Conservative Democrats Ain’t Listening, Vote Them Out!

[thoughtone]

The Congress just approved a record 460 Billion dollar defense budget, giving the Bush regime almost everything they wanted. The Congress also handed the Bush regime a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States. Obviously, they have forgotten the landside victory last September flipping the US Congress from Republican to Democrat. Below is a list of Blue Dog Democrats, conservative democrats that are complicit with republicans in preventing the ending of the illegal Iraqi war. If you see your reprehensive listed, let them know that they can be voted out just like those republicans that got voted out in 2006






Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

 

[VegasGuy]

To me that's funny.

-VG

 

[QueEx]

Interesting, thoughtone.

Here's thought two: Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama seems to be distancing himself from the liberal or leftist democrats.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Interesting, thoughtone.

Here's thought two: Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama seems to be distancing himself from the liberal or leftist democrats.

QueEx

Leftist is better than rightist. Is the country better under compassionate conservative Bush?

 

[QueEx]

I don't like either extremes. There are some so-called conservatives things that I agree with as well as some so-called liberal ideas.

But isn't your reasoning a major reason why the democratic party has such a hard time gaining power???

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

I don't like either extremes. There are some so-called conservatives things that I agree with as well as some so-called liberal ideas.

But isn't your reasoning a major reason why the democratic party has such a hard time gaining power???

QueEx

If getting elected means putting representatives in that vote just like the replacements, then why put them in. Electing Republicrates has gotten us nowhere for 25 years. Those dedicated to the status quo are a hindrance to progress. 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq. Every time someone states that they support us exiting Iraq, the media says that they are from the liberal left of the Democratic Party. Using that logic, 70% of Americans are liberal left. The political paradigm is shifting. The demonization of so called liberal ideas is not working. In fact next time you watch Fox or CNN, notice that they don’t use the word “liberal”, as a pejorative as much since the word conservative is becoming associated with the very unpopular Bush administration. The word “left” is being used more. We have been in the Reagan conservative ideology for almost 30 years and to quote the Gipper. ”Are we better of than we were?”

 

[QueEx]

Bro,

Have those recently elected to congress really voted like their replacements; or have they not voted like YOU wanted them to have vote ???

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your "70%" figure is correct, you raise an interesting question: whether the elected representative should vote the so-called conscious of a majority of his/her constituents; or should that representative do what he believes to be in the best interest of those constituents/the country ???

 

[thoughtone]

Bro,

Have those recently elected to congress really voted like their replacements; or have they not voted like YOU wanted them to have vote ???

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your "70%" figure is correct, you raise an interesting question: whether the elected representative should vote the so-called conscious of a majority of his/her constituents; or should that representative do what he believes to be in the best interest of those constituents/the country ???

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F11F93D540C768EDDAC0894DF404482

I would expect that from you, since Bush used his conscious to concoct this war. Since the Congress is elected every 2 years, they had better listen to their constituency. One reason why people are so turned off by politicians is because when they run they say one thing and then when they are elected the do another. Is their any honor and honesty anymore?

 

[QueEx]

Expect what from me? Did I endorse the war? Don't think I did.

Should elected representative should vote the so-called conscious
of his/her constituents; or should that representative do what he
believes to be in the best interest of those constituents/the country ???

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Expect what from me? Did I endorse the war? Don't think I did.

Should elected representative should vote the so-called
of his/her constituents; or should that representative do what he
believes to be in the best interest of those constituents/the country ???

QueEx

Sounds like your question is the same, just re-phrased. I thought I answered though. Everyone has a conscious. They should vote the way they were put their for. Enough of that republican double speak.

 

[QueEx]

So, it was right for those in congress who voted for measures that denied Black
people equal participation because their ignorant and racist constituents supported
denial of equal participation - - (instead of supporting what was best for the country)?

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Enough of that republican double speak.

Damn. LOL. Actinanass says I'm a democrat; and you say I'm republican.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Damn. LOL. Actinanass says I'm a democrat; and you say I'm republican.

QueEx

Well your "talking points" are right off of Fox sunday morning.

Are you a registered republican?

 

[thoughtone]

So, it was right for those in congress who voted for measures that denied Black
people equal participation because their ignorant and racist constituents supported
denial of equal participation - - (instead of supporting what was best for the country)?

QueEx

The racists were voting their conscious. That is why we had a civil war. That is why we had Jim Crow laws on the books some 70 years after the 14th amendment, and the southern politicians saw that the Democratic Party was shifting toward civil rights and the Dixiecrats changed parties to republican during the 1950s and 1960s. You think most politicians do things out of the goodness of their hearts? Why do you think that the southern Baptists apologized for endorsing slavery at their 1995 convention, 130 years after the civil war? Because it was no longer politically expedient. Man, you are naive.

 

[The Dark Mind]

Look, I'm an Independent and I've been observing both sides of this for a while

I hate to break this to you but...

You can't vote them out, because you didn't vote them in.

Conservatives voted them in, so only conservatives can vote them out.

What democrats do not understand is that conservative democrats were elected by conservatives in mostly conservative districts.

Therefore they are representing conservative constituents and answerable to those conservative constituents.

Furthermore,

If you did get them voted out, because they are in districts that are majority conservative, you would only get another conservative democrat or a conservative republican. Conservative republicans are NEVER going to vote for a liberal to represent them. They are not that stupid.

So give it a rest.

 

[QueEx]

TDM,

Thanks for explaining that to him. I thought he might catch a hint - I'm neither democrat or republican, as well. Of course, you got right to the point: representatives tend to vote like the people they represent. I tried to raise a different point with him, to no avail, that is, should representatives vote for what they believe is right or in the best interest of the country, although their constituents back home may feel differently. We all know that doesn't happen frequently, though some times, arguably it does.

QueEx

 

[The Dark Mind]

No problem QueEx,

From what I've seen, you've always been straight forward and fair with everybody around here.

I have no clue why he accused you of being a registered republican.

It just seemed to me like you were just trying to engage him some decent and logical conversation.

Oh well... I guess some people are like that. you know?

Don't let 'em ruffle ya. Peace.

 

[thoughtone]

Thats what you think. Those polticans still havent gotten the hint that the tide is changing. Politicians are always behind the curve. How do explain the turn over in 2006?

So QueEx is a registered independent. He/she has never come right out and said "I am a registered independent". He/she always dodges the question by saying "I'm neither democrat or republican".

 

[thoughtone]

Do you think they have gotten the message yet?

 

[QueEx]

Did you ???

 

[actinanass]

Leftist is better than rightist. Is the country better under compassionate conservative Bush?

Face it dude, people still value overall conservative principles.

Here's an example:

When the last time someone said "i make too much money, I need to have higher taxes"? You just don't hear that shit.

Btw, I hear all this shit about "change" like anything is really going to change. Before I hear another statement about change, how about lets change how we are getting oil in this country? How about changing our stance on the hoax called global warming? How about changing our stance on building new refineries so we can CHANGE how much gas is? How about we CHANGE our way of looking at the war in IRAQ? How about CHANGING from wanting to retreat, to wanting to WIN?

 

[actinanass]

Sounds like your question is the same, just re-phrased. I thought I answered though. Everyone has a conscious. They should vote the way they were put their for. Enough of that republican double speak.

Thought, you drunk the kool-aid on this one.

Here's the thing you need to realize.

1. Americans do not want to lose a war. PERIOD...POINT BLANK

2. Democrats have the power to defund the war. *political suicide*

3. They won't defund the war because they want power.

4. You give them power when you vote for any democrat.

Face it dude, the plan your side of the aisle had DIDN'T work. Your side thought they could put all these democrats in office, thinking that they would look like their side is winning, and the shit backfired on them. I know its hard for you to realize this, but BUSH OUTSMARTED YOUR SIDE.

I know he suppose to be an idiot cowboy from Texas *the richest state in the nation I might add* who can't talk right. However, its funny how he tends to get what he wants. Then, leaving people like THOUGHTONE pms-ing over why they can't get "change".

Very entertaining....

 

[thoughtone]

Thought, you drunk the kool-aid on this one.

Here's the thing you need to realize.

1. Americans do not want to lose a war. PERIOD...POINT BLANK

2. Democrats have the power to defund the war. *political suicide*

3. They won't defund the war because they want power.

4. You give them power when you vote for any democrat.

Face it dude, the plan your side of the aisle had DIDN'T work. Your side thought they could put all these democrats in office, thinking that they would look like their side is winning, and the shit backfired on them. I know its hard for you to realize this, but BUSH OUTSMARTED YOUR SIDE.

I know he suppose to be an idiot cowboy from Texas *the richest state in the nation I might add* who can't talk right. However, its funny how he tends to get what he wants. Then, leaving people like THOUGHTONE pms-ing over why they can't get "change".

Very entertaining....

I asked this question in another thread and never got an answer.

We invaded a sovereign nation that never threatened us, deposed the leader and executed him, by some standards an international war crime.

The President declared, “Mission Accomplished” after the invasion of that country.

We installed leadership, not by the will of the people of that country, by the best interest of the United States’ big corporate powers.

Iraq has become a model of exploitation for American big business, rife with corruption, which will continue to foster suicide bombings and distrust, the very thing you need to achieve so called success.

The people of Iraq overwhelmingly want the United States out of their country.

The war has bankrupted the United States and contributed to the down fall of our economy.

What is your definition of “winning”.

 

[QueEx]

To keep your argument "logical" shouldn't it be:

1. Americans do not want to lose a war. PERIOD...POINT BLANK

2. Democrats have the power to defund the war. *political suicide*

3. They won't defund the war because they <u>do not</u> want <s>power</s> <u>to commit political suicide</u>.

I mean, whether T.O. likes it or not, isn't it not wanting to commit what some (a) believe is political suicide; or (b) will certainly characterize as not supporting our armed services and, therefore, political suicide ??? Lets be real, bringing the troops home is and has never been as simple as some people say, believe or want to believe.

Nevertheless, adding more troops (the troop surge) seems to have made a difference. BUT, was GW not warned BEFORE THE INVASION that the smaller troop deployments suggested by Rumsfeld and Cheney were waaaaaay too low ???

QueEx

 

[nyyyyce]

I asked this question in another thread and never got an answer.

We invaded a sovereign nation that never threatened us, deposed the leader and executed him, by some standards an international war crime.

The President declared, “Mission Accomplished” after the invasion of that country.

We installed leadership, not by the will of the people of that country, by the best interest of the United States’ big corporate powers.

Iraq has become a model of exploitation for American big business, rife with corruption, which will continue to foster suicide bombings and distrust, the very thing you need to achieve so called success.

The people of Iraq overwhelmingly want the United States out of their country.

The war has bankrupted the United States and contributed to the down fall of our economy.

What is your definition of “winning”.

Man, you are on point with this post.

Had a roundabout, conversation with two dudes the other day. One a Dem and one a Republican. We were talking about Cindy Sheehan trying to unseat Nancy Pelosi. The Republican read from the usual White House talking points against Pelosi, but the Dem was like: Cindy is so disruptive and does not help our fight."

I expected the Republicans response, but this "safe and passive" Dem movement is pissing me the F*** off. I said to the Dem: Didn't the Dem's ask the American people to vote for in them in 06 to get us out of Iraq? They answered: Yes. Then why have you continued to fund the war. You have the majority in both houses, despite the margin, right? And the president has one of the lowest approval ratings (along with the Congress I added), BUT you have the will of the MAJORITY of America and the Dem's still vote to fund the war. The Republicans don't have the majority but the have never flinched on the war. You would think they had the majority. Pelosi only wants to win the White House in 08. Cindy is telling the people that the Dem's have lied and not upheld their promise. Why is she the wrong one here?!?!

No answer.

You are right sir. The Dem's need to be replaced, but if their voters don't voice your or my sentiments then they will do what is necessary to stay in power. They like the positions they hold.


Also on the Iraq front I am so sick of the slickery that the Republican's, media and sheeple interject into the Iraq surge debate. We, the US, set POLITICAL gains as the real measure of "the surge". Yes I am pleased that less of our soldiers are dying. HOWEVER, the benchmarks were based on POLITICAL achievements primarily. What major political developments have we heard coming across the wire as of late - NOTHING. When you listen to Republicans they have mastered the art of verbal slight of hand. They shift the debate so subtlety that the average cat argues the wrong point.

We are NOT WINNING in Iraq. From the international scrutiny/mocking, broken military, deaths, military suicides and divorces, financial debt and the long-term involvement we will ultimately have to pay for this occupation - there is no winning. Anyone who believes this is beyond delusional and/or Republican. Bank it.

 

[thoughtone]

To keep your argument "logical" shouldn't it be:



I mean, whether T.O. likes it or not, isn't it not wanting to commit what some (a) believe is political suicide; or (b) will certainly characterize as not supporting our armed services and, therefore, political suicide ??? Lets be real, bringing the troops home is and has never been as simple as some people say, believe or want to believe.

Nevertheless, adding more troops (the troop surge) seems to have made a difference. BUT, was GW not warned BEFORE THE INVASION that the smaller troop deployments suggested by Rumsfeld and Cheney were waaaaaay too low ???

QueEx

Of course you were too young to remember that a hawkish president ended the Vietnam War after critics claimed the world was going to end if he brought the troops home from a communist country. Hell, last time I looked on a clothing label it was made in Vietnam.

I just want to remind the TRUE libertarians what the congress and presidents functions are:

source: US Constitution.net

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[nyyyyce]

The Congress just approved a record 460 Billion dollar defense budget, giving the Bush regime almost everything they wanted. The Congress also handed the Bush regime a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States. Obviously, they have forgotten the landside victory last September flipping the US Congress from Republican to Democrat. Below is a list of Blue Dog Democrats, conservative democrats that are complicit with republicans in preventing the ending of the illegal Iraqi war. If you see your reprehensive listed, let them know that they can be voted out just like those republicans that got voted out in 2006






Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

If there were more Democrats like this cat you would not have even had to make this post.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g7KM13ovwfc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g7KM13ovwfc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


The sad part is that he is only saying the truth. He embodies the sentiments that kicked the Republicans out in '06. Most anti-war/sane people feel this way but he is ostracized like some lunatic. Sad days fols sad days indeed.

 

[QueEx]

Of course you were too young to remember that a hawkish president ended the Vietnam War after critics claimed the world was going to end if he brought the troops home from a communist country. Hell, last time I looked on a clothing label it was made in Vietnam.

I just want to remind the TRUE libertarians what the congress and presidents functions are:

source: US Constitution.net

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Deferring the question of Vietnam, for the moment, how the fuck does anything you said relate, however remotely, to what I said to Actinanass ???

Please be specific so that I can respond, accordingly.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Deferring the question of Vietnam, for the moment, how the fuck does anything you said relate, however remotely, to what I said to Actinanass ???

Please be specific so that I can respond, accordingly.

QueEx

Congress never signed a declaration of war so we are not theoretically at war. Those democrats ran on changing the war, they have committed political suicide by not living up to their promises (typical politicians). Bush may have gotten everything HE wanted but he has committed political suicide on the Republican Party. We shall see how the next government is made up.

 

[QueEx]

Can a vote by those democrats that ran on an "end the war" platform survive a veto ???

Or, do you just like symbolism ???

There is a difference, you know, between political reality - and - wishful thinking about having it your way.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Can a vote by those democrats that ran on an "end the war" platform survive a veto ???

Or, do you just like symbolism ???

There is a difference, you know, between political reality - and - wishful thinking about having it your way.

QueEx

They don’t have to survive a veto vote. The congress allocates monies for the government, specifically wars, and military actions. If they don’t include such funds, all the president can do is keep the troops in harms way, in which if I was Speaker of the House, call Bush’s bluff and allow him to keep the troops in a situation that most Americans don’t want any way and let him get even more blame, which as we see now is causing the republican party to be seen less and less favorable as time goes on. Second, when Harry, no spine Reid, threatened to not give Bush the $400 Billion for the Iraqi war he wanted in the last go round of the budget bill, Bush said if he didn’t get his money, military workers would loose their jobs. Now on a side note, if any one job sector needs to be thinned out, it is the military industrial complex, but that is another argument. Bush later backed down from that statement. The problem is not that the President is asserting his power, the problem is that the congress is not asserting their power.

 

[QueEx]

They don’t have to survive a veto vote. The congress allocates monies for the government,

Does the president not have veto power over the allocation ???

QueEx

 

[truplutu]

I have no problem with moderate to conservative democrats. They match my politics anyway. They don't get into people's personal business and they aren't liberal wack jobs. I have found most back people are more conservative then what people think.

 

[thoughtone]

These are the people battling Obama.

 

[actinanass]

I don't like either extremes. There are some so-called conservatives things that I agree with as well as some so-called liberal ideas.

But isn't your reasoning a major reason why the democratic party has such a hard time gaining power???

QueEx

que he will never understand.