1. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have a significant majority in the House. It's going on 2 years they've been in power. This year, they've passed ZERO of the 13 mandatory budget/spending bills that is the bulk of their actual jobs. Regardless of how the Senate works (60 vote cloture, filibusters), there's no excuse for the House to not pass these bills. Is it any wonder their job approval is 10% or below? 2. The Dems took control of both houses (it's 49-49 plus 2 independents that caucus with the dems, giving them control over every committee) about 2 years ago. Remember how things were then? Iraq wasn't going great, but the surge was being planned. The economy was growing nicely, unemployment was a lot lower, the price of gas was under $3, the banks were sound, foreclosures were happening far less often, and the price of food was significantly lower. What have these people actually done to improve things? No spin, please - there's little Bush can do if Congress doesn't approve his plans and fund them. 3. They lied their way into office. They promised to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home. The hard fact you must face is that if Congress doesn't pass appropriations to fund the troops, Bush would have no choice but to bring them home sooner than later. No excuse about filibusters in the Senate - here we're talking about stopping legislation, something that if the minority can do it, the majority should have an even easier time of it. 4. They lied their way into office. They ran against the govt. eavesdropping programs, then voted for and passed and renewed both those domestic programs AND the Patriot Act. We even find out that the top Democrats/leadership were aware of the "torture" methods used to interrogate prisoners all along, witnessed it with their own eyes, and are directly quoted as saying "isn't there more we can do?" Explain your support for these bozos, please. 5. They lied their way into office. They promised to be fiscally responsible where the Republicans hadn't been. Look at this - the deficits were cut in half by 2006 from their higest point in the Bush years, and now the next president will inherit deficits twice that amount (near $500B, not counting Iraq!): http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=15374 The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years. The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005 http://www.lockergnome.com/politica...-federal-deficit-projected-to-be-482-billion/ Fiscal Year 2009 Federal Deficit Projected to be $482 Billion Monday, July 28th, 2008 by Chris Pirillo <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>No, that isn’t a typo. In 2009, the Federal Deficit will be around $482 billion dollars. Can you honestly even picture that kind of money? It’s hard to even fathom such a staggering amount. <!-- /post-ad --> <!-- google_ad_section_start -->
To be honest, I think they've been waiting for a Democrat in the White House to make passing their agenda that much easier. THat is something that looked to be a sure thing before the Republicans nominated McCain, who was the only possible candidate the GOP could have nominated with a chance to win. Other than that, I think most of the blame goes to Pelosi and Reid, who are horrible leaders and don't deserve to be in the positions they're in. You're also holding them to unrealistic standards in terms of election politics. If you're going to hold them to the things they said in order to get elected, then you've also got to mention every other politician in the world who has made promises, but failed to deliver. All in all, you post is a very one-sided way to look at things. This is why I tease you about being a Republican.
I'm looking for why a partisan "GW Bush lied us into war" is OK, while the Democrats lied their way into office and nobody holds them accountable. I didn't add anything about the "culture of corruption" thing they lied about - since there's just a new culture of corruption. What accomplishments do these people have that they deserve to be reelected? I'm not at all suggesting we elect republicans instead, just asking about the Democrats since they are the party in power. All the good and bad things are their doing. And I don't consider Harry Reid constantly declaring the "Iraq War is lost" to be an accomplishment.
Congress is doing nothing, so they can blame the white house. The white house is doing nothing, so they can blame Congress. It is circular. I have no doubt that they have their thirty favorite bills already written, to unveil immediately after Obama wins--if he wins. If McCain wins, and the Democrats keep control of Congress, who knows what will happen. I can't imagine that congress will continue this farce for another four years. FWIW, the current polls are showing that the dems will increase their margin in both the house and the senate.
I agree they're going to increase their margin in both houses. Last projection I saw was short of the 60 they desperately desire to run things as partisan as they want. If they wanted to really win more seats, wouldn't it make sense to pass their bills, let Bush veto, and then make the case, "give us a veto proof majority and all these 'great' things will pass!" ?
I'm sure they considered that strategy also. I think one doesn't necessarily make more sense than the other; I'm sure there are many subtleties that are at play here. Perhaps for them it is more important to give the impression that a new administration is taking a fresh look at issues instead of recycling old bills. I really couldn't say.
They're our employees. Do you like the idea of paying them for their accomplishments? LACK OF. SLACKERS. Apparently not, given their approval rating! As I see it, the truth is "we're not republicans" got 'em elected, but once elected you expect them to at least try.
They have done absolutely nothing since they've gotten into office but blame the Republicans for war and other things of that nature. They have no solution to the problems of this country, which is one of the reason why Obama will not become the president.
All I know is I sure as hell will not vote for a guy who happens to be W's buddy and voted in agreement with him 90% of the time.
And Obama voted with the Democrats 95-97 percent of the time his entire tenure in the Senate. That statistic is misleading. McCain was campaigning for much of 2007. He's missed 64 percent of the votes in the Senate for the 110th Congress, most of any member.
The Democrats are all about talk, and about blaming everyone else but themselves. I also hate their social programs, and their socialism ideas. They're lying when they say they're Democrats because they're not. They're just as Socialist as a lot of parties in Europe.
Just for the record, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not anything, I just vote for the guy who I think can do the better job in office, in this case I think its Obama. I don't associate myself with either party. Not intentionally, at least.
I try to come to rational decisions about these things. As informed as I try to be, it's amazing how democracy fails when it comes to voting for people on the ballot other than Prez/VP, Senator and congressman... Maybe I'll know a city councilman who's on the ballot, but how can anyone responsibly vote for judges and dog catchers and all those other offices?
We the People are the bosses not however many lobbyists there are in DC peddling influence. Congress has lost sight of that and the Executive branch believes its on a mission from God much like Ackroyd & Belushi but not as funny. Nowdays, Democrats and Republicans are just 2 sides of the same coin some schmuck fished out of a septic tank somewhere.
Or was it because he went to bed after Matlock? So he could get up and wait by the phone @ 3 a.m. just in case it rang.
Yes they did. They ran Gore and Kerry. The dems are completely responsible for putting up crappy presidential candidates.
