PELOSI: PRESIDENT: PROBLEMS: PROMISES: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ASIDE: CANDOR AND CONSISTENCY CALLING

IT IS HIGH TIME THAT AMERICANS WHO DON’T THINK ANYTHING CAN OR WILL HAPPEN TO CHANGE DIRECTION IN THIS COUNTRY, EITHER WAKE UP, SMARTEN UP, OR SHUT UP , AND GET OUT OF THE WAY OF PEOPLE WHO CARE, ARE READY AND CAPABLE OF MOVING THIS NATION TO IMPEACH OUR CRIMINAL PRESIDENT, BECAUSE YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE AS GUILTY OF AIDING AND ABETTING HIS CRIMES AS HE IS OF COMMITTING THEM!

IF WE DEMOCRATS CANNOT BRING OURSELVES TO RECTIFY THE INHUMANE AND BARBARIC PRACTICES THAT NOW PASS FOR US JUSTICE, THEN WE, TOO, HAVE FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THIS NATION WILL BE WELL ON THE WAY TO A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE AS A DEMOCRACY.

{IF IT IS NECESSARY TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER HER; WE WILL! IF IT IS NECESSARY TO REDUCE HER TO A MERE FIGURE HEAD IN THE CHAIR; WE WILL! IF IT IS NECESSARY TO REMOVE HER AS SPEAKER; WE WILL! A DESPOT AND A CRIMINAL HAS NO RIGHT TO BE PRESIDENT! WE ARE THE PEOPLE AND ARE WILL BE MADE KNOWN, AND IF WE MUST AGAIN TAKE TO THE STREETS; WE WILL, BECAUSE OUR WILL, WILL BE DONE!}

BUSH IS THE MOST IMPEACHABLE PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. HOWEVER, THE INCOMING SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI, HAS DECLARED IMPEACHMENT TO BE "OFF THE TABLE."

IF SHE CONTINUES IN THAT “VERBAL LINT” SHE WILL BE STOPPED!

“AFTER THE ELECTIONS, THERE ARE SOME STRONG VOICES ON THE LEFT CALLING FOR DEMOCRATS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY. “

“A NATIONWIDE INTERNET NETWORK IS POISED TO STRIKE. COMMITTED TO JUSTICE, THEY ARE PREPARING TO MOVE THE CONGRESS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THIS NATION. THEY ARE PREPARED TO LEAD THIS NATION TO DEMAND IMPEACHMENT, AND THOSE WHO DRAG THEIR FEET WILL FIND THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS IN SHAMBLES.”

“THEY WILL NOT BE DENIED HAVING AMERICAN FACE UP TO THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS OF: WHAT IS RIGHT; WHAT IS WRONG; WHAT IS LEGAL; WHAT IS ILLEGAL?”


Pelosi team tries to steer Democrats to the center

Wary of plans by House liberals
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff November 21, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Anxious to chart a centrist course with Democrats' new majority in Congress, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top deputies are busily working in private and public to rein in the liberal ambitions of some senior party heavyweights --including proposals to reinstate the military draft and end the Pentagon's ban on gays in uniform.

Pelosi has urged House Democrats, including incoming committee chairmen, to use the first weeks of next year's congressional term to focus exclusively on proposals on which the party is unified and legislative goals that are within reach, according to Pelosi allies and aides.

Pelosi and the incoming House majority leader, Representative Steny Hoyer, quashed talk of reinstating the draft one day after Representative Charles Rangel said he will file a bill to make that happen. Rangel, a New York Democrat, is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the most powerful posts in Congress.

{WATCH THIS ONE! IT IS NOT A NUTTY MOVE…WE HAVE A PROBLEM!}

"The speaker and I have discussed scheduling; it did not include that," said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.

Already, House Democratic leaders have extracted a promise from the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, to rule out impeaching President Bush. Conyers is the lead sponsor of a bill that would investigate whether to recommend "grounds for possible impeachment."

{THIS MOVE IS SIMPLY TO ELIMINATE THE APPEARANCE OF BEING PRECIPITITOUS. DESIRE AND JUST CAUSE EXIST, AND ORGANIZATIONAL FORCES ARE HARD AT WORK WITH A JANUARY TIME LINE SET FOR CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE AND CREATION OF A FAVORABLE CLIMATE OF AMERICAN OPINION TO LAUNCH IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOTH BUSH AND CHENEY .} This issue is not closed!

Pelosi has also tempered hopes of reversing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the service of gays and lesbians in the military, after two key Democrats -- Representatives Martin T. Meehan of Lowell and Barney Frank of Newton -- said last week that they want to repeal the policy.

Though Pelosi believes homosexuals should be able to openly serve, she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities -- including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.

{IF PELOSI IS GOING TO REALLY TRY TO MOVE AN OLD AGENDA OF “BUSINESS AS USUAL; SHE WILL BECOME NOTHING BUT A FIGURE HEAD IN THE CHAIR. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT CHANGE; THEY WANT ACTION; THEY WANT CORRECTION OF COURSE, AND IF THERE ARE FAILED EXPECTATIONS THE 2008 ELECTIONS WILL BE A DEMOCRATIC DISASTER!}

Pelosi and Hoyer outlined an agenda yesterday for early next year that Pelosi said will relieve "the middle-class squeeze." It avoids hot-button issues such as tax cuts, gay rights, and abortion for popular issues such as a higher minimum wage, more affordable student loans, and congressional ethics reform.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG NANCY. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING; YOU ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO SAYING WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR!

"These issues are bipartisan in nature," Pelosi said. "That's why we recommended them. We thought they were areas that are relevant to the lives of the American people, and that would have bipartisan support."

{THEY ARE SAFE AND EASY TO SELL!}

During the past two years, Democrats have shown remarkable unity battling the Bush administration and Republican leadership in Congress. Since Democrats won control of the House and Senate two weeks ago, however, that unity has been strained.

{AT THIS POINT AMERICA IS ALREADY LEANING IN THE DIRECTION THAT IT IS ALL A SHAM}

The rank-and-file House Democrats bucked Pelosi to elect Hoyer as majority leader instead of her choice, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. Although Democrats won the House with an incoming class of moderate-to-conservative candidates, an old guard of liberals who have been waiting 12 years to retake power will rise to House committee chairmanships.

{THEY ARE BITING THEIR TOUNGES TRYING TO PLAY NICE, BUT INSIDE THEY HUNGRY DOGS AND BUSH AND CHENEY ARE RAW MEAT! PELOSI IS NO DOG TRAINER! SO LOOK OUT AS EVENTS UNFOLD AFTER 1/1/07 WHEN A NEW GROWING REALITY SPROUTS AND DEMOCRATS DIGEST THE FACT THAT EXPECTATIONS UNFULFILLED CONSTITUTES DISASTER IN 2008!}

Besides Rangel, Conyers, and Frank, who is set to take over the Financial Services Committee, presumed chairmen from the left include Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California on the Government Reform committee, and Representative George Miller of California on the Education and the Work Force Committee.

Committee chairmen are generally selected on the basis of seniority and influence; Dingell has been in Congress for 26 two-year terms and Conyers has served 20. Frank, Waxman, and Miller each have held office for more than a dozen terms.

With the chairman's gavel comes wide leeway to call hearings, launch investigations, and send bills to the House floor. If Pelosi allows her chairmen to impose their agendas unchecked, it could turn off voters and Democrats could quickly lose the majority, said John J. Pitney Jr., a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "This is a huge problem for Pelosi," Pitney said. "A lot of these committee chairs have been around a lot longer than she has. They don't owe her anything."

{SHE AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM IF THEY DO NOTHING AND GO INTO “SAFE MODE”!}

Rangel, who won a 19th term earlier this month proved that point by sticking to his call for reinstating the draft, which he believes will guarantee that the burden of military service is shared equally across socioeconomic lines. Yesterday, Rangel brushed aside Pelosi's assertion that he has no jurisdiction on the issue since he's on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

"I'm a member of Congress, and it's true my plate is filled, as it relates to taxes, Social Security, and trade," Rangel, who represents Harlem, said on MSNBC. "But I think more people are now saying that we need to send more troops in Iraq. I can't be quiet and say, 'Where are you going to get these troops? Are you going to come back to neighborhoods like mine?' "

On the campaign trail, Republicans warned voters that if Democrats took power they would promote a "liberal agenda," and pointed to Rangel, Frank, and Conyers. Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz said those three, and others, are confirming their suspicions.

"It doesn't seem they're as focused as they say they are on doing the people's work," Diaz said.

{SORRY DANNY; IMPEACHMENT IS THE PEOPLE'S WORK AND WE ARE HARD AT WORK, SO TAKE YOUR SPIN AND GO PLAY WITH YOUR GYROSCOPE!}

Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, who leads the centrist New Democrat Coalition, said Pelosi is lowering expectations of the incoming chairmen, because maintaining the legislative majority takes moderation.

"Nancy is very cognizant of the fact that a muddied message now sends the wrong signal," said Tauscher, a California Democrat. "She is deeply committed to be sure that we have a workable majority that is representing the people who brought us -- Democrats, independents, and disaffected Republicans -- and that we stay in the majority."

That's why Pelosi is highlighting the widely popular items in Democrats' "Six for '06" campaign agenda. She wants to deliver the first batch of accomplishments within the first 100 legislative hours in January, said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Somerville Democrat who is leading Pelosi's transition team.

"We hope to get something done that's serious, that's beyond political," Capuano said.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

Bush Re-nominates Judicial Picks

Fight with Senate Democrats over Blocked Candidates Appears Likely
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff WriterThursday, November 16, 2006; Page A03

President Bush renominated six previously blocked candidates for federal appeals court yesterday, triggering the first real battle with ascendant Democrats since the midterm elections and signaling what could be the start of a fierce two-year struggle over the shape of the federal judiciary.

{I’M A FISHERMAN, AND IF THIS IS NOT PRESIDENTIAL BAIT; THEN THERE IS NONE!}……. (INSERT)…….

Bush Resubmits 'Burble-Gurgle' Judicial Nominees as a 'Sop to the Right'?

Although the outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said that he would not move their nominations during the lame-duck session, President Bush has re-submitted six controversial judicial nominees. As one source told The Washington Times, their chances for confirmation can be boiled down to “burble, gurgle”:

"There is zero, zip, zilch chance of any of these judges making it through the Senate killing fields in the waning days," said one Republican aide, who has watched the nominees situation but asked not to be identified. "Without a plan for successful confirmation from the White House, the only point is to fly the flag as the judicial-confirmation ship slips beneath the waves. Burble, gurgle."

(Either that or the source was drunk.) This apparently symbolic gesture, coming on the heels of the president’s post-thumping call for bipartisanship, could be taken as a “sop to the right,” in the words of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York). Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and an advisor to the Bush administration on judicial nominations, is taking it that way: “The president's sending the message that he's not going to deviate one iota from his judicial philosophy, which is that he's going to send up nominees who don't legislate from the bench,” he said. And Focus on the Family Action is urging its supporters to encourage Bush.

As PFAW legal director Elliot Mincberg told the Post, this is a “disturbing sign,” but “even more important will be what he does in January. If he takes the same tack in January, then he signals that he wants confrontation."

Massachusetts Liberal

A vehicle to rant about the outrages perpetrated on a daily basis by the Armies of the Right to distort, demean and cheapen the quality of life in the United States

Boston blues
Sorry state of affairs
Trav-ails
Say what?
Priorities -- II
Priorities
The vision thing
Chill out dudes
Greater Boston -- Part Deux
The many faces of Mitt
Links
Google News
Media Nation
Universal Hub
Media Log
Blue Mass. Group
Jon Keller
CJR Daily
Running a Hospital
A Healthy Blog
Hub Log

Actions speak louder than words

A seemingly chastened George Bush talked about bipartisanship the day after the House fell to the Democrats. He did it again when Burns and Allen gave the Senate to the Democrats too.But as always, it's more important to track the deed, not the words of the Prevaricator-in-Chief. His decision to put forward six previously blocked judicial nominees shows how shallow the promises were. Particularly since the nominations don't stand a chance in the lame duck session, let alone in a newly reconstituted Senate next year.But if that isn't enough -- how about the speculation that he intends to bypass the process altogether and keep John Bolton at the UN.

{THAT ISSUE IS RESOLVED!}

This may be a case of don't trust and verify.

{LET'S SEE...THROW ANYTHING AT US TO DIVERT OUR ATTENTIONS AND ENERGIES FROM IMPEACHMENT; ON THE APPOINTMENTS I SAY WE DON'T WASTE MUCH TIME AND: "JUST SAY NO!"}

posted by Outraged Liberal 8:06 PM

The move heartened conservatives who worried that Bush would scale back his ambition to move courts to the right and outraged liberals, who called it a violation of the spirit of bipartisanship promised since Democrats captured Congress. Both sides saw it as a possible harbinger for the remainder of Bush's presidency, particularly if a Supreme Court vacancy opens.

The decision to send back the six nominees, along with four new candidates for the bench, was a provocative maneuver intended to signal that Bush does not plan to cower in the face of an opposition Congress, because the Senate almost certainly will not act on them in the lame-duck session that adjourns next month. If Bush wants to keep pushing for these nominations, he will have to resubmit them in January, when the Senate reconvenes with a 51-vote Democratic majority.

"We are hopeful that the days of judicial obstruction are behind us," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore. Noting that a Republican Senate confirmed 15 of Bill Clinton's nominees to the federal appeals bench in his last two years as president, she added: "We are hopeful that President Bush's nominees will receive a fair up-or-down vote."

{GET REAL!!!}

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said none of the six would be confirmed. "It's a real slap in the face," he said by telephone. "It basically makes you think the talk of bipartisanship is just talk. . . . I guess it's a sop to the right, but if he's going to keep doing sops to the right, it means they didn't pay attention to the results of the election."

Judgeships have been a priority for conservatives and a major flashpoint between Bush and congressional Democrats. A group of centrist senators from both parties last year brokered a truce in the nomination war and Bush secured confirmation for two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. In his final days on the campaign trail, Bush warned supporters that a Democratic Senate would never have confirmed Roberts or Alito and would stonewall future nominations.

Now he appears ready to test that proposition. None of the six nominees resubmitted yesterday received a Senate floor vote: Michael B. Wallace for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit; William J. Haynes II and Terrence W. Boyle Jr. for the 4th Circuit; William G. Myers III and Norman Randy Smith for the 9th Circuit; and Peter D. Keisler for the D.C. Circuit.

In addition, he sent four new nominations: James E. Rogan to the U.S. District Court in California; Benjamin H. Settle to the district court in Washington state; and Margaret A. Ryan and Scott W. Stucky to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Rogan, a Republican former congressman, is the most prominent of the four, having served as one of the House managers who prosecuted Clinton during his 1999 impeachment trial.

Four of the previously blocked nominees were criticized as unqualified or too conservative. One of the others ran into objections from California senators who did not want his seat moved to Idaho and the last was stalled by assertions that the caseload on his circuit did not justify another judge. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said Tuesday that he would not move the nominations during the lame-duck session.

Elliot Mincberg, legal director of the liberal People for the American Way, said: "This is a disturbing sign . . . in terms of Bush trying to reach out for genuine consultation and consensus. But even more important will be what he does in January. If he takes the same tack in January, then he signals that he wants confrontation."

Conservatives hope that is what Bush wants and say it will test Democrats' commitment to bipartisanship. "The president's sending the message that he's not going to deviate one iota from his judicial philosophy, which is that he's going to send up nominees who don't legislate from the bench," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, who advises the White House.

Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.

Keeping a Check on Congressional Reality By Frank Salvato November 20, 2006 What a difference a week makes.

And so it begins.

Just a week after making the move from "the party of no" to the majority party, Democratic leaders are backing away from the "undermine Bush at all costs" rhetoric they have been employing since November of 2000. In as much as their constant degradation of the Bush Administration was boorish, their constant debasing of the president's achievements now saddles them with the impossible task of living up to their own criticism.

{IT IS JUST THIS TYPE OF IDIOTIC ASSUMPTION THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE PRESIDENT’S CONTINUED ACTS OF BLATANT CRIMINALITY, THE ASSUMPTION THAT NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!}

The softening of the rhetoric started almost immediately as calls for President Bush's impeachment gave way to calls for a more amicable, bi-partisan work atmosphere in Washington. The venomous tirades of everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid to Charlie Rangel morphed from "Bush lied and people died," "Bush is inept," "Bush is stupid," and "Bush was behind September 11th" into a poor impression of Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?"

{WHAT IS STUPID IS THE COWARDLY, POLITICALLY POLITE/CORRECT MORPHING ACT. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE VOTERS WANT, THOUGH THEY MAY EXPECT THE “COWARDICE AND BACK PEDALING.}



With the reality that they had captured control of the House and the Senate washing over them, the politically opportunistic headhunters of the Democratic leadership seem to have lost their taste for political flesh.




Evidently, for the Progressive-Left, it is quite sobering to realize that when you win the responsibility of leadership you have to produce rather than simply and blindly criticize.





This couldn't have been more evident than with the front-page New York Times story that told of the impending doom that would besiege Iraq should the American military and coalition forces withdraw prematurely from that theater.





What a difference a week makes.A little over seven days ago the Times was quoting Cindy Sheehan on the need for immediate troop withdrawal as if she was an omnipotent being and John Murtha was the wise and seasoned war veteran that knew so much more than the tinhorn generals who had worked their ways up to the highest offices of the Pentagon.





But seven days later, the New York Times, the paper of record for all that is anti-war and anti-Bush was touting the very same position the Bush Administration has maintained from the very beginning; we cannot leave until the Iraqis can defend themselves.





General John Batiste, a frequent critic of the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, said that before the US could consider troop withdrawals, we should make efforts to lessen unemployment, secure the Iraqi borders, solicit more cooperation from tribal leaders, complete training of Iraq's security forces, and eliminate the militias.




He called congressional proposals for early troop withdrawal, "terribly naïve."Gee, where have I heard that before?


Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), interviewed by FOX News's Martha MacCallum, commented that it was necessary to "listen to the generals on the ground" and to heed the opinion of Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates.




Perhaps Senator Nelson's intellectual revelation was genuine (of course, one would have to question whether the good senator suffered from some sort of intellectual time delay for this to be true), but odds are that it had more to do with having heard President Bush express this policy ad nauseam over the years.


The point is this; the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate on the innocuous platform of "change." This "change" -- just as when it was used to bring Bill Clinton to power in 1992 -- went undefined, dramatically promoted in every speech delivered by every Democratic candidate.





The American people were never offered any plan of action to achieve this "change," nor reasons why "change" was so desperately needed, we simply bought the concept of "change" proving P.T. Barnum correct in his adage that there is a sucker born every minute.They told us we needed to "change" the strategy in Iraq.





They said we needed to "change" the direction of the economy. Border security? "Change!" Immigration reform? "Change!" Shore-up Social Security and tackle tax reform? "Change and change!"


{IN THIS LIFE; IN TODAY’S WORLD; THE ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE! SO DEAR MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS, TAKE OFF YOUR BLINDERS; GET YOUR OSTRICH HEADS OUT OF THE SANDS OF IRAQ; ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THIS LAND; DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY; ACT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE; BITE THE PROVERBIAL BULLET; EARN YOUR PAY AND OUR RESPECT…DO YOUR JOBS; CHANGE THINGS AND IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY WHILE YOU ARE AT IT. THAT MATTER IS AN OPEN AND SHUT, SLAM DUNK PROPOSITION, SO STOP PUSSY FOOTING AND CLEAR THE DECK QUICKLY!}





It is going to be necessary to point it out when the newly elected power brokers from the left side of aisle try to pass off the recycled policies of those who were in power before them as "change." We are going to have to overcome our sitcom attentions spans and remember that the economy was in great shape when the Democrats inherited it.





We are going to have to remember that Conservatives tried to move forward on border security and Social Security, immigration and tax reforms only to be impinged by an obstructionist minority party that was dragged kicking and screaming to every vote on every issue.





We have to remember that the Bush Administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq was to give the Iraqis enough time to train their military so that they could defend themselves against radical Islam's version of the killing fields.





In politics and government, it is always a stupid idea to affect "change" for the sake of change. Sadly, the majority of those who went to the polls on November 7th -- and all of those who stayed home in protest -- bought the tainted bill of goods the Democrats were selling…again. Let's hope that after their reign of "change" is through we survive with a little bit more than just "change" in our pockets {AND A GOOD LAUNDRY OF THE FABRIC OF AMERICA}.


Impeachment Talking Points
Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 10:27 amPress Release: afterdowningstreet.org
Impeachment Talking Points

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

THE EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES BY BUSH AND CHENEY IS ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IMPEACHMENT IS NEEDED. THE QUESTION IS WHY IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. INVESTIGATIONS WILL REVEAL MORE DETAILS AND MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD, BUT THE OUTCOME IS CLEAR FROM THE START. IN FACT, THOSE WHO OPPOSE IMPEACHMENT VERY RARELY CLAIM THAT THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. RATHER, THEY BASE THEIR OPPOSITION ON POLITICAL OR STRATEGIC CONCERNS, GETTING THEIR PRIORITIES OUT OF ORDER. NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW AND A CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN WHICH CONGRESS CAN RESTRAIN ABUSES BY THE EXECUTIVE. IF WE DO NOT IMPEACH IN THIS CASE, WE WILL EFFECTIVELY REMOVE IMPEACHMENT FROM THE CONSTITUTION AND ESTABLISH FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE LAW.

Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney are:




(The Teacher in me prompts the inclusion of this review material.)





1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.



4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using signing statements to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Why Impeachment, Sadly, Is a Non-Starter


by SHELDON H. LASKIN

{WE SHALL OVER COME THIS DRIVEL!}

THE MOST COMPELLING REASON WHY DOUBLE IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH AND CHENEY IS NOT REALISTIC LIES IN THE FACT THAT, GIVEN THE ORDER OF PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION, IT WOULD BE PERCEIVED—AND SPUN—AS A DEMOCRATIC ATTEMPT TO SEIZE THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN ELECTION.


(I will resist any Florida commentary at this point)

With the election over, many progressives are vigorously pressing for Bush and Cheney to be impeached. I have a great deal of empathy for this position; certainly, if anyone deserved to be impeached and removed from office, it is Bush and Cheney. But, on reflection, I think impeachment of both a President and Vice President, who are members of one party, while the Congress is controlled by the opposite party, is a non-starter.

Elizabeth Holtzman was on “Democracy Now” the other day. She is an eloquent advocate of impeachment. But in answering one of Amy Goodman's questions, Holtzman ironically gave the most convincing argument against impeachment. Amy asked her about the possibility of impeaching Cheney as well as Bush.




Holtzman replied that that would be much more difficult, because as Vice President, Cheney has in all probability created little or no paper trail of having committed an impeachable offense. After all, it was Bush that signed the wiretap order, the torture statute, etc.


{SO WORK A LITTLE HARDER; BIG A LITTLE DEEPER; AND STOP MAKING STUPID ASSUMPTIONS AS EXCUSES FOR NOT ACTING!}





If Holtzman is correct, (and she is...Ed.), what is the point of impeaching Bush if we wind up with Cheney? At the very least, it would likely take longer to paper a case against Cheney than it would Bush. And that brings me to the second point why impeachment is probably not doable--there are only two years left to this Administration.



As 2008 is a Presidential election year, realistically there is only one year for the impeachment process to work itself through; nothing controversial happens in Congress in a Presidential election year. It took over two years from the Watergate break-in to Nixon's resignation at a time when the Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) were open to the possibility of impeachment.



Now, we'd be starting from scratch in convincing a reluctant Congress to act. (There is the political gyroscope at work again!)


{MORE CHICKEN NAY SAYER RUBBISH ASSUMPTIONS AS MANY ARE PREPARED AND PREPARING AND WE DON’T HAVE TO INVESTIGATE A CRIMINAL BREAK IN. THE FACTS ARE ALREADY CLEAR!}



But the most compelling reason why double impeachment is not realistic lies in the fact that, given the order of Presidential succession, an attempt at a double impeachment would be perceived--and spun--as a Democratic attempt to seize the White House without an election.



I find myself particularly sensitive to Nancy Pelosi’s dilemma. Because she is next in line for the Presidency after Cheney, Pelosi really cannot lead, or even be seen to support, a movement to impeach Bush and Cheney.




It has been twelve years since the Democrats controlled the Congress and Pelosi will be the first female Speaker ever; all eyes are on her as to how she will act.




The moment she signs on to an impeachment drive, her credibility takes a big hit because of her perceived naked self-
interest.





This will become the issue instead of Bush's crimes.



She will not risk her political reputation and Democratic gains after so many years of being in the political wilderness for an impeachment drive that would be over politically the moment she signed on to it.


{FELLOW WHAT HAPPENED TO RIGHT AND WRONG, LEGAL AND ILLEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A SPINELESS BUSH SYCOPHANT TO SPEW THIS MEDIOCRE TRASH AS SOME FORM OF REASON? IF WE FOLLOW YOU, WE CAN’T IMPEACH AND CONVICT THE CRIMINALS BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT! WHAT GARBAGE! NEARLY 3,000 AMERICAN SERVICE PERSONELL HAVE DIED IN THE NAME OF POLITICS! CHEW ON THAT!}





Granted, Pelosi could take the issue off the table by renouncing
any interest in the Presidency.




But Robert Byrd, as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, is next in line. Given his position in the Democratic leadership and his passionate opposition to Bush, he is open to much the same charge of political grandstanding as is Pelosi. And his advanced age alone would make a few Congressmen and Senators reluctant to vote to impeach when Bush will be gone in no more than two years.





And what if Byrd also renounces any interest in the Presidency? Under the Constitution, Condoleeza Rice is next in line; hardly a satisfactory candidate to correct the multiple constitutional abuses of the Bush Administration in which she personally participated.


{SO I GUESS YOU WOULD SUGGEST DOING NOTHING! LET CRIMES GO UNPUNISHED; LET AMERICANS DIE FOR LIES; LET OUR WILL BE DENIED; LET THE CONSTITUTION BE DEFIED; AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO OUR CHILDREN…THAT IT IS ALL RIGHT TO BREAK THE LAW, LIE, SEND PEOPLE TO THEIR DEATHS IF YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?}


THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS THAT IMPEACHMENT DOESN'T WORK WELL IF THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE (ALL OF WHOM ARE IN THE LINE OF PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION) ARE ALL GUILTY OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND THE CONGRESS IS CONTROLLED BY THE OTHER PARTY.

{WHO THE HELL SAID IT WAS GOING TO NEAT AND EASY?}

The fundamental problem is that impeachment doesn't work well if the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State (all of whom are in the line of presidential succession) are all guilty of impeachable offenses and the Congress is controlled by the other party. Impeachment is really designed to remove one bad apple and otherwise leave the status quo unchanged, pending the next election.




In 1974, Republican Ford replaced Republican Nixon. In all other respects, the Watergate-purged Nixon Cabinet stayed in place. Even the Republican moral police in 1999 acted with the understanding that Gore would replace Clinton if Clinton were removed from office.


This time, just replacing Bush with Cheney accomplishes nothing. But seeking to replace both opens the Democrats up to charges that they would be attempting a coup d’état. We will have to look elsewhere for justice, such as the criminal case just filed in Germany by the Center for Constitutional Rights. And the judgment of history.

{WHAT A CHICKEN CRAP COP OUT!!!!}


This nation and the world deserve the Justice of both Impeachment and War Crimes actions...Ed.

Impeachment is not the answer

By DICK MIAL / La Crosse Tribune
After the elections, there are some strong voices on the left calling for Democrats to impeach President Bush.They say he lied to get us into war in Iraq, that he violated the Constitution with his warrantless wiretapping program and that he condones the torture of prisoners.

{HE DID!}

Without getting into the details of those allegations, I think impeachment would be a big mistake. Not only would Democrats be regarded as politically vindictive, but they would guarantee that nothing of value would be accomplished in the next two years.

{THE RESTORATION OF LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE OF THESE UNITED STATES WOULD BE OF NO VALUE? ASS!}

Now that Democrats have won back control of Congress after a dozen years in the political wilderness, do they really want to plunge the nation into another bitter political fight and squander whatever opportunities they have?

{OH, A THREAT…BE GOOD BOYS AND GIRLS AND DO SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU WON’T GET HURT, AFTER ALL WE’RE NOT ACCUSTOMED TO POLITICAL FIGHTS IN AMERICA! FOOL!}

Consider some priorities:

Getting us out of Iraq with as much safety and dignity (for Americans and Iraqis) as possible.

{WE CAN GET OUT, BUT AS FOR DIGNITY…FORGET THAT ONE!}

Reforming the Medicare drug plan to allow bargaining with drug companies and get some lower prices to make the program more affordable.

{HOW ABOUT JOINING THE CIVILIZED WORLD AN ENACTING UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. NOW THERE IS A REAL ACCOMPLISHMENT WORTHY OF THE CONGRESS} OOPS THAT MAY BE THINKING TOO FAR OUT OF THE BOX, AND WE WOULDN’T WANT TO DO THAT!}

Developing policies that would allow more uninsured people to get access to health insurance.

{MORE…WHAT’S WRONG WITH EVERYONE HAVING AS COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE AS THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?}

Passing pay-as-you-go rules for Congress that would require finding funds to offset any new spending programs or tax cuts. Such rules helped a Democratic president and Republican Congress run surpluses in the 1990s. We can — and should — do it again.

{AND WHO WAS IT THAT SCREWED THAT ONE UP? OH YES THOSE TAX CUTTING SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT REPUBLICANS}

You can add your own priorities. But rest assured that none of them would come to pass if the country were embroiled in an impeachment fight.

{AND THERE YOU HAVE THE PRIMARY IMPEACHMENT DUCKING SPIN. THERE SRE OTHER THINGS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ENFORCING THE LAW OF THE LAND AND REMOVING A CRIMINAL PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE…THE DOCTRINE OF POWER AND PRIVILEGE…JUSTICE AND PROSECUTION OF THE COMMON MAN AND PROTECTION OF THE PRIVELEGED FEW!}

Remember President Clinton’s last two years?


Republicans like to criticize him for failing to make headway against terrorists.


Yet it was Republicans who made sure the nation was embroiled instead in punishing Clinton for marital infidelity.


Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has been saying for months that “impeachment is off the table.”She is still saying it.


“Democrats are not about getting even,” she said Wednesday.Without a bitter impeachment battle, Democrats — and Republicans — should be about getting things done


{THAT IS ABOUT DISINGENUOUS AS YOU CAN GET. LET’S WORK TOGETHER NOW AND GET THINGS DONE NOW THAT WE CAN RID THE NATION OF THE CHIEF OBSTRUCTIONIST! IS ANYONE ELSE FEELING ILL? AT LEAST THE HYPOCRITES ARE NOT HIDING ANY LONGER.}


A new hope

In my opinion

By: Ben Lenet Columnist
Issue date: 11/16/06 Section: Commentary
Page 1 of 2 next >


After reveling in the post-election bliss that brought us a Democratic controlled Congress, it's time to come back down to reality. Over the past week I've been approached by many bright eyed optimists who have asked, "Are we going to be able to impeach the president?"


I was even asked, "Can we have all our troops home by Christmas?" I'm thrilled to see that there is renewed hopefulness in our democratic process but we ought not to get carried away.


While I certainly understand the desire of many to seek political retribution on the Republican Party for their reign of mismanagement over the past six years, what America needs now is unity.


That unity certainly won't be found in bitter, divisive impeachment proceedings. The president says that he is ready to work in a bipartisan manner. (AH, JUST A MINUTE, He has been known to lie!).


He has said that the voters have spoken and that he has heard. Though I am more than somewhat skeptical of his newfound insight, the election offers the legislature and the president a chance to move forward.


{PURE GYROSCOPE NONESENSE!}


Another important reason for rejecting the notion of impeachment proceedings was offered by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. During a recent sit down with the Oregon College Democrats, Dean said, "If the President were impeached, Dick Cheney would become Commander and Chief. While, I know it's hard to imagine anything worse than two more years with George Bush, I think we just did."


{A DUAL IMPEACHMENT IS POSSIBLE, LEGAL AND NECESSARY}


As for bringing the troops home: Foreign policy is determined by the Commander and Chief. With the Democrats' newly inherited political capital they've begun to pressure President Bush to begin phased withdrawal that includes benchmarks for the Iraqi government within four to six months. Though this proposal has been dismissed by the White House in the past, the "Iraq Study Group Report", the new configuration of Congress, and the message of the election offer a chance to change the direction of this war.


{CHANGE DIRECTION? THIS GUY IS SIMPLY A RIGHT WING FRUITCAKE WHO HAS HAD TOO MUCH EGGNOG!}


Regardless of whether or not troops are brought home, Democrats have committed to holding investigative hearings on Iraq.


Currently, there is over $9 billion in funds that were spent on war contracts in Iraq that can't be accounted for. That's $9 billion that we as tax payers must fork over without having received anything in return (not even A Bridge to Nowhere!).


Democrats have also pledged to hold hearings on why our troops are still without adequate armor (especially in light of the $9 billion in unaccounted allocations). Sadly, the current Republican Congress has failed to look into either of these matters. Again, there is now a chance that working together Democrats and Republicans can find the answers to these, literal, life and death questions.


There has been widespread speculation among conservatives that the incoming Democratic Congress will focus its' effort on dismantling the 2nd Amendment or crafting some way to tax us back into the Stone Age.


Quite to the contrary, Democrats have been extremely explicit about their most immediate plans. Along with investigative hearings, soon to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that 110th Congress will fight to allow health care providers to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices (something currently not allowed under the bill passed by this Senate in 2005), lowering student loan interest rates in half (the Republican controlled Congress doubled them), creating comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform (something the Republican congress talked about, but ultimately never accomplished) and creating a thorough energy plan that paves the way for energy independence while creating new economic prosperity. On the statewide level, Senate Democrats are looking into a proposal whereby student loans would be paid off if graduates went into public service.


These are not radical ideas. Instead these ideas are exactly what the American people have been begging for: A return to commonsense legislating that puts an end to the partisan bitterness.


The 2008 elections will be a referendum on what Democrats do with the next two years.


The 2006 election resulted in a chance? nothing more and nothing less.


These next two years will prove whether the newly elected legislative branch can act on this opportunity.


These two years will be a chance for us to hold Democrats and Republicans accountable.


These next two years offer a real chance for them to bring us together as a nation, to begin to repair the damage that the past six years have brought, and to reestablish our reputation in the eyes of the world.


Personally, I welcome this challenge and am glad to see Democrats playing offense again.


That being said, none of us should be lulled into a false sense of calm.


It is imperative that for these next two years we watch, we pay attention and accept nothing less than real progress.
Don't blow this chance... as we have learned the hard way, they don't often come along.


{ACCOUNTABILITY, A FAVORITE WORD OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, BEGINS WITH HOLDING BUSH ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS CRIMES!}

The Democrats and Civil Liberties
Will They Turn a Blind Eye to the Destruction of the Bill of Rights?

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention and domestic spying.

Unless November's new blood improves the Democratic Party's civil liberties pedigree, the Democrats will have failed even before they are sworn in next January.

In its disregard for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution and statutory law, the Bush administration has been more of a regime than an administration.

The Bush/Cheney executive branch has operated independently of all the constraints that provide accountability and prevent despotism.

The Bush regime was able to evade these restraints, because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as a weapon to forestall political opposition.

With signing statements and other unilateral declarations of presidential authority, the Bush regime asserted executive branch powers beyond the reach of Congress and the judiciary.

The Bush regime was a coup d'etat against the Bill of Rights and the jurisdictions of Congress and the courts.

Unless Democrats roll back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties.

{THE NIAEVE COMPLACENT OF THIS NATION DO NOT REALIZE JUST HOW MUCH OF OUR DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN ERODED AND HOW WELL THE ROAD TO A NEXT GENERATION DESPOTISM HAS BEEN PAVED. GEORGE BUSH AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. THEY HAD ONLY PLANS AND DREAMS FOR DIMINISHING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE; BUSH AND HIS HENCHMEN ARE ACTING ON THE PLANS.}

Judging by Democrats' statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact.

Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention and domestic spying.

If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of US civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.

Bush is the most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to be "off the table." Obviously, this means that Bush will not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic "war on terror."

Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people?

Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty.

Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.

Do Democrats share the delusion of Bush supporters that it is only Middle Eastern terrorists who are deprived of the protection of the US Constitution?

One can understand the reluctance of Americans to extend constitutional protection to terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. However, without these protections, there is no way of ascertaining who is a terrorist.

Currently, a "terrorist" is anyone given that designation by any of a large number of unaccountable government officials and military officers.

No evidence has to be provided in order to detain a designated suspect. Moreover, designated suspects can be convicted in military tribunals on the basis of secret evidence not made available to them or to any legal representation that they might be able to secure.

In other words, you are guilty if charged.

As the case of US citizen Jose Padilla makes clear, these gestapo police state proceedings apply to Americans. Padilla was declared to be an "enemy combatant." He was held in a US prison for three and one-half years with no charges and no warrant.

He was kept in isolated confinement, tortured, and denied legal representation.In order to avoid US Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case, the Bush regime filed charges after stealing three and one-half years of Padilla's life.

However, the charges have no relationship to the Bush regime's original allegations that Padilla, an Hispanic-American, was an al Qaeda operative who was going to set off a radioactive dirty bomb in an American city.

The US government no longer designates Padilla as an "enemy combatant." The dirty bomb charge has disappeared, and US Federal District Judge Marcia Cooke has criticized the government's indictment as vague with sketchy evidence "weak on facts."

"Evidence" procured by torture has been illegal in civilized societies for centuries. But the Bush regime has resurrected the medieval rack and substituted it for the Bill of Rights.

The reason that the Bush regime wants to detain people indefinitely without evidence is that it has no evidence.

If Democrats cannot bring themselves to rectify the inhumane and barbaric practices that now pass for US justice, then they, too, have failed the American people.

Time For The Democrats To Put Up Or Shut Up

Laws have been broken, the Constitution has been damaged, the government must be cleansed.

Let's see the Democrats prove that we are a nation of laws. It's time to introduce the articles of impeachment that have been written for years, lying around waiting for statesmen and stateswomen with enough spine to see them through and a Congress that wasn't just fronting for a despot. There's a well-worn list - start checking off the names.

AND WHAT DO I HEAR AT "THE LISTENING POST?"

Let's see the Democrats rescind the "spies-r-us" Patriot Act. No tinkering around the edges - the whole thing has got to go. And while they're at it, let's see them dismantle the 1996 Anti-terrorism and pro-Death Penalty Act that Clinton signed.

Let's see them restore the right to habeas corpus.

Let's see them end the use of torture by the U.S. military and CIA.

Let's see them dismantle private armies like Blackwater paid for with our taxdollars, and end the torture rendition of people to countries whose governments are under U.S. control where they can only dream of justice.

Let's see them declare to the world that the U.S. will no longer try to overthrow Castro, Chavez, Ortega or any other progressive leader who stands up to the greed-driven, corporatist U.S. government and tries to bring about better conditions for their people.

Until he's removed from office, let's see them reject every appointment of another war-mongerer that Bush tries to make.

Let's see them start with his daddy's old buddy, the new Defense Secretary, an Iran-Contra artifact. Filibuster until January and then vote him down.

Let's see them restore some modicum of respect for the United Nations by showing Bolton the door, and then acting to strengthen and rejuvenate its mission. Darfur awaits.

Let's see them put a litmus test on ALL nominations to the federal courts: either you're going to strike down anti-civil liberties laws or you don't get appointed, period.
Let's see them immediately withdraw (not redeploy) all U.S. troops from the Mideast.

Moving them from Iraq to Saudi Arabia or Jordan is simply not enough.

Get them the heck out of there. It's the only hope for stability in the Middle East.

A more critical approach to Israeli aggression may be a pipe dream but without it, blood will continue to flow in Gaza and Lebanon.

Let's see them call a halt to the imperialism of the last 2 decades.

No more US soldiers stationed anywhere outside the U.S.
They should be a defense force.

Defense of the people of the U.S. is not embodied in offense on behalf of every corporate executive that decides to wave a flag while he steals and exploits from the people in other lands.

Let's see them tie Bush's hands with a law that says the U.S. will never again attack another country in a poorly planned, politically motivated, pre-emptive war.

Let's see them cut the U.S. military downto the size that serves our needs for defensive purposes as it is intended to be shifting those funds to our poor, sick and disadvantaged.

Let's see them get serious about defending our borders from terrorists, not peasants risking their lives for a living wage.

At the same time, we don't have to abandon our immigration laws just to keep our toilets clean.

Many immigrants come here to reap thebenefits we enjoy from resources stolen from them in their home countries as a result of our greed-driven support for their oppressive dictators.

They would not be clamoring to come here if they had
opportunity at home.

Foreign aid is not a bad thing, allowing aid
dollars to flow into the pockets of oppressive regimes is.

Let's see them end the abuse of eminent domain. People should feel secure in their homes and that they won't be stolen and destroyed by the government for private profit.

Let's see them reverse the subversion of church-state separation and end government enrichment and tax give aways to faith-based organizations.

Let's see them end the whole regimen of high stakes testing in schools that subjects our young people to a regular racist assault on their futures.

Let's see them end the current abuse of the legal system that resultsin the arrests of some 900,000 people a year for marijuana with the result that the rich get their records expunged while the poor are faced with reduced economic opportunities due to their police records and excessive jail time.

Let's see them end the stealing of billions of tax dollars through no-bid contracting and privatization that has been accomplished by Cheney's Halliburton and their ilk.

The huge chasm in compensationbetween executives and rank-and-file workers must be narrowed.

Let's see them restore our commitment to cleaning up our environment by ending the practice of letting industry lobbyists write environmental laws and suppress good science.

We need to rejoin the community of nations whose environmental awareness and commitment seems to dwarf our own.

We still have a chance to see if there really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

But the signs are already out there. John"impeach Bush" Conyers has been told to shut up. And he's obeyed.

No more "impeachment talk" said Nancy "it's time for a change" Pelosi, and she's going to be the new Speaker of the House.

All that talk of impeachment benefited the Democrats during the election campaign by making them appear to be anti-Bush, but now reality sets in and we're now being served up a milk-toast banquet. Eat it at your peril, America.

Rather than any real pro-people changes, we're probably going to see a lot of posturing, spin control, excuse making and blatant lying about why they can't do any of these things...and then they'll ask us to vote for more Democrats in 2008 to "solve" the problem.

The public spoke loudly at the polls but the job is only half done. We must keep up the pressure to force them to really solve these problems and many others now so the light of American democracy, so dimmed by Bush and his neocons, can once again be a light unto the world.