Pete Stark is a hero

[MalloyLiberal]

Run time: 04:08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhK7vdDEMFY   Posted on YouTube: October 18, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 19, 2007 By DU Member: MalloyLiberal Views on DU: 3024

 
(This is a much longer video)

[Middle finga]

1. Bravo! Where has this guy been all of this time? He is my new hero.

[ribrepin]

34. Remember this blast from the past...Stark's been around for a while.

This occurred on July 18, 2003

Republicans summoned the Capitol police to eject the Democrats from their impromptu meeting room, claiming they were engaging in disorderly conduct. The policeman who responded immediately recognized the implications of this request, and called in his supervisor, who in turn contacted Donald Kellaher, assistant to the sergeant at arms. Kellaher expressed shock over Thomas’s order to evict the Democrats, saying, “clearly the police in this circumstance have no role or authority to intervene.” He instructed the policemen to leave, saying the dispute was “a committee matter.”

Meanwhile, the rump committee hearing had itself erupted. As Thomas repeatedly asked for unanimous consent to dispense with reading the bill line-by-line, Stark continually objected and the reading continued. Stark, a longtime liberal congressman from the San Francisco Bay Area, made a sarcastic reference to Thomas’s “intellect,” only to be told to “shut up” by Scott McInnis, a Republican from Colorado. Stark angrily denounced McInnis, calling him several names and daring him to fight. (Stark is 71, McInnis is a 50-year-old ex-policeman).

After the altercation the Democrats introduced a resolution on the floor of the House condemning Thomas for calling the police, which was defeated on a party-line vote. The Republicans tried to cover up the significance of the call for police intervention against their opponents. They claimed Thomas had called the sergeant at arms because of a threat of violence by Stark. This is a transparent lie, given that the police were summoned to the library, where the Democrats were caucusing, not to the committee room, where the alleged threat by Stark took place. McInnis echoed Thomas’s account, going so far as to tell the House that he had feared a “bodily threat” from the elderly Stark.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “It is clear from the debate today that the Republicans have a major problem with the democratic process.” She called for an end to “the repression of our rights in this Congress.” The senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel of New York, said, “We Democrats represent almost half the population and yet we are forced to hold sit-ins. Then, they call the cops!”

I remember that DU was laughing our asses off at the thought of an ex-policeman being afraid of a San francisco senior citizen. McInnis made the rounds of the talk shows talking about how afraid he was of Pete Stark. I remember McInnis didn't run of re-election. I like to think he was humiliated by being forced to say he was afraid of Pete Stark.

[sasquatch]

2. A little insulting there, but for the most part spot on

[Syntheto]

4. It was over the top...

and strategically a very big mistake.

Attacking Bush with something like this is fine for anonymous blogs; many people feel Stark was right on the money about the guy's callousness, but..but..

For a member of Congress to actually say that, and have it committed, not only to the digital record but in a historical document such as the Congressional Record, where it is now enshrined for all time, was short-sighted and will come back to haunt us.

A giggling, imperious mental midget who sends young people off to war and cracks a gut every time the word comes back that a bunch of them got their heads blown off (great visual, right?) makes great red meat to throw to the masses, but is totally uncalled for and classless from somebody in our Legislature.

With that ill-advised rant, Stark has just let Larry Craig completely off the hook! Way to go. Yay! You called Bush a bad name and deeply insulted him, in the most public way possible. Ha, ha. You sure showed him. You now have people on blogs telling you how great you are, what a hero, but my question is, "How do you feel, now that you've just given the R Team's media specialists a weapon, and a big one at that, to beat us over the head with in the real contest: the General Election for President of the United States.?"

Not even during Vietnam did anybody insult Johnson like that; that was for the protesters in the streets. Not even during Watergate did any official member of our government get up and accuse Nixon of giggling like some American King Lear, and dancing a jig when he heard about Cambodians being blown to hell whenever bombs were dropped in secret operations over there.

Folks, it's bad enough when links are made to the more radical and foul-mouth rants here; we take it as a private club; so do the posters at freerepublic with their posts. It's not. Just as we need to seek out and link to the more radical RW's postings over there, they're going to do it to us, trying to define us on their terms.

If Mother Theresa had been a Democrat, they would've figured out a way to claim that she had been a whore in Chicago before she had moved to India, and that in reality, most of the kids she helped where her own illegitimate children!

If I was running the show over there, I would now package and position Bush as a gentleman of the old school, who now will get complete media coverage as he defends his personal honor!

Stark has just given Bush the chance to appear manly in front of the world, with the American flag behind him and declare how many sleepless nights he's had to endure, thinking about those all those poor kids, over there, true patriots who have paid the ultimate price in defense of our way of life.

Given that politics requires cold-blooded and cynical people who have the ability to debate both sides of any given issue, then it stands to reason that Stark was given the job to be the designated hitter here by the leadership.

Why? Well, maybe because the leadership is getting feedback from the ad-hoc, real-time polls, namely these websites, and are getting worried when they discern the End the War Now/Impeach Bush/Cheney crowd are getting restless and threatening not to vote in the general election.

Insulting the President of the United States (forget the person filling the slot, think of the position, goddamn it!) in public is the leadership's response to criticism that they haven't done enough to stop the War in Iraq, nor have they done anything to Impeach Bush/Cheney and frog march them to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes and then to be shot by firing squad. As if any of that, amounting to a coup d'etat, has the slightest chance of actually happening.

Okay, by doing that, they get some high-fives here, and giggles at how, wow, Stark really dissed Chimpy McHitler, but tell me exactly how that will now stop the War in Iraq and how it's gone one freaking milimeter towards Impeachment?

I'm sure the R Team is rubbing their hands and laughing about this: "Wow, is that best you got?" and "Gee, thanks for alienating many people on both sides, Congressman, by illustrating what We (with talent on loan from Godddd) have been saying all along; anybody with a D next to their name is a classless, cowardly fool who hates America."

Doesn't anybody get it? Can't anybody here play this game!?

Shut down the government. Close the checkbook. Silly name-calling, and stooping to impugn personal integrity is totally counter-productive. That is right up there with Preston Brooks beating Charles Sumner half to death with his cane on the floor of the Senate.

I'm not normally inclined towards conspiratorial thinking, but, given how machivellian politics is, I wonder if Stark got a big fat check for this from the R Team!

This is going to come back ten-fold to haunt us folks, it's going to put the leadership in a position where they have to repudiate what Stark said and ask for a public censure, just as with the MoveOn.org controversy.

If they do, they're going to look weak, spineless and foolish by both sides.

If they don't, they're going to look anti-American, because the OFFICE of President, ( and not G. W. Bush, who is merely a transient occupant), is identified, throughout the world, with and as AMERICA.

It was a strategic misstep, and makes me wonder who the hell is actually running the show, and why can't they even go to the bathroom without having to poll first?

[kenfrequed]

5. WHAT???!

You are full of it.

Honestly your kind of thinking is everything that is wrong with the professional political pundits and the neverending m'elange of useless consultants that exist to polish off all the rough edges of a candidates character to be as inoffensive as inhumanely possible. Sadly in their quest for the least uncivil and most uncomplimentary we have arrived at an era where ANY democrat with an unkind word must be chastised by the defenders of the spineless and milquetoast.

Odd that that assault on Clinton was not so absurdly saintly. Leading me to believe you were asleep during the entirety of the nineties.

Go be a worry troll somewhere else. we're all booked up here.

[Syntheto]

9. It's to get the votes,..

Why attack me personally? You know nothing about me personally; you assume because I don't agree with you that I'm a spineless apologist and I'm directly insulting you. That makes no sense.

I didn't say none of that wasn't true. I said that it was a strategic misstep, because it was. If Stark had said this about six months ago, it wouldn't have had as much effect. On the good side, if he said it six months from now, it could be catastrophic.

Kucinich calls a spade a shovel; do you honestly think that he has a chance to be the next American President, though? He would make a fantastic Secretary of State, for the very same reasons he won't get elected President. For one thing, he could be appointed, and not have to go through the electoral process, which would eat him alive.

Surely you know that?

If Stark is such a hero, why isn't he running? Why isn't his name being touted as a possible Vice Presidential candidate, by virtue of this performance?

Because rhetoric like that is a liability, that's why, and it doesn't matter whether you like it or not; it's the fact of the matter and the way the big boys play the game.

I submit, this didn't do anything to end the War, nor did it move one iota in the direction of Impeachment. All it did was publicly insult a sitting American President, and while it might make a lot of people very happy to think that the majority of the people in the country think just like them; just check out some of the sites the other side habituate; they think the same thing.

If you want to talk about how the real world works, and how dirty a business politics is, that would be great, and I would feel that my post was a constructive one. I want a Democratic President to break the cycle, and winning is the only thing that matters to me.

If you just want to vent about traitorous Blue Dog Democrats, who only enable Chimpy McHitler and lump my postings in with that group, and make it personal, that's fine, also.

There are people out there who don't like it when a doctor tells them they have about three months to live, so they keep looking until they find somebody who will tell them what they want to hear. That's not going to change the fact that they'll be on their deathbed in three months, wondering WTF happened.

Wishful thinking is not going to win the next election. The game of politics has to be not only played, but played better than the other side. If you don't want to hear that, I certainly can't change your perspective, and I'm not even going to try.

Shouting down people who bring up inconvenient facts and calling them defeatists for threatening your comfort zone is not going to change the inconvenient facts; those are immutable.

I wish you and your family the best, and I sincerely hope that all of us, no matter what our approach, can bring about the day when the old Right Wing slogan: "America, love it or leave it" becomes our mantra, and those who feel threatened by a multicultural America with strong labor unions and open arms for all the downtrodden of the world start looking for another place to live.

[kenfrequed]

10. Absolute nonsense

Please do not patronize me with this fabrication.

This is not about Kucinich. This is about the democratic party. I understand how you want to sound like a seasoned pro but if you are, then I don't ever want you running a campaign I'm involved with.

If you honestly think that somehow the opposition to the war will be aided by stilted commentary in spoke quietly and meekly in a congress that we Democrats are supposed to be in charge of then I really don't know what to say to you.

Do you honestly think that the media picks up on republicans fillibustering every bill the Dems try to put forth? Do you think that gets a news cycle? Do you think the GOP gets painted as obstructionists at this point?

Do you honestly think that Faux news actually needs something like this to create a scandal or to cycle around nothing? I would submit to you a flag shaped pin if you honestly believe that.

What is required now is to fire up the base and move the debate. If you think that business as usual and meekness are a means to accomplish this then I invite you to demonstrate when mealy mouthed language has ever caused this to come about.

This kind of talk ENABLES the corporate media to attack leaders with the temerity to stand up to this criminal administration. This kind of talk turns a story from being about what is said into a stupid process story and it makes Democrats look weak and ineffectual.

[Syntheto]

13. Successful Politcs is cold-blooded and unemotional...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=63382&mesg_id=63682


Why give the other side something to beat you with?

I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm not patronizing anybody. You have your beliefs, and they're not going to change, nor would I try to change them, just as I would never try to change anybody's mind over on the freerepublic site. They're right and that's it, I know how it goes.

If I was your campaign manager, that would mean you would have to trust my judgement on how to, yes, package not only your message, but you, yourself. Notice I said 'package' and not 'change' your message or you.

I know that's a moot point, because you wouldn't want my help or advice. The difference between us is that if you changed your mind tomorrow, I would cheerfully comply and do a damned good job for you. Surely you have friends who might be lower-keyed than you are, while you have others who are more strident; I do, we all do.

However, to prove my point, I will bet you $1000 to your $100 that Kucinich will not win the Presidency if he stays on message. That's ten to one odds. I call on the mods to take note of this; if it's not allowed, please let both of us know. By stay on message, I mean wanting to press criminal charges against Bush and Cheney after he is elected President. That's serious stuff, and it's the red meat he's throwing out there to establish his democratic street cred with the Impeachment crowd.

Why would I do this? Because I don't like him, personally? No. Because he's 'short'? Nope. It's because he doesn't have a chance of becoming President precisely because of those sort of harangues. As I said, he'd make a great Secretary of State, but he's not going to win the Presidential election. Right now, he's acting as the cheerleader to keep the faithful riled up. If he had his own syndicated radio show, he'd be more effective than anybody I know on our side (and it is our side) to offer a counterpoint to the R Team media machine.

By denigrating the Office of the President of the United States, which is how this is going to be played in the media, and Bush will slide free, Stark took a cheap shot, and not a very effective one. Instead of a roundhouse right, he slapped an impotent kid glove across Bush's nose and now it's the R-Team's turn and they're going to pick shotguns at three paces. As much as you despise the guy, Bush will be completely removed from the equation.

There's a line and it was crossed, and the reason it has every chance of sticking is that it was easily reduced to a sound bite. The electorate has a very short attention span and you have to have short, snappy concepts and slogans to get the message across. Blame it on adverts and the way drama is presented with pauses at the right spot to push a product. The trick and artistry is to enfold enough multisensory information and implication into every word and image.

You might not like it. That doesn't change anything.

Again, I'm not patronizing anybody and I'm serious about the bet.

Looking weak and ineffectual is one thing, losing the White House will prove it for real.

[PurpleChez]

14. I had the same reaction

but no need to insult the brother. I like to think that in just a few years historians and others will be asking why MORE people didn't say things like Pete Stark said. I find it increasingly disingenous that so many of us can't imagine how an educated people like Germany fell for Hitler. Bush has absolutely NOTHING to recommend him, and yet there is still a sizable portion of the population who still thinks that the murderous buffoon walks on water

[maxkeiser]

6. i disagree...

the so-called left needs to move beyond being manipulated into being coy and worthless. If Americans want democracy back they are going to have to take it back... America does not need professional politicians, it needs competent amateur politicians who can simply follow the instructions of the pre-butchered Constitution - passed on from the founding fathers... Just do what the document says; we don't need preening, posing Brycreamed empty suits bloviating all day.. but the only way we'll get back to the beginning is with a clean sweep of the lice that has moved into Wash. DC.. it may take getting one's hands dirty beyond the usual PTA meetings and bake sales.

[Syntheto]

11. You wrote, rather ominously:

it may take getting one's hands dirty beyond the usual PTA meetings and bake sales.

And that means what? You know and I know exactly what that means.

In the most innocent way, it means not submitting to the American electoral process, which involve sound bites and pretty, telegenic people blathering ad nauseum about 'safe' subjects, rather than the heavy duty stuff. It means general strikes. It means forcing police to make arrests and then, hopefully, beating the hell out of a few people so that there will be lots of blood and screaming, just in time to make the six o'clock news. It means disrupting Congress, and in effect, stopping the government. It means trashing Wall Street, trying to disrupt the business of Business.

In the worst way, it means not submitting to the American electoral process and installing our own leadership, who would need the backing of significant sectors of the military and their heavy weapons.

It would also mean rounding people up who you feared might organize a counter revolution. That means secret police and the 2 AM knock on the door. Maybe it means 'taking out' certain people to ensure nobody can rally around them. Stalin called it 'liquidation', pretty graphic stuff.

No way, you say? It wouldn't be like that? Well, what if you found out that a bunch of the so-called 'freepers' were planning to set off another mcveigh inside the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago with the hope of killing a bunch of schoolkids, to make their point?

Would those kind of people deserve a trial, or should we start our own Guantanamo Bay to teach them a lesson?

I have an idea: why not play the game better than the other team? I know some people think that is limp-dicked way to approach this, and that every insult by the R team needs to be redressed, ten-fold, (and some people seem to have logged every single thing that fits this category) but short of a violent revolution, our electoral system, for all it's faults, is the only option we have.

Why do you think it came about in the first place? Historically, the only options for power changing hands has been hereditary or revolutionary. The American democratic system, so relatively new, has been the best way so far.

I want to keep it that way. I think, despite what the other side may claim, that progressive ideas can not only stand on their own, they can win an American election, working within the system.

So many people are overly concerned about Style. We need to make sure of the Substance of the progressive message.

[PassingFair]

8. It exposes the giggling psycopath for what he is.

We need MORE, not less, of this truth.

[Syntheto]

12. Truth or not...

So what?

Every single day, it seems as if somebody posts something with "...This is the thing that will bring Bush/Cheney down, please read..."

Well, the "dynamic duo" and their nomenclature are still there. In fact, they've made it a point to counterpunch Congress every single time, no matter what the charge was.

When things get too heavy, and the now behind-the-scenes Karl Rove and his organization deem the timing right, Bush makes a big production about integrity and looking into the matter. Shortly afterwards, somebody closely identified with his administration tenders their 'resignation'.

Seriously, do you honestly think that Don Rumsfeld is out of the loop? Do you think Alberto Gonsalez isn't living in disgrace somewhere?

By the way, how come nobody says anything about bringing Rumsfeld to justice to stand trial for war crimes against humanity? What, out of sight, out of mind?

No, people want to applaud when an elected official completely disrespects the office of President, not giving a fuck about the precedent it sets, on International media outlets and getting entered into the Congressional Record; an historical document.

This isn't about the clown who sits in that chair at the moment. It's about when the next Democratic President of the United States is accused of finding sadistic pleasure in a mining accident in 2010, with some Republican Congressperson saying: "The President just gets tickled pink about these deaths because he/she knows that they probably would've voted Republican."

Do you honestly think that wouldn't happen?

It seems that some people are so certain that we're not going to win the Presidential election in 2008, that they're reduced to name-calling and they're satisfied.

Not me. I want to win, and we can. Why don't we all start doing something more constructive like floating names for the Democratic cabinet?

Purple prose like psychopath, etc, when referring to a sitting American President, while it might be true about the individual sitting in that chair at the moment, makes any President fair game from now on. If this is just some payback for what Clinton had to endure, and the intense dislike of "looking like wimps", then call it what it is.

Otherwise, take a deep breath, count to ten and start thinking in strategic terms with the goal of winning the Presidential election next year and not shouting to the wind for the umpteenth time that Bush/Cheney is Satan incarnate.

If nobody seems to care that Rumsfeld is walking around free now, I doubt seriously that anyone is going to push for Bush to be brought to trial after he leaves office.

So, why bother now?

Yeah, okay, Stark called a spade a shovel, but all that did was to circle the wagons and make it even more difficult to stop Bush's agenda.

When people here post that Stark was wrong, not a single one of them said a damned thing about Bush not being that bad, okay? Everybody making that argument, myself included, are saying that, basically, it just rolled off of Bush's back, but stained the Office of the President of the United States.

It was mistake, and a bad one at that.

[cboy4]

16. No is was not a mistake. I was happy he said it

and I was thrilled today to hear he is not going to apologize.

I will be sending him a campaign donation as a reward for his truthfulness.

[PassingFair]

17. Nope. Not a mistake.

The mistake has been not calling him and his henchmen
out since DAY ONE.

Stolen elections.
PACKS OF LIES.


"all that did was to circle the wagons and make it even more difficult to stop Bush's agenda."
You've GOT to be kidding.

Would you have shushed Patrick Henry or
told Thomas Paine not to make waves,
I bet you would have.

Stark is, in fact, too little,
too late.

[Syntheto]

22. Ahhh the high priests of orthodoxy check in...

glad to see you guys are on the ball.

Yeah, ol' Pete told that sumbitch what for!

I am ashamed to be such an apologist, weak-willed and lily-livered, ect, ect.

Yeah, the Nazis are taking power and the hang-wringing defeatists; these good Germans, Blue Dog Democrats and such want to suck up to the monsters.

Yep, that's exactly what my posts said, and I'm sure you read and understood every thing I said.

Yeah, Come on guys, let's not irritate the British; they might get mad, and I'm scared; stop it Tom! I will not sign that document! The King will get mad.

Fuck the office of President anyway, it doesn't mean anything, right?

Hey, and when Giuliani wins the Presidency, well, it's obviously because the Repukes stole it yet again.

And when that happens, we'll all sit here and pat each other on the back and talk about what fucking Nazis his crew will be, and then we'll badmouth people who don't agree with us here and insult our intelligence when they have the nerve to say: "Hey, let's change tactics and take ownership of the word "American"" and we'll feel that we are the only true progressives because we'll hold up a sign that's going to say "Rudy is a fucking Idiot," and harangue (and bore) all our coworkers with mouth-frothing conspiratorial theories.

No one who has taken personal shots at my integrity for stating that this was a strategic mistake has explained to me:

1. How this will win the election for us.
2. How this will push Congress to overwhelmingly vote to Impeach.
3. How this will get us out of Iraq.

Why didn't Stark say: Rumsfeld was amused by soldiers getting their heads blown off? Because he's not fucking immune like the President of the United States is, okay? It's the Office, not the person in it.

Instead of giving me a hard way to go, and questioning my dedication, why don't you take a minute to answer those questions? Keep it simple, because I'm obviously stupid, and merely sitting at the feet of the master debaters here.

If you're just going to bluff and bluster, fine; I want to compare notes on strategy for '08. Unless the leadership gets the gun out of the holster without shooting themselves in the foot every time it's just a lot of hot air and posturing.

I am definitely not in your league, pal. I don't deserve to post on the same topic as you.

[PassingFair]

23. Your conclusions are dead on. n/t

"I am definitely not in your league, pal. I don't deserve to post on the same topic as you."

Have you been SLEEPING through the last 27 years?

This is LONG OVERDUE, Mr. VanWinkle.

[Syntheto]

26. This about sums it up...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3035495

All they had to do was stand up, show a united front and say:

"We've been remiss in our duties to the Constitution and to the people we were elected to represent. Thank god for the bravery of Rep. Stark in pointing out the danger to the American ideal and shaming us all into action. He will not stand alone! We, the Democratic members of Congress, now demand that articles of Impeachment be read out against George W. Bush and his Vice President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. We invite those Republicans in Congress who feel their duty to the Constitution and the American people outweigh their loyalty to an Administration who has brought disgrace to the exalted Office of The President of the United States to join us."

If they don't do this right now, they have lost and whether you like it or not, they will have earned the disgust of people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, you give me a hard time. Go back to sleep, we don't have anything to say to each other. We're not in the same fucking library, much less on the same page.

Great. Yeah, I'm a new poster, but I can certainly understand why some people here are beside themselves here.

You didn't ask me too, but I'm going out and grab two bottles of Merlot; here's to you and yours. I feel the urge to start drinking. And, please, I am not patronizing you!!!!

[cboy4]

25. Now Syntheto, don't you feel it's time for you to

quit stomping your feet in anger because you're mad so many DUers support what Stark said?

People like you who are afraid to rock the boat are generally failures, because people know they can walk all over you.

I mean, that's the impression I get of you. And I don't even know you.

[Syntheto]

27. Ouch! That really hurt!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3035495


You're right: you don't even know me. Apparently you don't know anything.

Hey, just go back to sleep okay? When you wake up, the bad Bushie man will be gone.

That is, if wishful thinking can win elections. In my experience, it usually takes playing the game better than the other team with your side pulling together and presenting a united front.

You don't like the game analogy? Well, it doesn't matter if you do or don't; that's the way it works.

If you can't come up with something better than personal attacks because your black and white world view is threatened, then don't waste my time, okay?

What a crew we have up there.

[cboy4]

32. Well Syntheto, why do you consider being called a

failure a personal attack?

Sometimes the truth hurts, and out of sadness, you probably view it as a personal attack, when it is no such thing.

But giving in to the Republicans is very much a sign of weakness.

The bottom line is the Democrats haven't gotten shit done playing nice the way you advocate. Not a thing.

It's so true. Nice guys finish last.


on edit: typo

[Syntheto]

37. Playing nice is not what I posted...

So I know that you either A. didn't read it or B. Read it but didn't understand it.

The Democrats have never gotten anywhere by following lame strategy.

If you would like me to explain it to you, I'd be glad to, because you have failed to get the point.

[Richard Steele]

15. Your CONCERN is noted.

[Gelliebeans]

18. no kidding

because capitulation has worked out so well for us in the past...:sarcasm:

love ur kitty

[Seabiscuit]

24. One man's "concern" is another's "hot wind"...

I would say: "Your hot wind is noted. Thank you for your hot wind."

Five lengthy posts full of sturm und drung and signifying absolutely nothing. Wow.

It's way past time someone like Pete Stark got up and told it like it is. Kudos to Mr. Stark!

[Syntheto]

29. Yep, hot wind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3035495


This pretty much says it all.

[Seabiscuit]

38. Just more hot wind from Nancypoo.

Not one Republican on the floor of the House said so much as "peep" during Stark's commentary. Where was all the outrage? They were feeling ashamed because Stark was telling the truth about them, and as he noted, when asking them if they were going to continue lying, they just looked down at their shoes and up at the ceiling, averting their eyes from having to look him in the eye when he was talking right at them. Filthy lying cowards. And, as I said, Stark deserves our respect for being the spine in the back of a party that otherwise would appear spineless, thanks to the Pelosi types.

[stimbox]

30. Bushit! Playing nice is what cost us two Presidential elections.

[RBInMaine]

33. Sorry, but you are entirely wrong!! Screw the GOP !

Oh Christ, there was a time when members of Congress were in virtual fistfights on the floor of the House, whacking each other with canes and such. This is democracy and dealing with life or death matters. It is supposed be tough! About goddamn time more Dems stood up and put the shit to the ReThuglicans and that rotten crook in the White House. The ReThuglicans impeached Clinton for purely politicial reasons, they have no problem standing up and lying incessently about how SCHIP is "socialized medicine" and all the rest of their right-wing corporate horseshit, they have stood up and called Democrats "defeatists" and said Dems are "helping terrorists and Osama Bin Laden" and the rest of their atrocious and appalling shit righ there on the floor of the House and Senate! Than "Mean-Jean" Bitch Schmidt from Ohio stood there and called Murtha, a decorated war hero, a "coward". Good that Stark stood up and drove it up their asses! About fuckin' time! We need MUCH more toughness and backbone in there! We're in the goddamn majority for Christ sake! Our side speaks for the majority of the country! And we won the fuckin' election last November, NOT them! Fuck the GOP ("Grand Old Pricks"!). Dems have taken their right-wing shit for WAY too long and it's about time we not only fought back but took the fight right the hell to them! Now let's go out and kick their fat corrupt asses even harder in '08!

[populistdriven]

35. You sound like the R's when they were plotting to Impeach Clinton - MOVEON

If we allow the Repukes to keep Craig in the spotlight all it does is distract us from the real issues.

[tecelote]

3. Bombs or Babies?

This vote was just another example of the moral and ethical chasm our country has fallen in to.

[MiniMe]

7. I've got a great question for Pete to ask:

If they don't get health care, how are they going to grow up and pay of the dept the repukes are creating? And pay into the SSI system? When a kid dies because he has to go to the dentist and he doesn't have insurance, he sure isn't going to be able to help them pay off thie debt.

f&(*ers

[wildbilln864]

19. Thank you Pete Stark! n/t

[debbierlus]

20. He should put this video on the front of his website

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z0TnqUlB4Gg

[ooglymoogly]

21. big rec also went to Utube and gave it 5 stars.

[usregimechange]

28. Who was acting as speaker during this?

[populistdriven]

36. I was wondering the same - who ever it was sounded like a tool

[kster]

31. Who ever asked him to apologize should apologize.nt

[SeattleGirl]

39. Right on, Rep. Stark!

I am so glad you said what you did, and that you refuse to apologize.

Please, please, please, hold your ground!

[txwhitedove]

40. Bravo, Mr. Stark! We need more leaders to speak the truth.

As a pacifist, I am not opposed to verbal bombs being dropped on Bushidiot and crew.
It needs to be done daily. Bush has no honor to defend.