Are you still happy with how Pelosi and gang have behaved?
1. Pelosi promised the most ethical congress and yet she tries to appoint Murtha to majority leader, caught on tape violating ethics laws, and Hastings, an impeached federal judge to a major committee chairmanship. Then she excludes American Samoa from the minimum wage increase, where Del Monte has a plant. Del Monte's headquarters is in her district.
2. They have impeded the President from fighting the enemy in Iraq. Many prominent Democrats stated on news shows a few months ago that we need more troops in Iraq, yet they stand against today.
If there are other actions that you have seen, please state them.
I honestly want to see if there is any buyer's regret on the Democrats.
2007-01-19 10:49:06 · 25 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I never stated that the Democrats are the most corrupt, I stated that Pelosi stated she would lead the most ethical congress.
2007-01-19 11:16:43 · update #1
I'm not sure she was ever seriously contemplating Hastings. Murtha you are correct on, that was pure politics.
"Most Ethical Congress" is a not particularly high bar to set, the organization is notoriously unethical. I give you the proposed the proposed ethics changes in the Delay case.
More troops in Iraq is a wild card. Congress can't stop the troop build up either way, so they are all playing to their constituancies on that. I think only an extreme wing wants a complete pull out now, everyone else is going to make a big noise, but do nothing serious to try and block the troops, then blame Bush when it all fails anyway.
I know that is cynical as hell of me, but that is the way I see it.
No remorse here, Bush needed a counterbalance. Besides, Sanitorum had to go either way independent of the Bush problem, and that is the election I got to vote in.
-Dio
2007-01-19 11:33:25 · answer #1 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Republicans had a masterful media campaign and voter turnout effort which the Dems neglected. That is all that makes the difference because people are gullible. I have no idea why Dems did not vote especially seniors when social services were on the line, would vote for Republicans at all. They must be confused like they were in Florida with the butterfly ballots and they all voted for Pat Buchanan lol Most people on YA are right-wing definitely so they will agree with you. The real world is one of hard luck and no jobs. Do you think that is because of too much regulation or taxation? That is a myth.
2016-05-23 22:50:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Samoa has been exempt from minimum wage laws since long before Pelosi ever entered politics. If she is in violation of ethics LAWS, why has she not been charged? Her appointments of Murtha and Hastings were rejected by her own colleagues and replaced by choices of the majority of the Democrats in the house, which is the democratic way to do things. All of this is finished business, try to keep up.
As to your other complaints, that's your opinion, which you're entitled to.
2007-01-19 11:30:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
1. She did support Murtha which was moronic in my opinion. You can't preach no corruption and do something that will give Republican (really pointless) talking points. She did not support Hastings however. The tuna thing is just Republican rhetoric. American Samoa hasn't been subject to the federal minimum wage in 50 years. This wasn't anything new.
2. The American public voted them in for a reason and that reason was to put a check on Bush's moronic endeavors when it came to Iraq. As for them switching positions on troops levels that was because of testimony given by Casey and Abizaid. In the beginning of the invasion more would have been great, but recently the Generals said more troops would cause more harm than good.
2007-01-19 10:58:19 · answer #4 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Getting the majority now is not a boon for them. This is actually the worst time to get it if their main objective is to get the Clintons back in the White House.
In 2008, after two years of democrats being democrats, Hillary and friends are going to be the reformer candidates they would be in the Republicans still had Congress.
I think the Republicans will retain the White House and get back the Senate.
They will get the House back in a few cycles due to incumbency advantage.
2007-01-19 10:56:01 · answer #5 · answered by John16 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I can't speak to #1 because I don't know enough about the subject, but as for #2...George Bush is getting panned on both sides of the aisle for his 'strategies'. I'm sorry to say, but not even the Republicans are supporting him now. Sending more troops into Iraq will by no means solve the problem, so Congress is looking for a more feasible option. We're all trying to work towards a better country together; we just needed a little change of leadership.
2007-01-19 10:55:55 · answer #6 · answered by Lindsey L. 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hey MKS 7...what does Pres. Bush have to do with the Democrats and their getting a piece of the action. Corruption runs rampant again..so much for cleaning up the mess. Wish I had DelMonte stock.
2007-01-19 10:57:45 · answer #7 · answered by Nancy W 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey, Peace Love and Harmony - how do you feel about Gerry Studds, the admitted Democrat pedophile? You guys even re-elected him....so I think you can drop the self-righteousness. There are idiots, perverts, and freaks on BOTH sides of the aisle. It worries me to see so many blindly partisan people out there. Do you *really* think the Democrats are so superior? I hope not - or you are in for one hell of a rude awakening!
As to the original question, NEVAH! The left NEVER makes mistakes.
2007-01-19 11:01:31 · answer #8 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, these things are minor compared to the 3,000 + people that have been killed fighting in Iraq. They have not impeded the President at all. They expressed their dipleasure with his ideas, but the soldiers have already started shipping out to Iraq. For that matter, so did Hagel and some Repub. Senators, but I suppose they are traitors because they are trying to follow the will of the people.
2007-01-19 11:02:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
while... I don't agree with the actions you mention exactly...
... it's tons better than the prior Republicans...
and they've passed a lot of the legislation they said they would...
basically, these guys aren't ideal... but it's a huge upgrade...
they were by far the best option available...
it's like asking if I had "buyer's regret" for buying a 1990 Chevy caviler instead of a ford pinto from the 70s... neither are that great, but one is still clearly better than the other...
2007-01-19 10:59:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋