http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201003. html

Let's see if the Dems can resist the pressure from their fringe flank, unlike the Republicans (who cozied up to nutcases like Pat Robertson ... did you see his recent "prediction" from a conversation with God?)

There are so many single issue radicals among the Democrats that I don't envy their task in keeping them all happy.

I'll predict that the Cindy Sheehans and others of her radical nature become disenchanted with the Dems when they find out they aren't going to get there way with them either.

I am well aligned with a fair number of those things.

Iraq needs serious discussion. Totally open to lots of ideas on this matter though.

Addressing civil liberties, torture and beginning investigations on the Bush administration are all hot items for me. I'm perfectly happy with the 100 hours though.

Some baseline has got to be established. Ideally it will make the other issues easier.

If Clinton was impachable, then both Bush and Cheney are. However, I want solid investigations done first, otherwise those two will cause a lot of problems.

Better to work from the lower ranks up, get the goods properly and limit the top to from being able to interfear. By the time their docket is up, the case will be solid enough to matter.

As much as I would love to see fast action on the items above, I totally believe the priorities are solid for the start.

Let's just see.

As for Cindy, her demands are extreme and likely impractical given the current mess in Iraq. However, that's understandable given her loss.

We cannot let that marginalize her core question that goes unanswered to this day:

"What noble cause?"

>>>"However, that's understandable given her loss."

I don't think she is driven by "her loss". She was a radical moron long before her son lost his life in Iraq. She got sucked into being used by the radical anti-war stooges and got to loving the spotlight. Now, she doesn't want to give it up.

Fortunately for the normal folks, she is now irrelevant. I predict she will get no attention from the Dems. They have nothing to gain identifying with her.

Say what you want, but do answer the question; namely, "What noble cause?"

Her personal character has nothing to do with the glaring inability for this administration to answer that question.

Oh, and does normal mean stupid?

>>>"Oh, and does normal mean stupid?"

I was thinking of the Dems, so I'll let you answer that. I'm avoiding calling names.

>>>""What noble cause?"

Defending the US is a noble cause. Just because you happen to disagree with what is being done in Iraq doesn't mean her son did not serve in a noble cause.

"What noble cause?"

Ask the girls who can attend school in Iraq now, thanks to our troops and Mr. Bush.

Ask those freed from the rape rooms, thanks to our troops and Mr. Bush.

Ask those who no longer need fear torture from Saddam's henchmen, thanks to our troops and Mr. Bush.

Herb

If everything - ANYTHING - is so great over there, then where are all these raped, mutilated and tortured bodies coming from? Why aren't we being given a big thanks and well wishes?

Because it's NOT so great.

Yeah, ask the girls who can attend school but don't. Why don't they? Because they are a target that have no trusted protection. Why don't they have trusted protection? Because WE dismantled the police force and said " Go and take your guns with you! "

It's a disaster. All of it. Citing a few success stories has not made it worth it.

And what will probably come from Saddam being executed is just par for the course for that country. They are a mess. Always have been - we made it worse - for now. They are given nothing but words with which to hope for. I feel terrible for them. We said we'd do a better job.

We have let them down. We should have done better for them AND us.

I was just pointing out how goofy the word normal is in that context.

It really means, "folks you agree with". C'mon Deane, at least be honest!

>>>""folks you agree with"

No, it means folks who are reasonable and well educated in their viewpoints. I don't agree with Andrew much of the time, but I consider him normal, reasonable, intelligent and well informed.

Ok, I yield.

It just sounded goofy. Must be me!

I like the defending the US part. That would all work, if one US citizen in particular would face up to the realities. None of the troops are at fault, but their lives are currently being squandered.


I'm sure all of them are more than happy to be engaging in some activity that is actually defending the US.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/01/01/daily13.html?from_rss=1

Welcome to the world of real decision making, democrats.

Now it's YOUR turn to have your plans scrutinized.

You can't make this stuff up.

Herbert Milhous

Easy,

This is Bushes war, that he is handing to McCain, in the form of the McCain doctrine. Holy Joe says so, just ask his party chair.

Seriously, the war is up to Bush. Dems can deny him means, but it's really his call at the end of the day.

That leaves reform efforts.

Getting the congress in order (and it seriously needs it) is best. That way, solid decisions can happen. We need those too.

Herb,

I think the story you cited is great. There is not a darn thing wrong with keeping government accountable, whether it is Republicans accounting to Democrats, Republicans to Republicans, Democrats to protesters, or whatever. I hope Sheehan keeps holding government's feet to the fire, whichever party is in charge. I hope the Democrats in Congress put pressure on the White House - and I hope the White House pushes back equally hard. I hope the refs (judicial) read, follow and enforce the playbook (Constitution) to the letter.

Checks and balances - I love it.

If she causes grief for the democrats, at least she's even-handedly ham-fisted.

Herbert M.

Cindy Sheehan was a problem for the Republicans?

Coulda fooled me.

I have to agree with the cons on this one, she is going to be a problem for the Dems. Watch fat mouth Rush take her side now.

She's not gonna be a problem for anybody because she's so marginalized herself that the message she's trying to spread is lost behind the pictures of her ghastly, grinning, leathered face constantly being published in league with yet another counterproductive "protest" that sheds light less on her cause and more on her celebrity, whether she wants that or not.

Whatever political and sympathetic cache she once had, she squandered long ago. She's to be taken about as seriously as Al Sharpton, at this point.

Didn't take long for Hannity to have her on.

Missing said>>>>
Didn't take long for Hannity to have her on.

Fatboy said>>>>>
She's to be taken about as seriously as Al Sharpton, at this point.

Says alot for Insannity doesn't it.....