSSE 04/10/2006 @ 2:44pm

    That is flat out false. His job is to to enforce the law and oversee command of the armed forces, not to undermine our intelligence agencies in order to avoid embarassment.

    He surely has the power to declassify. He just as surely has abused it.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/10/2006 @ 3:12pm

72. Little Lenny Mosse is at it again. Apologize, apologize apologize.

    Hey Lenny....how's that Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman that Bushikins promised you in 2004 going?

    Hey Lenny, hows that Social security reform that Bushikins promised you in 2000 and again in 2004 going?

    Hey Lenny, are you enjoying those reimported prescription drugs from Canada that Bushikins promised in 2004 when he said that if his pharm industry selected Whitehouse panel found the practice to be safe he'd authorize reimports.

    Hey Lenny, did you like it when you found out Bushikins lied about the WMD reason for going to war?

    Hey Lenny, did you like it when Bushikins told you that anyone involved in leaking would be punished, but when he found it was himself he simply told himself it's OK if Bushikins does it, it's called declassifying.

    Lenny, if you look at the poll numbers, you're one of the very few American's that tolerates being lied to. Good for you Lennykins!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 3:13pm

73. President Bush's actions have political NOT legal ramifications.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/10/2006 @ 2:44pm

    Being perceived morally, as a lying conniving side stepping coward, does have politically legal ramification if W's impeachment is indeed legally definitive.

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/10/2006 @ 3:18pm

74. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 04/10/2006 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person

    Naw, FREEDOM....here's where Mask says to the Silly Party BASE "Stop trying to bring down Bush and work on winning elections and governing...preferably on PROVEN methods, such as the Clinton years."

    And where Jethro Q. Walrustitty of "Daily Silly.org" says "No, no, no....We MUST destroy Bush even if it costs us future electoral victories, because 'it's the right thing to do'....plus it feeds our mindless loathing for a man and not a set of policies!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 3:33pm

75. Rio, can we stop with this "liberal media" bullshit. A liberal media would have challenged our conservative president on many issues but they have, as you've stated, been complicit.

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 3:37pm

76. That's funny. "Jethro Q. Walrustitty".

    Posted by k330k at 04/10/2006 @ 3:38pm

77. RIO writes: embedded bureaucratic socialistic entitlement "feeding" culture that in reality rules the nations capital. This has not changed perceptually from decade to decade for the last 40 yrs.

    Okay, Republicans have been in the White House 25 of the last 40 years; a lopsided Republican domination of which is exactly why the country is in such steep decline.

    It will take years to clean up the Republican mess, but the nation can be fixed with some pro-Democracy, pro-American policies of the left and center; and dropping the pro-Government, pro-war and anti-Liberty policies of the right.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 3:39pm

78. LEN/CPT/RIO - YOU ONLY LIKE GETTING LIED TO WHEN IT'S YOUR MAN DOING THE LYING.

    I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR CLINTON LYING ABOUT GETTING A BLOW JOB: BECAUSE IT WAS A SICK AND INTOLERABLE LINE OF QUESTIONING, NOT AT ALL RELATED TO WHITEWATER, CONDUCTED BY YOUR PERVERTED REPUBLICAN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR WHITEWATER.

    BUT - TO HEAR YOUR PRESIDENT:

    LIED ABOUT HIS DISCLOSING A CIA OPERATIVE'S NAME FOR POLITICAL MALICE;

    LIED ABOUT KILLING 10,000s OF INNOCENT IRAQIS IN A NEEDLESS WAR;

    LIED ABOUT 'PATRIOT ACT' WIRETAPS ONLY LISTENING TO 'TERRORISTS'

    YOU SEEM ALL TOO EXCITED TO HEAR THOSE LIES, AND DEFEND THEM!!!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 3:52pm

79. RE the political ramifications of all of this, as discussed here: Polls aside, and while things look good, I'm not sure that the Dems are a lock to make major gains in 2006 or 2008. They haven't managed to seem anything other than reactive since 2001. But the Repubs aren't exactly positioned for a sweep either.

    Personally, I sense a general feeling that people, even people who don't follow politics or the news in any serious way, are emotionally exhausted from the extreme partisanship, apparent if not provable lies, and the constant stream of bad news and mini-scandals that we've seen since 1998. While the Dems do need to take a strong stand against the current administration and GOP leadership, it's my opinion that the country's too exhausted to, en masse, get out and cast an "outrage" vote. Despite that we (liberal partisans that we are) may think this it a moral and ethical obligation, to ask the general electorate to share that outrage isn't a solid platform -- it will seem to the average nonpartisan nothing more than an extension of the current problems that are consuming the nation.

    That said, the party that will succeed is the one that figures a way to reinvigorate the public with a dose of hope and to convey the message that we can indeed get this country back onto a more sensible path. Something's clearly wrong. But just as "trust us and stay the course" isn't an actual answer to all our problems, neither is "impeach Bush." Neither solves anything. We need leadership, something that's sorely lacking on both sides of the aisle. It's up for grabs.

    Posted by breasonable at 04/10/2006 @ 4:01pm

80. Reading the entries on this blog, you would think that everyone gets to cast their vote for every seat in Congress. Or that you give a blanket vote to one party or another. It doesn't work that way - its a local decision. Take Nancy Pelosi - is there even another choice besides the REP against her in the 2006 race? Who is the third-party candidate progressive voters should go for in CA? Or is it to not vote at all?

    There are certainly SOME admirable voices in the Democratic Party. On Iraq alone, there were 126 DEMs who voted against it and 22 DEM Senators. Not all to be sure, but you would have to go individual by individual to make an argument that the left should not give further support to each - but it would have to be an individual assemesment - not a blanket one about the Democratic Party as a whole.

    Rather than saying the Democrats this or that - I think it would be more interesting to see a particularized list of to endorse/not to endorse for each Democratic seat up for re-election in 2006. I am sure that some would populate that list with poeple like Reid and Pelosi - and they might be justified. I guess I am just taking issue with paitning the entire Democratic party with a broad brush - and with John Nichols' assertion that Republicans are somehow breaking with Bush, and the Democrats are not. The numbers do not bear that out.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2006 @ 4:02pm

81. Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 04/10/2006 @ 3:39pm

    It will take years to clean up the Republican mess, but the nation can be fixed with some pro-Democracy, pro-American policies of the left and center; and dropping the pro-Government, pro-war and anti-Liberty policies of the right.

    Funny, BECAUSE. You wouldn't know liberty if it bit you in the nose.

    ib·er·ty Audio pronunciation of "liberty" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t) n. pl. lib·er·ties

    1. 1. The condition of being free from restriction or control. 2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. 3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom. 2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. 3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

    Most leftist programs involve trading liberty for some sort of promised (but usually illusory) security. Take the Massachusetts health care program - it takes away one of the liberties of Massachusetts residents (by making it mandatory that individuals pay for health insurance) in exchange for health care.

    The only liberties that George Bush has taken away is from suspected terrorists who are making international phone calls. That's a liberty that I'd personally like to see abridged, and most other Americans would too. It's just you loony fringe types that get all spastic about it.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2006 @ 4:03pm

82. AND, I think an important analysis would be to look at what Democratic challengers to Republican incumbents are saying on the issues. If the Democrats are to take control of either House, they have to pick up seats as well as hold on the ones they already have.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2006 @ 4:07pm

83. PONTIFICUS -

    So I take it that Mit Romney is not getting your 2008 endorsement?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2006 @ 4:08pm

84. K330K;re your question will I vote next time,who for? NONE of the parties in the UK represent my views. As I stated I used to vote Labour,but in it's current state, not now. I never thought a LABOUR prime minister would take my country to war using the flimsiest of excuses, and outright lies and scare tactics Tony Blair and co came up with.

    Posted by nick164 at 04/10/2006 @ 4:14pm

85. Posted by HMAN23 04/10/2006 @ 4:08pm

    PONTIFICUS -

    So I take it that Mit Romney is not getting your 2008 endorsement?

    That would be correct. I'm a big believer in Health Spending Accounts with catastrophic insurance coverage supplement. My wife (a totally non-political type) picked that over all the other choices, and she was surprised (to the extent she was interested) that it was Bush who gave her that choice. Only the Republicans are offering that choice right now. Whoever comes close to endorsing that idea gets my vote.

    The reason why Massachusetts instituted this program is because too many healthy people were opting out health insurance, the cost of which has become sky-high due to the third-party payer nature of the system. This is just going to make it worse for people in Mass., and hasten the flight of younger people from the state. Wait and see.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2006 @ 4:16pm

86. PONTIFICUS -

    I do not know much about that, but it sounds interesting. So, you and you wife use a Health Spending Account, opt out of the typical insurance coverage, and have instead a catastophic policy?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2006 @ 4:31pm

87. Pontius

    Guess that number 3 part of the definition gets whited out when Homeland Security rolls up and takes you away to Gitmo?

    re: your "Most leftist programs involve trading liberty for some sort of promised (but usually illusory) security."

    Funny, we keep saying the same thing about Dubya's folly in Iraq and illegal wiretaps, and outing CIA agents for political gain.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/10/2006 @ 4:34pm

88. HI PONT, THANK YOU! SEE NUMBER 1.1 IN YOUR DEFINITION:

    LIBERTY = FREE FROM RESTRICTION!

    YOU'VE CONTRADICTED YOURSELF: I thought the right-wing complaint about liberals is that we want to kill unborn children, coddle child predators, and legalize drugs? Precisely because liberals DO NOT RESTRICT people enough, according to Republicans. But, to be anti-liberty is to be restrictive; thus it is REPUBLICANS who are anti-liberty.

    But, since you've mastered cut-and-paste, perhaps, you will read for me the true definition of a "Liberal" below, as defined by JFK, and accepted by all Liberals.

    I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. - John F. Kennedy

    from "http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/What_is_a_Liberal% 3F"

    Whereas the right-wing is a narrow set of issues all based on stealing American liberties: illegalizing Evolution, illegalizing Abortion, illegalizing Homosexuality, illegalizing Immigration; the Liberal agenda is not a set specific issues, but about supporting ideas and ideals of justice and freedom for all men and women.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 4:41pm

89. BECAUSE -

    Your point is driven home even better when you call illegalizing abortion what it truly is - forced birth.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2006 @ 4:47pm

90. you're starting to lose it liberty

    and you suck at sarcasm. You should really stick to you're own personal brand of hamster pseudo intellectualism.

    Or continue to show us your true face. It's funnier and funnier each new day

    Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 4:47pm

91. PONTI - Since you have your finger on the pulse of the right-wing neocon agenda, perhaps you can answer me this:

    What are the currently legal actions Republicans are looking to illegalize over the next 5 to 10 years?

    Which basic right's, such as right to adopt, or a judge's court order prior to wiretapping, does the right-wing plan on stealing from Americans over the next 5 to 10 years?

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 4:54pm

92. Great article. Our congresswoman is one of the Democrat who hasn't yet co-sponsored Conyer's H. Res. 635, but we're working on her. She doesn't seem to "get it" that if President Bush broke the law she has an ethical obligation to impeach him.

    Here is the list of the 33 members who do get it, as of 4/10/2006. I'll try to keep an updated list online at: President Bush Violated Federal Law [todlandis.com].

    Rep. John Conyers Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/31/2006 Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 1/31/2006 Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 12/22/2005 Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/9/2006 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/31/2006 Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/30/2006 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 2/7/2006 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/30/2006 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 2/7/2006 Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 2/8/2006 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 12/22/2005 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 2/1/2006 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 2/7/2006 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 2/7/2006 Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 3/14/2006 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/31/2006 Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-4] - 2/7/2006 Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 2/14/2006 Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 1/31/2006 Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 2/1/2006 Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 2/16/2006 Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 1/31/2006 Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 12/22/2005 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 12/22/2005 Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 3/2/2006 Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 3/9/2006 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 1/31/2006 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/31/2006 Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 2/16/2006 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/14/2006 Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 12/22/2005 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 12/22/2005 Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 3/14/2006

    Posted by Tod Landis at 04/10/2006 @ 4:54pm

93. Where are the higher standards? These people who govern us are selling us out and they are also selling out the office of the President of the United States of America. Someone has got to be held accountable, so fire everyone.

    Posted by valiant at 04/10/2006 @ 5:08pm

94. Liberal agenda is not a set specific issues, but about supporting ideas and ideals of justice and freedom for all men and women.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 04/10/2006 @ 4:41pm

    and we spelled it out for all to see

    The more perfect union

    Justice

    Peace

    The common defense

    The general welfare

    Securing the blesings of liberty for us and ar chi8ldren for the rest of time

    The conservatives say we don't have any new ideas. We don't need any new ideas. Our country was founded on our ideas.

    And they have withstood the test of time

    It's time to get back to basics

    Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 5:12pm

95. Good article John,

    We're still waiting for Herb Kohl to get with the program right here at home. When you're going the wrong direction, you don't stick around for the ride.

    It's time to turn this ship around.

    --

    http://griperblade.blogspot.com - grumblings from the heartland [griperblade.blogspot.com]

    Posted by Wisco at 04/10/2006 @ 5:53pm

96. Ha, so bottom line, dems are blamed for pointing out that the repubs and the BC BS regime have screwed things up PUNFECALNESSLY because they LUVLYING so much that they have to MASKERAIDE as victims per the dems not fixing it all up for them... Pretty MOSSY logic. Like the term welfare repubs... hahahaha, it's all the dems fault because they LET the repubs lie, steal and create mayhem with everything they touch. I feel like dems need to join Al-Anon per their drunken addicted to evil relative repubs they have to live with but not enable... Perhaps a mass intervention called an impeachment! It'll definitely work as the W'ossy's poll approval numbers get into 20's soon and disapproval close to the 70's. Oh yeah.

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/10/2006 @ 7:06pm

97. Ooops, meant: W'ussy...

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/10/2006 @ 7:15pm

98. White House Connected to Phone-Jamming Scheme in New Hampshire Elections, or Nixon II [news.yahoo.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/10/2006 @ 7:26pm

99. LV, would be nice to have a magic bullet for health care costs.

    Posted by hvmiller at 04/10/2006 @ 7:56pm

100. Hman,

     I think we have discussed health care before, but I have a similair policy as LV. I followed the same logic the insurance companies did when analysing me and mine for a policy. I was young and my children were young. I had 3 children and my wife and I.

     My premiums were $ 600 a month and deductables of $3000. So, when all said and done, I am out of pocket about $10,000 a year, including deductables if I needed...and this does not include the 20/80% pay.

     I put the monthly premium aside for years instead of paying premiums and paid cash for any medical bills, including broken arms and one apendix operation. It was still cheaper than paying insurance companies. They are betting(with statistics) that they will not pay out on you until you are in your 40s or 50s. They are correct.

     I now have a Medical Savings Account. Premiums are over $500 a month and a deductable of $5000. I can leave the premiums and deductable in the account and roll over next year. I can also borrow against it if I needed. The company pays all the cost over $,5000...100%. All before tax man takes his share.

     Everyone fights over co-pays or if they have to pay a partial premiumwith their employer, when the real money is in how long you pay without a claim.

     It worked for me. Just another thought.

     Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2006 @ 9:13pm

101. While the deceit and corruption of Republicans -- particularly George W. Bush and friends -- never fails to amaze me, I am even more baffled by the lack of backbone of Democrat members of Congress. Why do they repeatedly, deliberately fail to respond to the Republicans' complete disregard of the rule of law? Even if they cannot win the votes to overrule the unprincipled Republicans, they could at least register a concerted opposition. They seem afraid to express the most basic, irrefutable opinion that might reflect upon Bush, even though a majority of Americans have already formed that opinion. Personally, there are few things worse than being a coward. My guess is that -- after they found out that Bush and friends were spying on Americans that they have been too terrified to say anything against him. Or perhaps Rove has managed to collect dirt on all of them and is threatening to use it against them. Actually, those two possibilities could be related (i.e. Rove managed to collect his dirt by spying on Democrat members of Congress). Sadly, this possibility seems extremely plausible given the manner in which this Administration as operated from day #1. Law has no relevance to Bush and friends. What a travesty. As kooky as it sounds, I am beginning to actually believe that Bush really is the antichrist (See www.bushisantichrist.com)

     Posted by KLG at 04/10/2006 @ 9:22pm

102. While the deceit and corruption of Republicans -- particularly George W. Bush and friends -- never fails to amaze me, I am even more baffled by the lack of backbone of Democrat members of Congress. Why do they repeatedly, deliberately fail to respond to the Republicans' complete disregard of the rule of law? Even if they cannot win the votes to overrule the unprincipled Republicans, they could at least register a concerted opposition. They seem afraid to express the most basic, irrefutable opinion that might reflect upon Bush, even though a majority of Americans have already formed that opinion. Personally, there are few things worse than being a coward. My guess is that -- after they found out that Bush and friends were spying on Americans that they have been too terrified to say anything against him. Or perhaps Rove has managed to collect dirt on all of them and is threatening to use it against them. Actually, those two possibilities could be related (i.e. Rove managed to collect his dirt by spying on Democrat members of Congress). Sadly, this possibility seems extremely plausible given the manner in which this Administration as operated from day #1. Law has no relevance to Bush and friends. What a travesty. As kooky as it sounds, I am beginning to actually believe that Bush really is the antichrist (See www.bushisantichrist.com)

     Posted by KLG at 04/10/2006 @ 9:22pm

103. Tens of thousands, everywhere, out on the street, in pursuit of real discussion on immigration, labor law, rights of employment, etc. Tens of thousands in Omaha. Thousands and thousands everywhere. Day of action.

     Red state, blue state, old news. The real action, as some of us have been saying, is with the future of the working class majority, which, in case you haven't noticed today, is waking up. Oh yes. Oh yes. Oh yes.

     Posted by redwingblack at 04/10/2006 @ 9:33pm

104. REd,

     "Red state, blue state, old news. The real action, as some of us have been saying, is with the future of the working class majority, which, in case you haven't noticed today, is waking up. Oh yes. Oh yes. Oh yes."

     But the illegals demonstrating for immediate citicenship after breaking our laws, in your view , aren't they criminals, like Bush, whom you say broke the laws?...Illegals can't vote. Just because you demopnstrate in the street doesn't mean you or your cause is just or correct.

     Try the reverse in Mexico and see where you end up.

     Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2006 @ 9:39pm

105. Maasch: You contend without explanation that it is "the illegals [who are] demonstrating for immediate citicenship [sic]." Where is your proof of that patently unlikely claim? Query: Who are the MOST unlikely people to be found outside publicly protesting Republican politics? Answer: Persons who have entered this country illegally. Why? Because they have the most to lose by getting arrested when a fascist federal government has already demonstrated that it is willing to spy, torture and incarcerate without cause. Hell, if they actually did something to give Republican's cause to be upset (i.e. like publicly criticize this government) that's grounds to really do the person serious harm. Your unsupported and unlikely claim is like most of your arguments: without the force of logic or reason.

     Posted by KLG at 04/10/2006 @ 9:56pm

106. Does George W. Bush remind anyone of Machiavelli's Prince? Once it was revealed that George himself authorized the leak, I began to think of Machiavelli's work. And I thought Clinton was devious and manipulative. Wow! If Machiavelli were alive today, he'd be on the talk show circuit extolling the correctness of his observations.

     Posted by rcapp at 04/10/2006 @ 9:58pm

107. KL,

     Logic and reason,...

     "Why do they repeatedly, deliberately fail to respond to the Republicans' complete disregard of the rule of law?"

     Why aren't you upset by the breaking of our laws regarding immigration?.. and respond using logic and reason, of course.

     Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2006 @ 9:59pm

108. well maasch

     you guys are the rule of law crowd, strong on defense, tough on crime. Isn't the the lie, excuse me, isn;t that the talk you talk about yourselves.

     yet you've had since 1995 to impliment strong imigration policies, secure the border, punish the wrong doers, demonstrate to the world that your not just a bunch of talk the talk conservatives but you are also willing to walk the walk.

     but what did we get from you?

     nothing but bullshit and talk

     Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 10:21pm

109. the latest example

     Ol Gee Dubya was quoted on a clip on todays Hardball saying that he declassified the NIE that scooter libby then took crawling through the conservative sewers to selectivly lie, I mean leak to judy miller on deep background as a former hill staffer and then deny he ever did it... because ol gee dubya wanted the people to know the truth. Ol Gee Dubya felt it was important for people to know the truth.

     and of curse, i mean course, our straight talking straight shooting president then lied about the lies, I mean leaks and played dumb for three years until his chronic little brush clearing hamster ass got busted when his pet rat ratted him out.

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Ain't life grand?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/10/2006 @ 10:28pm

110. slowly but surely, little by little, it seems the truth might actually come out:

     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/election_phone_jammin g

     take out the space. url was too long.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/10/2006 @ 11:04pm

111. Orai...news link broken.

     Loki, try http://tinyurl.com to shrink those unwieldy monsters...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/10/2006 @ 11:33pm

112. Maasch asks:

     "Why aren't you upset by the breaking of our laws regarding immigration?.. and respond using logic and reason, of course."

     Whether I am or am not upset about such claimed immigration law-breaking is truly immaterial to the present thread about the Democrats in Congress' failure to loudly oppose the Republican's utter disregard for the rule of law (e.g. regarding spying, torture, rendition and incarceration). Me thinks you are again trying to divert attention from such thread and that I fell head first into your trap by pointing out the nonsense of your baseless immigration claim. I apologize to other readers for my mistake.

     Posted by KLG at 04/10/2006 @ 11:43pm

113. Maasch & LV:

     I would be happy to read up on it, thanks.

     Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 12:01am

114. Oh well, John M. That's the way the immigration issue is going to turn. Sorry it doesn't meet any condition you'd call logic. The question of illegal immigration has its own logic. Once you're addressing the question from inside, you can't dismiss the concerns of illegal immigrants the way you currently do with your partyline pronouncements. Then you can step back outside the matter and assess. But you haven't even started yet, so it seems a matter of rule of law to you. Silly rabbit.

     Posted by redwingblack at 04/11/2006 @ 12:40am

115. And the Dems wonder why we old supporters are running away in droves....Not towards the warmongering, hypocritical and greed driven Repugnantcan Party, but towards parties with some common sense; the Green Party comes immediately to mind for me. Good luck, Dems, you're going to need it if behavior like this continues.....

     Posted by sksamra at 04/11/2006 @ 08:12am

116. I think the polls are rather non-intuitive for a moment as people are making major choices, shifting priorities, scratching their heads. Any wonder dems in houses are checking the windows and closets... The small-minded will finally shift away from repubs as they become more closely identified as liars and losers and not ideologically. Those with morals shifted a while back but need dems to do more and are looking at 3rd parties as always, but may shift back the more dems lay out their game plan more ‘aggressively' and break through the MSM wall. The ‘far right delusional leaning towards end of the world rapture mayhem delighted make me rich before I go and destroy my enemies that dif with me lot', will never vote for someone that's realistic and open, believes in religious equality, liberty and democracy, sans unilateral destruction of the world and loss of the big money backing it. Thus we are at a tipping point, not just global warming, dems need to prepare for a major fight, bare knuckle, no mouth guard, cracking bones and the rest of it. If not, then no body wins, chaos, and the raptors rule. One percentage point is a big deal:

     The Harris Poll. Based on nationwide surveys of adults, conducted Jan.-Dec. of each year.

     "Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself: a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or some other party?"

     Year______Republican_________Democrat_______Independent

     2005 ________30_______________36_____________22

     2004________31________________34_____________24

     2003________28________________33_____________24

     2002________31________________34_____________24

     2001________31________________36_____________22

     2000 ________29_______________37_____________23

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/11/2006 @ 08:54am

117. BUSHF....noted this line-

     2000 ________29_______________37_____________23

     Posted by BUSHFOOLS 04/11/2006 @ 08:54am | ignore this person

     That number (for 2000) seems to be VERY close to the number for THIS year.....yet Republicans held onto the Congress in 2000?

     Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 09:07am

118. Link shortened:

     White House Connected to Phone-Jamming [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 09:16am

119. LeftofCenter,

     Thanks for the tinyurl.com suggestion. I used it and will use it in the future.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 09:18am

120. Orai

     Thanks for the story...more GOP corruption to steal elections. You really think they believe that the ends justify the means? [Reflects back on my DEM campaign idea of showing corruption images with a graphic fade-in "...and they call themselve the Right?"]

     On the up side per MSNBC (referencing an ABC poll): "One-third of Americans, including a majority of Democrats (55 percent), favor impeaching Bush ..." AND "...more than four in 10 Americans -- 45 percent -- favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission."

     "Democrats have emerged as the party most Americans trust to deal with such issues as Iraq, the economy and health care. By 49 to 42 percent, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans to do a better job of handling Iraq.

     Democrats also hold a six-percentage-point advantage over the GOP (49 percent to 43 percent) as the party most trusted to handle the economy. Their lead swells to double digits on such as issues as immigration (12 points), prescription drug benefits for the elderly (28 points), health care (32 points) and dealing with corruption in Washington (25 points)."

     JM

     re: illegal immigrants and "...aren't they criminals, like Bush, whom you say broke the laws?"

     Sure they are...that is why the Dem-sided verbage called for a $2,000 fine plus back taxes. So that's like what? $2 billion in fines plus taxes which will ultimately be well beyond that figure versus the massive expenditures involved with trying to round'em all up, ship them out (at our expense), and then clog the immigration system up when they try to rush back in legally....another brilliant GOP "strategery"!

     The problem with Bush's crimes is he won't admit he did anything wrong, and the GOP hamster-wheel Congress will let him get away with anything. So much for checks and balances. How's it feel to help use the Constitution for asswipe?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 09:37am

121. Posted by MASK 04/11/2006 @ 09:07am

     Exactly. Poll doesn't MASK which way one may have voted just about party identity. The MSM plays a major roll in election day turn out, shift away from party vote even. Exit polling can identify irregulaties with the machines-- this is yet another debate. But what is needed is a massive shift and the only way to do that is a clear, straight forward stradegy. And one where the opposition hasn't already wire tapped it and has a conter-argument out before you even state what yours is... Thus it has to be the truth that repubs run away from and pooh-pooh all the time, yet engages the MSM which will be the problem as always. Perhaps the dems need to do as the repubs did and do a lot-- attach the media, as its too paid off by the WH cronies, big business to tell the whole truth! Truth to all the lies coming out of the cowardly BC BS regime, that may work if people actually are able to listen. One can get a horse to water, but if it can't see, hear or smell the water, will it drink? Short of GITMOtizing the truth down people's throats, what next... still scratching my head on that one. Make it entertaining?

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/11/2006 @ 09:43am

122. Left,

     I feel that I'm living in the Nixon Era again.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 09:49am

123. @ 09:43am Err-- that's: 'attacK' the media...

     The eyes are going, need glasses.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/11/2006 @ 09:53am

124. Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/11/2006 @ 09:49am

     Think Nixon would've gotten that close to impeachment if he were a goofball? Isn't the W'ussy rather goofy. Isn't it hard to take him as seriously as the shit he's committed? Hard to see a goofball as a tyrant, auh chucks-- just an evil sick puppy? Yep, the truth will need to be really really raw and stink to high heaven to get peoples attention.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/11/2006 @ 10:10am

125. loc, thanks for the tiny url thing. will use it too. orai--didn't notice u had already posted the link.

     Posted by loveloki at 04/11/2006 @ 10:56am

126. Posted by HMAN23 04/10/2006 @ 4:31pm

     PONTIFICUS -

     I do not know much about that, but it sounds interesting. So, you and you wife use a Health Spending Account, opt out of the typical insurance coverage, and have instead a catastophic policy?

     Sorry about the delay, HMAN. People keep pulling me away, expecting me to work or some such. What a hassle!

     Anyway, yes, the HSA coupled with the catastrophic coverage works great for us, so far. It has the strange effect of actually making us care what the doctors are charging, and asking them questions about the bills, something that we never did before under the third party payer system.

     It should be noted that HSA's would not have been allowed if it were up to the Democratic Party, or the left for that matter.

     Posted by pontificus at 04/11/2006 @ 4:21pm

127. PONTI - Thank you for pointing out that DEMS fought the HSA strategy.

     Perhaps, given your small victory, you want to answer my questions from above: what additional restrictions on US citizens are you and your party advocating? How many more Constitutional bans on adoption, marriage, abortion, etc are you advocating?

     I mean, since HSA is a liberty that DEMS fought against, why don't you elaborate on the liberties you want to fight against?

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/12/2006 @ 11:00am