Pelosi and Murtha may undo everything we have fought for

[Kelvin Mace]

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/pelosi2.html
Pelosi backs Murtha for majority leader
The Hill

Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) threw her support behind Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader Sunday, giving a significant boost to Murtha in his race against Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

"Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues," Pelosi wrote Murtha Sunday in a letter obtained by The Hill. "For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for majority leader for the 110th Congress."

Murtha has SERIOUS ethical problems and will not help our cause if he gets indicted. This will give the GOP the ability to say we are just as corrupt as they are.

And folks, does ANYONE doubt that at the first hint of scandal, the "Liberal Media™" will be all over it like maggots on rotting meat?

How corrupt is Murtha?

http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/murtha.php

Let's see:

John Murtha is a seventeenth-term member of Congress, representing the 12th district of Pennsylvania. His ethics issues stem from abuse of his position as Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee to benefit clients of his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha, a registered lobbyist.

KSA Consulting

In 2002, Kit Murtha was hired by KSA Consulting, a firm that lobbies the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of defense contractors. Mr. Murtha joined the firm at the invitation of top KSA official Carmen Scialabba, who had worked for Rep. Murtha on the House Appropriations Committee for 27 years.

In 2004, Congress passed a $417 billion defense appropriations bill that went through Rep. Murtha’s subcommittee. The bill benefitted at least 10 companies represented by KSA and KSA directly lobbied Rep. Murtha’s office on behalf of seven of those companies, which received a total $20.8 million in earmarks.

PMA Group

Paul Magliocchetti worked with Rep. Murtha as a senior staffer on the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense for 10 years. After leaving the committee, Mr. Magliocchetti founded the PMA Group, which has become one of the most prominent Washington, D.C. defense lobbying firms. In the current campaign cycle, the PMA Group and 12 of the firm’s clients rank in the top 20 contributors to Rep. Murtha, having made campaign contributions totaling $274,649. In turn, many of PMA’s clients have benefited significantly from Rep. Murtha’s earmarks. In the 2006 Defense appropriations bill, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks, totaling $95.1 million.

House ethics rules prohibit members from taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else. In addition, Rule XXIII of the House Ethics Manual requires all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.” By earmarking funds for companies represented by Kit Murtha and Paul Magliocchetti, Rep. Murtha has violated House rules.

By endorsing Murtha, Pelosi demostrates yet again why she has no business becoming Speaker of the House. The endorsement paints a HUGE target on both Pelosi and Murtha that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk will not fail to take advantage of.

Also, do I really need to point out that Murtha is one of the most Right-wing Democrats in the party? He is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, voted for a "flag burning" amendment, for school prayer, against increasing CAFE standards, for Bush's "energy policy", against campaign finance reform, for SDI, for pilots carrying guns on airplanes, and for military action in Iraq.

Pelosi has made it crystal clear she will NOT hold BushCo accountable for violations of the Constitutions, war crimes and numerous other "high crimes and misdemeanors". Now she is handing a loaded gun to the GOP to use on us after we have fought so hard in the last election.

Sadly, even most of Left Blogistan is behind Pelosi. I fear we shall rue the day she is elected.

[Erika]

1. I admire Murtha and his wife for visiting Walter Knox weekly

I believe Pelosi is far more capable than the picture some paint of her.

Why the attack on Dems instead of the GOP?

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Because our side isn't perfect

And I spend quite a bit of time attacking the GOP, thank you.

[hughee99]

14. While I'm not convinced by the argument

(I'd like to look into this stuff a little more) I think now is the time to bring this stuff up. Let's air out these potential issues BEFORE we pick the new house leadership, rather than getting stuck with them down the road. I'm all for attacking the repukes, but let's get "our house" in order now so we can resolve or avoid these issues before they become a problem.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Exactly my point!

Everybody is in love with Pelosi and not paying close enough attention to what she is saying.

[Katzenjammer]

82. "now is the time to bring this stuff up"

Oh, no, don'cha know? There is NO right time. Before the election is not the right time because everyone should concentrate on winning. And after the election is not the right time because everyone should stand together in solidarity with the winners. And if they're screwing us over, well we can deal with that later. When "later"? Later, later.

:sarcasm:

[AlamoDemoc]

2. One thing I am certain...Pelosi supports Murtha, because he's not for Impeachment

[Rose Siding]

57. I think she supports him because of the weight of his anti-war position.

[Kelvin Mace]

60. Political expediency

will backfire in the long run.

[scarletwoman]

3. Oh for gawdsake, at least spell "UNDO" correctly.

How do you expect to have your argument taken seriously if you don't even comprehend the difference between "due" and "do"?

[Kelvin Mace]

6. It was a typo,

I know the difference, just as you do between "gawd" and god"

[AlamoDemoc]

9. And for the love of Gawd, who gives a fuck about typos (n/t)

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Thanks!

Sometimes, after working a 14 hour day, I make mistakes typing.

Nice that some folks aren't into typo flames. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. She has no business becoming Speaker of the House???

I'm just going to move on now before I say something I will regret.:grr:

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Anyone who says they will not hold Bush

accountable has no business in a leadership position.

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. She's SAYING that,

but do you really believe that's her intentions? You want her to throw out the game plan and give every MSM outlet more fodder to trash the Dems before they're even sworn in? You DO realize the MSM IS NOT ON OUR SIDE, right?

There WILL BE INVESTIGATIONS.

Those investigations will uncover crimes committed by the cabal.

When the Crimes are exposed to the American people, they will be so outraged that Nancy Pelosi will have no choice BUT TO IMPEACH. See how this works?

John Conyers and Henry Waxman already have the subpoenas ready.

These people are going to be investigated.

The idiot will be Impeached, eventually.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. So she's lying?

She promises one thing, but reneges on her promise?

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged not to pursue impeachment of President George W. Bush if Democrats win the November election.

"Impeachment is off the table," said Pelosi in an interview aired Sunday on CBS "60 Minutes."

Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said it was.

"Yes, it is a pledge," she said. "Of course it is."

Pelosi called impeachment "a waste of time," and suggested Republicans -- who have controlled the House for 12 years -- would make political hay out of it if Democrats tried to impeach Bush.

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/s9/index.php?/archives/1155-Nancy-Pelosi-vows-to-protect-criminals-from-prosecution.html

The answer to the question "Will you seek impeachment?" is: "That's up to the American people."

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Let's just say she isn't showing her cards to the MSM so they can start their tear-down of the

Democratic Party before they're even sworn in. They are foaming at the mouth over this impeachment issue.

She isn't lying either. Has she said we won't investigate? NO.

WHEN the investigations start, the crimes will then be exposed.

WHEN the crimes are exposed, the American people will DEMAND these people be impeached.

That's what happened to Nixon and that's what's going to go down in this administration too.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. She is the party leader

She has said she will quash any attempt to impeach.

She criticized the FBI for investigating a corrupt Democrat, now she endorses one with ethics problems. These kind of headaches we do NOT need.

Either she means what she says, or she is a liar like the GOP. I am not a fan of "pragamtic" politics. If you lie, you are a liar. If you play games with the truth, you are a liar.

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. Has she said she will not allow any investigations to go forward?

The answer is NO. Has she said she will not allow any oversight hearings? NO, she has not. Where will those investigations lead us? CRIMES COMMITTED by this administration.

John Conyers has spent the last 3 years holding hearings and investigating this shit himself. HE KNOWS crimes were committed. He knows it! Constitutional attorneys have TOLD HIM SO. Bush is a criminal. Cheney is a criminal.

Henry Waxman has been involved in investigations of Halliburton. He KNOWS crimes were committed.

When the crimes are exposed, the American people will DEMAND these people be impeached and Nancy Pelosi will have no other choice but to impeach.

This is EXACTLY what happened to Nixon. THE PEOPLE demanded he be impeached and before he could be, he resigned.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. We'll see.

I'd be happy to be wrong, I don't have my ego wrapped up in it.

I do not believe that the Dems have the spine to impeach. And Pelosi is the main proponent of that view. She has PLEDGED not to seek impeachment. Again, the answer to the question was "That's for the American people to decide".

[Marie26]

74. There aren't votes in the Senate now

And if there aren't votes in the Senate to convict, impeachment is a waste of time, that could possibly be seen as a partisan witchunt a la Clinton. Pelosi has strongly stated that Congress needs to investigate the Bush Ad., exercise oversight, and subpoena hidden documents. Crying for impeachment now puts the cart before the horse. After the investigations are carried out, if some explosive revelations are found, the public will demand impeachment. It should be based on the public's wishes, not the Democratic party's.

[Tellurian]

45. Yes, the sharpshooters think they know best..

when they've never fought a ding-dang battle bigger then on DU!
You're exactly right- thats the way the game is played.

Geebus, I'd hate to be stuck in a foxhole with these people;
they'd get us all killed!

[AntiFascist]

69. I have to agree on this point...

The way Pelosi states her case is clearly a sign of weakness. How can impeachment ever be "a waste of time" when it is a constitutional solution to an abuse of power? I'm beginning to wonder if she has about as much respect for the Constitution as Bush does, and that the fact that "oh, the Republicans might make hay of it" trumps everything?

I don't mind the impeachment issue being off the table for the time being, but I really hope she changes her tune in a couple of months. This is is one thing many us really fear: Democrats compromising to the point where they become "Republican light".

[Kelvin Mace]

70. Thanks for the support

I was really beginning to wonder about folks. I haven't posted in a while and the "STFU" attitude was startling.

It is possible to be ethical and a good politician. It isn't easy, but it is possible.

[951-Riverside]

5. This forum is slowly turning 45 degress North. n/t

[madrchsod]

8. correct me if i`m wrong but the democrats

are not in power until 2007. so i`m going to wait a few months before i start tearing my hair out over just how badly pelosi fucking over the democratic party and the american people.

just who the fuck cares what limpballs and the other scumbags say? clearly not the majority of the american voters. wait a minute! maybe this is all a dream and we really did not win.....

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Limbaugh, Bill-O, Drudge, etc

drive the media discussion, which influences the masses. Our vitories were mostly of the 2%-3% variety. It wouldn't take much to swing back.

Fact:

Pelosi is on record saying she will not pursue Bush.

Fact:

Murtha has serious ethics problems.

Do you disagree with any of these points?

[journalist3072]

11. I agree. The Dems ran in part based on the GOP culture of corruption

And so in order to ensure that the American public once again has faith in Congress, the Democratic Party needs to prove that it has a ZERO TOLERANCE policy for any type of corruption.

If they do not, then the American people will show them the door, just like they showed the GOP the door.

[JDPriestly]

16. Yes. We cannot permit corrupt politicians to represent us.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Pelosi has been very quiet

about Jefferson in Louisiana. If we put party above the law, we are no better than the GOP.

[journalist3072]

24. Didn't they remove Jefferson from his committee assignment?

I very much agree with you that if the Dems remain silent about the corruption issues in their own party, they are no better than the GOP.

But didn't the Dems take adverse action against Jefferson? I thought he was stripped of a committee assignment or something?

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Pelosi was VERY critical of the FBI

for having the audacity to investigate a congressman.

She even sided with Dennis Hastert in condeming the FBI

Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued the following statement regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation's search of a Congressional office:

"No person is above the law, neither the one being investigated nor those conducting the investigation.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years. These constitutional principles were not designed by the Founding Fathers to place anyone above the law. Rather, they were designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power, and those principles deserve to be vigorously defended.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/05/hastert_pelosi_issue_rare_join.html

The "separation of powers" clause does NOT protect congressmen from lawfully executed search warrants

[porphyrian]

12. All they have to do is stand next to a republican.

I don't think any amount of corruption Murtha may be guilty of will compare to the amount that's exposed in the first month of the new Congress's investigations.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. Corrupt is corrupt

Either we have clean hands or we don't.

[porphyrian]

47. Binaries are inherently false, but I understand what you mean. - n/t

[Marie26]

15. Both Murtha & Hoyer have ethical issues.

Probably every member of the House has ethical issues - they all bring home the earmarks & pork, or they won't be re-elected. I don't see why this means that Pelosi is an unfit Speaker; and this seems to be motivated by people's displeasure about her position on impeachment as much as anything else.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. I said the Murtha endorsement

was ONE reason she is unfit. I also specified the other.

Murtha's ethics problem is beyond pork barrel projects.

[Marie26]

73. Why weren't Murtha's

ethical problems brought up when he was everyone's hero for speaking out against the Iraq War? I wish someone had made an issue of it then. My point stands that both Hoyer & Murtha have ethical problems, & they are the two leading contenders for majority leader. So, it's not really a choice of corrupt vs. ethical, but more of varying degrees of corruption. And IMO everyone in this Congress is corrupt to some degree, because that's how business was done under Hastert's "leadership." I hope that Pelosi can set up different standards for conduct while she is Speaker, and she's at least promised to do so - she highlighted the "culture of corruption" while Minority Leader, and that message resonated w/voters. I think it is way too early to start saying she's unfit for leadership before she's even taken over!

[KoKo]

78. I've never been fan of Pelosi..but she's who we have to dance with and

Murtha came out on the heels of Cyndie Sheehan in breaking the "fog of 9/11 on Iraq Invasion. He was the best spokesperson we had to go after Bush. I don't trust Steny Hoyer and doubt he's any cleaner than Murtha.

I don't know how "clean" any of them are...but they are who we have to dance with. Murtha spoke truth to power and had the clout because of his
military background and maybe because of his brother's influence with the military he got heard.

We have alot of folks we have to hold our nose to support and if we win in 2008 then maybe we can get the changes those of us who want the WHOLE SWAMP drained will be comfortable with.

For now...I have to tolerate Nancy's weird laugh and mouth thingy and Murtha's conservatism on social issues. I think both are better than anything on the other side. :shrug: That doesn't mean that we progressives don't keep fighting for what we want to see accomplished. If we don't hold their feet to the fire...it will be "business as usual,"
in the blink of an eye. They know we are out here, though, and we've got to keep shouting.

[peacetalksforall]

18. Translate for us. Has he broken rules? If yes, why havent we

heard a cry and an assault on tv? Especially when he first called for a pull out?

[Kelvin Mace]

44. I link to CREW's report on him

and why he was on their "watch list". When the Dems were out of power, there was no reason to focus on ethical problems, especially when it would be a pot.kettle.black situation.

If Murtha becomes Majority Leader he will come under intense scrutiny and we will suffer for it.

[Rebellious Republican]

20. Let me get this straight, we defend Pelosi and Murtha from GOP

attacks, and now we trash the shit out of them. Things that make you go Hhhhmmm!
:crazy:

It is with great pleasure, that I retire my distress flag gif


And with great pride, hoist my new flag in honor of our new direction

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. I swear to G-d....one day it's Rahm Emmanuel, the next day it's Howard Dean,

the day after that it's Alcee Hastings, the day after that it's John Kerry, the day after that it's John Murtha, the day after that it's Steny Hoyer, and now it's Nancy Pelosi's turn. I'm beginning to feel like NOTHING will make Democrats happy. NOTHING. We're like one huge dysfunctional family.:(

[Kelvin Mace]

48. Oh, well

Sorry, I refuse to follow ANYONE without question. And don't get me started on John Kerry.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. Sorry, I have never been a

big fan of Pelosi and Murtha. I want neither of them in leadership positions.

[Rebellious Republican]

67. Well, I do not think you are a novice to politics, I have visited your home

page. It is a bit radical for me personally, but it does show that you devote a lot of time to politics. You most certainly should know that Pelosi is playing with the cards dealt to her. What is supposed to do before an election that could go either way.

Tell all of the fence sitters, independents, moderate, middle of the road average americans that if we take the majority that the Dem's are going to come in like gang busters. Is she supposed to scare off voters that may be teetering with partisan politics. That would have been a huge mistake, she simply is pulling a Bush on Bush.

Do you remember when W said he had no war plans on his desk, well it was probably true. They were on someone else's desk. She just simply said that impeachment was off the table, maybe because it has not been put on the table yet.

First you have to own the majority, prior to the election we did not own the majority. She is playing politics give her half a chance, she may prove your assumption wrong.

As far as Murtha, I can not speak for his scandalous behavior, I have not researched it enough to form an opinion.

However, we do need someone with a good knowledge of Iraq, if we are going to be successful in pulling out of there with dignity. Someone who will not leave the country in ruins without a snowballs chance of hell rebuilding after what bush has destroyed. Bush raped, pillaged and plundered Iraq, its up to us to fix his mess, that is going to take someone with vast knowledge of the region with enough military know how to do it in a timely and orderly fashion.

I think you just need to chill a little bit, not everyone is as radical as you. I think cool heads need to prevail at this point, so that we can begin to mend a divided nation. That was Rove's tactic, divide and conquer, a lot of people are tired of a divided nation. Maybe its time we show americans that we can heal our wounds. Yes we should go after this mis administration for their crimes against humanity and this nation. There is a way to do it without steamrolling into DC half baked. Slow down a little bit, take a deep breath, and exhale in 2007 when we actually own the house and senate.
:shrug:

[Kelvin Mace]

68. It is my opinion

I welcome reasoned disagreement such as yours. I do not welcome people who tell me I should shut up and salute.

Am I a radical? By many definitions, certainly. I am an absolutist when it comes to civil liberties and have no love for spineless politicians, of ANY stripe, who piss them away in exchange for "safety", "security" or some other bullshit reason.

In MANY ways this country is already a de facto police state. We cannot allow it to slide any further to the Right. We also cannot tolerate leaders who sacrifice justice and liberty on the alter of political expediency.

I would be happy to be wrong about my observation.

[FogerRox]

25. Is Murtha a shoe in, NO. I heard he doesn't have votes.

[Ignacio Upton]

28. Then that means we get Hoyer

Who, while not listed by CREW, also has skeletons in his closet. Why can't a third candidate run! This is getting me nervous, along with the prospect of Alcee Hastings the impeached federal judge, getting a chairmanship.

[shance]

38. Good point. Id rather have Murtha than Hoyer.

n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

51. How about Kucinich

Conyers, or Waxman?

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. Are you serious?

:rofl:

[DemPower]

80. I agree-Kucinich is a real leader

Kucinich along with Ron Paul, Neil Abercrombie, Walter "freedom fries" Jones were the first to introduce legislation to bring the troops home starting October 2006 called Homeward Bound. Shortly afterward Murtha came along and announced his plan for redeployment and gets all the credit for being anti-war.

He has been the one fighting against Iraq since before it began. Kucinich has had a plan to get us out for three years. This election was a referendum on the war, and the people want a leader who tells the truth to the people,not more pandering. The same people that lied to get us into the war are still lying about the occupation and we need a leader who will expose the lies.

Recently, the House passed the Iran Freedom Support Act with only 22 Dems voting against it, Kucinich, being one who voted against it, gave a floor speech to attempt to bring sanity to another Bush attempt at lies to provoke war in Iran. This legislation pledged to bring freedom and democracy to Iran.

Pelosi voted For bringing Iran democracy.
John Conyers voted For bringing democracy to Iran.

In the Senate there were 22 Democratic Cosponsors- BARBARA BOXER being one of them.

Do you see why we need to force the Democrats to start telling the truth as well?

[Erika]

27. Still can't believe supposed dems would be trashing their own party

Doesn't quite make sense.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. So, what are you saying?

Are saying that because I DARE to criticize a Democrat I must have some ulterior motive?

Let's speak plainly, shall we?

[Erika]

36. I'm saying the GOP are the opponents, not our own

Or do you disagree?

[Kelvin Mace]

52. People who lie, who manipulate the law

who play games with the truth, who betray their principles for power, are my opponents.

[DemPower]

83. exactly

The same people who enabled Bush to get into Iraq will continue to enable him if we don't stop them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Believe it. n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

29. Is it too late for a bag of popcorn... and a glass of beer?

:popcorn:

[Rebellious Republican]

32. Hey, move over.........

can ya make some room on the couch for me.

:popcorn::beer:

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Always glad to be entertaining

:)

[shance]

33. I have to say, I've got my concerns. We'd be fools not to frankly.

I think we need to dispel the illusions of who we WANT these individuals to be for us, than the reality who they actually ARE.

I would imagine they have some good qualities, HOWEVER, the reality is what they are saying and passing legislatively is killing our Democracy. I don't give a damn if they have a D or an R by their name.

LOOK AT THEIR VOTING RECORDS PEOPLE.

Illusions only hurt us, not them.

In fact it is our illusions that largely keep them in positions of power and us so vulnerable to them and their actions.

Remember the saying: What we don't know, won't hurt THEM.

We need our eyes to be open and clear, not closed and/or cloudy.

And we need to hold our hired leaders to the job they have signed up to do, which is not to steal our rights, our land and our liberties away, which they are doing and many of them are Democrats as well.

Don't be fooled.

It only hurts you in the long run.

[Kelvin Mace]

59. Pelosi has an OUTSTANDING voting record

but I question her willingness to sacrifice her principles for political expediency.

I hope I am wrong, but some folks get very angry when I DARE question the orthodoxy of the people they have decided can do no wrong.

[opihimoimoi]

34. Nancy will do it, She will find ways to rebuild this Party in a way to

garner the Presidency..

Her Partners in the Senate will work together toward that end...

No one is perfect...but our Dems are a far better Bunch than we we just had...

[Erika]

39. Yep. 100%

I'm very impressed by her.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. Who is "ass braying GOP slime"

CREW?

Me?

[Kelvin Mace]

63. Excuse me?

The Hill is reporting something universally confirmed.

Also, is calling me an "ass" the best you can do for a logical argument?

I am "way too obvious"? In what way? If you have an accusation, spit it out.

[Codeblue]

50. Next elections

Maybe we should re-evaluate some of our Democratic leaders before the next election. I think almost anyone who has served in Congress for more than 4 terms (which is even a bit much for me) should be booted out in primaries in favor of new blood.

[Ignacio Upton]

54. Serving in Congress a long time doesn't mean you are automatically corrupt

Case in point, Katherine Harris has only served two terms in the House.

[Kelvin Mace]

64. In a comment sure to make no one happy

I wil say that Sherrod Brown has to go next time around. He voted for torture and the elimination of Habeus Corpus. He did this because he felt voting against would cost him the election.

Liberals like that I do not need or want.

[Codeblue]

79. Yes

I hate all the pandering for votes that politicans engage in. I realize if they want to get elected the next time, they need to vote for certain interests, but still....

[wisteria]

56. Hoyer is worse. He is more DLC and will try to muddle the Iraq issue

making us look weak and ineffective. We won because the situation in Iraq is so bad and has been mismanaged. We need to build up our credentials as defenders of his country and the party that has the new direction. Murtha will do that, Hoyer won't.

[EFerrari]

58. Sadly, I have to agree. n/t

[Nicole]

62. How low class.

Etiquette dictates we should wait at least a month after elections before we begin eating our own. :sarcasm:

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Sorry, I have been critical of Pelosi

Kerry, the DLC, Carville, Lieberman, etc for quite some time.

I call 'em as I seem 'em.

My opinion and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

[Rainscents]

71. You really need to step back and breath in deep.

Nancy has a plan for new ethic rules starting Jan, 2007 for everyone. Under the new rule, congress can NOT stick porks in the bills. If anyone break the rules, they'll be punished. I am sure, Murtha is aware of this rules as, Nancy had spoken with him before backing him as a majority leader.

So, if I were you, I would step back and relax. What anyone did in th pass is pass and there is nothing she could do about them now, except to do what she will be doing comes Jan, 2007.

Edit for add link... http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/champblog/2006/10/nancy_pelosis_tough_new_rules.html

[Kelvin Mace]

72. We shall see

[bigtree]

76. not before their critics finish taking their crack at it

[w4rma]

77. I like Pelosi and I do not fear anything about her. She, Hoyer and Murtha have done awesome jobs

thus far and I want to keep them all in positions of power.

One **major** thing I noticed about your post is that nowhere did you state who you wanted to fill any positions. I suppose you'd only settle for Kucinich? A party of one, perhaps?

[DemPower]

81. Kucinich deserves the position

He has been leading the effort to end the war in Iraq before it started. He led over 100 Democrats in voting NO on the Iraq War Resolution.

Kucinich led the effort- not Pelosi, not Murtha.

Kucinich stayed up all night reading the Patriot Act( since they gave it to them the night before and forced a vote the next morning) and afterward led the effort against it in the House. Kucinich Led the effort against the Patriot Act, not Pelosi, not Murtha, and it is now universally hated by everyone but the backwash.

He is a true natural leader and obviously not DLC which is why he is less known.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. No

Kucinich is nice, as would be Waxman or Conyers.