New Comments : Questions for Speaker Pelosi

Comment by robnhood

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I would appreciate someone spending the time to gather up all the 'religiously' oriented legislation or matters brought to the floor in the past eight years. I realize a great deal of these matters are masked or positively cloaked under rhetoric or less obvious terminology, but wouldn't it make a great article? One would, naturally, have to be pagan of some form to differentiate 'secular' matters from matters smacking of imposed morality, however....it would be fascinating.

Comment by yellerdawg

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Absolute, insulting waste of time, I agree. Get input from the hoi polloi, then ignore it. I wonder if Gore knew he was saving her *** there - I suspect he did. Disgusting.

Comment by peterjross

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

There certainly are more than sufficient grounds to start impeachment proceedings in the House.
Impeachment proceedings are the investigation. If the House finds that there are sufficient grounds then the trial is done by the Senate.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

wh - sorry, but your comment is total BS. Firstly, the 2000 and 2004 elections were both STOLEN in multiple ways: bad electronic voting machines that were easily hacked, not enough machines in areas that were primarily Democrats, lots of shenanigans like the phone bank incident in new england, purging voter rolls of valid voters, etc. Then we had the supreme court appt King George in 2000.

We did NOT get what we voted for.
Bush is a CRIMINAL. He ginned up information to take us to war in Iraq. It's an illegal war/occupation. They outed a CIA agent - grounds for treason. He was directly complicit in that action. Telling his staff not to appear before congress for subpoenas. There are so many ways that this man is a criminal it's not even funny. If we DON'T follow through with impeachment, it sets a bad precedent for future presidential activity. In fact, it has been stated (and I agree) that Nixon should never have been pardoned. It set the groundwork for this sh*tty administration we now have. This man and his cronies all think they are above the law. Politicizing the justice department - against civil service laws. Illegal wire tapping. Oh there are so many I don't even know where to start. Kucinich raised 35 (THIRTY-FIVE) areas where this administration has been criminal. I suggest we investigate it or bear the consequences of even worse administrations going forward.

Comment by Call Up

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I'm assuming wh stands for White House?

Comment by wh

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Impeachment is off the table because there isn't grounds for it.

While folks may be unhappy about the current administration, impeachable offenses were not committed.

I think most practical / rational elected officials know that the recent calls for impeachment are a useless sideshow, a waste of time and energy that doesn't advance us toward solutions to the problems at hand.

We got what we voted for, now digest it and move on.

Wallowing in anti-bush / cheney sentiment doesn't solve the problems at hand, focusing on impeachment is wallowing.

Comment by yellerdawg

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

And while our "fearless" "leaders" are at it, they should take a gander at the over quarter-million signatures on Wexler's impeachment petition. Those are *real*, *unique* signatures, too - I used to watch the number go down as they cleaned out the dupes and cranks every night.

251199 right now.
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/

Comment by mortimer zwiebel

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Right, I did that a week ago, but the name on a previous question I submnitted didn't change. That name and the political question attached to it shows on search results. Thanks, anyway, this is frustrating.

Comment by gina

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Look here for help. Vivek says it can be changed :)
http://www.ideascale.com/help/514.html

Comment by bryan a

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I did. But it still doesn't change the name of PREVIOUSLY submitted questions, which remain searchable on Google. Can someone manage this site???

Comment by gina

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Comment by joann

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Are you aware that more than 135,000 people have signed the petition to hold Rove in contempt of Congress and send him to jail. Do you know or care that your San Francisco constituents are very tired of your unresponsiveness? Do you realize that for it's a miracle to get that many people to sign a petition when so many more are totally disgusted / disillusioned with government?

It's about time for your to do your job. Call the Sgt of Arms and get Rove in jail. He's stolen elections, jailed Democratic governors and he's still pontificating hateful wedge issues on Fox. He's closed the Republican state conventions to the media. We can only image the newest round of dirty tricks he's conjuring up.

Go check out http://sendkarlrovetojail.com and read the comments, some from older people who've never written to a politician before. It's an education you obviously need instead of giggling on The Daily Show about empowering women when the Republicans are undermining women at every turn. Birth control = abortion? Start calling them on outrages like this.

Comment by yellerdawg

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes, her primary opponent was pretty much invisible, for whatever reason. I did news searches on her from time to time, and the number of stories were mostly in the single digits. I'd like to know the story behind that.

Comment by lgscott5053

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Well put. You've expressed my own feelings to the letter. Right on!

Comment by lgscott5053

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

jctzhawk
I have to agree with your observation. I guess that must make me a middle-right person!

Comment by lgscott5053

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I don't live in her District but I did support her primary challenger, but it appeared as though she was invisible. No mention of her on MSM or anything but local channels

Comment by lgscott5053

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

On this subject you may want to check out this organization; Downsizedc.org , this is an alternative that might interest some folks.

Comment by lgscott5053

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I have been approached by someone I know and asked to attend a "show and tell" about this very product. Just reading the info at the link
provided I found that this is the very same one and while I want to see something like this technology to help me get better mileage, the second part of the program was very much about the promotion of dealerships. I'm 60+ years old and have seen my share of pyrmide schemes and this is one of them. I'm still interested in the product, but, the price that was suggested was about $1000.00 overpriced and the main theme was to sell dealerships.When I left I had the taste of snake oil in my mouth.

Comment by orangemush

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No, VJ, I think the Constitution works just fine as it is, I'm not looking for major changes. I also feel Speaker Pelosi is doing a good job,
I'm not clammoring for Impeachment. Not that I do not think that Bush/Cheey deserve it, I think they do deserve it. However, I do not
believe that is the answer to our problems.

I'm very sorry to hear that more Americans aren't aware of the situation that I asked about. Americans can't take the time to be
informed about these issues, and then you want to give them VETO power? I understand how you feel with Bush in power, but
what about when an official you personally like a lot wants to make tough choices for the country and the people aren't for it? I'm
not saying that the Founding Fathers were perfect, nor that we do not need Amendments from time to time, certainly no one is in
favor of turning back the clock on women's sufferage nor slavery, and maybe future generations will come to see that our
generation was just as blind on certain other issues (though I doubt it will be with regards to same sex marriage). But I don't
believe that the VETO power needs to rest in the hands of the American people other than through proxy with our elected officials,
not that I personally wouldn't have loved to have VETO power with FISA, or any number of other issues.

The manner in which a lot of the terrible things our country does in the name of freedom overseas are carried out through the
machinations of late night House sessions, in which earmarks are added to spending bills, sort of shuffled in when no one is
looking. But to further complicate things, these earmarks can be hidden, if they are classified as Top Secret, so that no one,
outside of a select few, ususally memebers of the Gang of Eight, even know about them. This is the way that Bush/Cheney
(and their cohorts) have been able to not only get away with murder (literally) and war crimes such as torture, but turn a tidy
profit with it as well. The company that supplied the encryption needed to hide these files, Archer Logistics, was getting
billions in blind bid contracts, until their CEO Brent Wilkes came under investigation as part of the Randy "Duke" Cunningham
scandal. However, unbeknownst to most, even those closely following the case, shortly there after, Brent's nephew resumed
opperations while his uncle was (and still is) under investigation (by the FBI among others).

I merely want to know that the Speaker is aware of what is going on, and I hope that later in the year or next year I will hear
more about the investigations. I'm pretty sure do to the sensitive nature of the crimes, national security and the nature of any
ongoing investigation that this is probably not the proper forum for such discussion. However, I'm hopeful that when the
Democratic Party sweeps the Senate and takes the White House later this year that the Speaker will have a much freer hand
and that torture will not only truly be outlawed but that those unpunished few will face the music.

Comment by jpap100

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

In an interview on CNN, the California Democrat was asked to respond to video of the president criticizing the Democratic-led Congress....
"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

Civility is one thing but the Speaker's own words suggest an incompetent. President Bush is hardly incompetent. His immoral and unethical administration has ruthlessly enacted an agenda not possible before 9/11. He has gutted existing laws, defied oversight by the legislative and judicial branches and deliberately lied and misled the nation while redacting and destroying evidence of his crimes that would make Nixon's erasure of tape an act of childplay.

Speaker Pelosi became an enabler of Bush by trying to appear the political player. Unfortunately these are times when principled representatives of both parties need to stand up(as they did in Watergate) on the side of justice and the constitution instead of political pandering.

The first business of the next Congress should be replacement of the House Speaker Pelosi and the Majority Leader Reid. Their boldest statements barely reached the threshold of timidity.

Comment by melissia.pierce

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

As a health educator for a teen pregnancy prevention program, I have seen the damage that the federal government is condoning with their "abstinence only" funding.
Each year teen childbearing costs the US taxpayers $9.1 BILLION. The monetary cost of STIs among teens is unknown, but direct costs of curable STIs among all sexually active Americans have been estimated at $8.4 BILLION per year. Over $1.1 Billion is spent each year by the federal government to fund "abstinence-only" programs.
Each year over 800,000 young women become pregnant. Most of them unmarried teens between ages 13-19. This number is increasing steadily since Mr. Bush's wonderful eight years of ignorant bliss.
Now is the time to read the research that our own government required the CDC to conduct. The results are in and abstinence only is OUT. We need to provide information on abstinence AS WELL AS information about condoms and other contraceptive. We must give our teens accurate, COMPLETE, and honest information. We cannot allow, not for one more minute, our youth to be lied to when it comes to matters of sexuality and sexual health.
We cannot lie to our young people , then expect them to trust us to give them information concerning sex.
At the same time, we cannot expect the lies that have been perpetuated through generations (i.e. "You can't get pregnant the first time."- sound familiar? It was a lie 40 years ago, too.) to be replaced with accurate information unless we acknowledge that our young people need information to eliminate barriers in remaining abstinent and using condoms or other forms of contraception- as well as the rick and protective factors that affect their sexual behaviors.
Parents who want to protect their children from the hazards in life need to discuss sexuality and sexual responsibility just as openly as they talk to them about not talking to strangers as a small child, the responsibility and safety of driving, seatbelt safety, etc.
We cannot depend wholly on the federal governmentto provide our youth with this information. We cannot trust them to provide us with the truth about so many other matters...why rely on them now?
Tell the federal officials that WE---THE PEOPLE---demand the truth and the financial means to pass that truth on to our youth. The lies have been funded long enough and our children are suffering because too many people who call themselves christians don't realize that lying to them is as much a "sin" as sex before marriage.
We just want these young people to reach adulthood with their physical and moral integrity intact. We don't believe they shold be having sex, but having babies and diseases that could have been prevented by providing COMPLETE and ACCURATE information is far worse.

Comment by texasbandit37

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I TOTALLY AGREE. The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
-while wrapping themselves in our flag,why is it acceptable for politician and the main stream media who support them to promote, false patriotism ^^^^^^Patrick Henry
George Washington
1732-1799. First President of the USA.
Famous Quotes

I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward. I strongly believe todays tool that is mostly used is deception, because most people or sleep walking through the course of their lives and even if fully awake some could careless, while others lie to promote the special intrest, while wrapping them selves in the flag, while their actions clearly contradict any thing to do with liberty and our Constitution~~~"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Ben Franklin

Comment by arthurpoet

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

HEAR HEAR !!!!

Comment by email

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

it seems i have left you all quite speechless with my genuis utterings - heh heh heh...

Comment by rchand46

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted from June 26th - 29th and included more than 1,000 Americans showed the following:

49% of Americans favor environmental protection, even if it means slowing economic growth
44% of those surveyed place the economy as their top priority, even at the expense of the environment
73% favor more offshore drilling for natural gas and oil

Comment by t.spradlin

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

More drilling only insures more oil consumption. The good side to high oil prices is that people will be forced to use less. They'll buy more efficient cars that cost less and pollute less. The car manufacturers will work hard to build cleaner cars like hybrid, electric, air, natural gas, hydrogen, and water powered cars. The sad thing is that this didn't happen sooner. Even if we drill today, and created more supply in 3-10 years, by then, the developing countries consumption will have cought up to the increased supply and the pollution problem will have become worse. The technology that already exists is the next big business to produce more jobs and improve our economy. Why not lead the world in globalization of all the new energy concepts. Wind and wave power can power our homes and businesses. Let's work to be done with coal and oil. They are dirty pollutants. Lets' give credits to those who develope and use new energy sources. Recent poll show this is the will of the people.

Comment by jen.wahl

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I saw that someone had voted "down" on this... how could a person actually vote down? I mean, I'm not sure I want to know a person that doesn't think a child is worth protecting.

Comment by davism97

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Trying to be bi-partisan my ass. Why doesn't she try being American?

Comment by joann

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Please sign the petition to the House Judiciary Committee to send Rove to jail. More than 47,000 people have signed. Let's hope it makes a dent in the spineless Democratic "leadership"

http://bravenewfilms.org/petitions/show/22-tell-the-house-judiciary-committee-to-hold-karl-rove-in-contempt-and-send-him-to-jail?page=2

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wow. She really has no shame. I hope Cindy Sheehan kicks her ass out of office. This pandering is obnoxious as hell.

So, on the one hand we have Gore telling us we are doomed unless we get good leadership and on the other we have crappy leaders refusing to do what they need to do to move the country in the right direction. All our ills will be fixed by Barack Obama though, right? (*shaking head*)

Comment by pulldigm

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I propose that we, publicly, begin the dismantling of our nuclear arsenal. We currently have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world many times over. If we begin with oldest and most obsolete weapons and, over time, reduce our nuclear arsenal by half. We would still have enough weapons to meet any threats with this unthinkable option.
The advantages would be to say, sincerely, to the rest of the world that we are serious about nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. We can approach our former enemies to assist them in dismantling their nukes without them fearing us. We will save billions of dollars that we now spend maintaining our Nukes. We will free thousands of service men and women for redeployment to more essential service. Also, we will have large quantities of fissionable material for peaceful uses.

Comment by pulldigm

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

A. Lincoln once said,"You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." I live in a state that is fooled most of the time. They consistantly reelect republicans to the senate and many congressional seats. I have written and called my representatives many times. In almost every instance I was ignored. My representatives invariably did the opposite of what was right. The Democrats in the Congress should at the very least listen to the people who support and work to defeat their opponents.

Comment by yellerdawg

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Well, I guess now I know the answer to my question:
http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1857-885
It looks like it was "no."
http://www.counterpunch.org/cummins07192008.html

Comment by pulldigm

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We should tax all church property except that which is specifically used for the the rites, rituals, sacrements and chiritable activities. we should remove the tax exemption of all religious institutions that engage in political activity.
Another way that we can guarantee the seperation of church and state is to remember that the 1st Amendment not only guarantees freedom to practce the religion of your choice it also guarantees freedom from religion.
A disturbing thing that keeps coming up in our political campaigns That has no place in American politics is religion. In our original Constitution, long before the First Amendment that guarantees our freedom of religion as well as our freedom from religious domination, Article VI of our Constitution promises,"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Should we, as citizens of the United States of America, do any less than the Constitution demands of us. Should we, as citizens of the United States of America, do any less than the officers and representatives we appoint and elect to serve us.
I am one of those rare citizens that has read the Constitution and considers it the greatest and most sacred of American accomplishments and ideals.

Comment by yellerdawg

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Perhaps I shut this down too soon. From what I hear, these all questions might as well not have been here and she might as well not have showed up....

Oh well, what did I expect?

Comment by yellerdawg

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Well, well, from what I hear the answer to my question was "no." So much for "Ask the Speaker".....

Comment by Call Up

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I can tell you her response. It will be her standard talking point: we wanted to get the people's business done, and not divide Washington more than it already is.

This is her political talking point and she repeats it over and over whenever asked. She won't address accountability, oversight, or her responsibility to the American people to ensure that the Executive Branch doesn't violate the law.

The ONLY reason that I can rationalize is that she's complicit - that she was aware of the lawbreaking, authorized it, and now needs to cover up for the Administration in order to cover up for her own complicity.

Comment by 2liberals

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The MOMENT you took impeachment "off the table" can you imagine what Karl and Dick and George said? "Thank you, Nancy, we have a GREEN LIGHT to disassemble the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Ms Speaker: Imeachment should NEVER be a STRATEGY - it is a REMEDY. Don't take that away from We, The People.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You folks are giving Pelosi a lot of credit. How are we supposed to interpret her stating "impeachment is off the table" as soon as she assumed the speaker of the house role? Why on earth would she make such a statement unless she is somehow complicit in Bush's crimes and she knows that digging under the covers is going to net more than just the Bush clan?

Seriously. There is no other way to look at it. Continuously burying Kucinich's articles of impeachment--try #3 now. And threatening Conyers if he begins investigations?

90% of those in office wouldn't know the right thing if it hit them on the head.

Comment by flahooley

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Pelosi isn't corrupt. She is a politician, and a damn smart one at that. She can't bring this without the political movement to demand it.

It is our job to create a movement to force her to do what I believe she probably thinks is right.

Comment by davism97

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

There is still hope that Pelosi will do the right thing. It makes sense to not alienate her. I'm not proposing we don't tell her like it is, but "thedeanpeople" comment probably won't get much useful information out of her. If what "thedeanpeople" says is true then we shouldn't be wasting our time talking to Pelosi in the first place. I'm not all knowing though so I just assume Pelosi isn't corrupt. I agree that if she isn't corrupt then making this administration pay for its crimes against America would be her only sensible course. Above all the rule of law and balance of powers needs to be reestablished. No more cowboy presidents and "I hate the world so I'm going to ruin it" political advisers (Rove).

Comment by rchand46

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If you rely on a dictionary for your ideas, they will tend to be a little shallow, I fear. Permit me to quote Thomas Sowell on Goldberg's
book, since it speaks to your point.
__
Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" -- indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.

If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.

The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American "progressives" in the eugenics movement.

Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is too rich a book to be summarized in a newspaper column. Get a copy and start re-thinking the received notions about who is on "the left" and who is on "the right." It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.
__

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No offense, but why do we need to assure Pelosi of anything? She should be assuring US that she is intending to do the job she was elected to do, by US. Technically, we are her employer. Her salary is paid with taxpayer dollars. If about 90% of the people in government today worked in the private sector, they would have been fired for cause by now.

Why do elected officials always seem to get a free pass? The problem is we aren't paying NEARLY enough attention to what these people do in office. When it comes time for elections people often just go off sound bites on television commercials and never bother to do any of their own research. Likely, most of the people here on this board are an exception. But the majority of people out there don't watch what their politicians are doing and are dreadfully misinformed by the media.

So, again, why do we need to assure Pelosi that we are on her side? In 2006, we voted in a majority of Democrats who didn't do what they said they would do on our behalf. It's gotten so bad that I have officially changed parties and don't plan to vote for a candidate of either major party this presidential election. It's been said by many others that the Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and I believe this is the truth.

The only folks I see doing a damned thing in office are people like Kucinich, Waxman, Wexler and Feingold. For the most part, my local congressman is voting okay, but I disagree with him on a few bills here and there and he seems to discount my concerns on those bills altogether or makes it seem like those concerns are ludicrous. Example: the Homegrown Terrorism bill. That is awful legislation. To me, it's just like the McCarthy era all over again. He thinks that is an exaggeration, but all one needs to do is read it to see how vaguely defined terms are and what a can of worms it will be.

The moral of the story is PAY ATTENTION. Sign up for opencongress.org, megavote, etc. Watch how your local politician votes. And when it comes to people in leadership positions like Pelosi, if you're not one of her constituents and she doesn't put actions behind her words, then help her competition.

I'm sick of giving these politicians one chance after another and them not doing a damn thing they say they will. There are plenty of others out there willing to make a positive difference. I have no mercy for the likes of her.

Comment by davism97

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It's important to not sound like we're attacking Pelosi. We have to assure her that we're all Americans here (except for the corrupt neo-cons who need to spend a few years in jail studying the US Constitution, American History, World History, and the Geneva Conventions).

Comment by davism97

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

In light of any lack of evidence that Pelosi is blocking Congress from arresting Rove I don't think it's appropriate to waste time asking that anymore unless reason presents itself in the future. (I wrote the comment so now I'm taking it back). The impeachment question still stands.

Comment by rickmorgan

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

fascism, defined by the American Heritage dictionary, last edition: the control of government by corporations, driven by right wing ideology and bellicose nationalism. Sound familiar?

Comment by mactyger

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

My son died last year from colon cancer. He was 42 years old. He was working as a contract employee at the University of Texas, with basic insurance coverage UNTIL he was diagnosed with terminal colon cancer. His insurance was cancelled. He applied for a High Risk Policy and it only became effective after ONE YEAR. We paid for it, but before it went into effect, his father and I, his mother paid out over $225,000 from our savings for his hospitalization and care.

What I want to know is this. Since the government provides a single payer health care system for everyone over 65; everyone in the military; and everyone who works for the government, such as you and your staff; why is it such a stretch to provide the same program for everyone in the United States? Since the current program covers about 50% of the population, why should we, the other 50% pay for half the population to have coverage, while we go without? This is blatantly unfair!

PLEASE! Sign up to support H.R. 676, a single payer health insurance program. It will cost no more than all of us presently are paying for insurance. It will cover EVERYONE regardless of preexisting conditions. It will again make our companies competitive in the world if they do not have to pay from $8,000 to $12,000 per year (yes! that is what it really costs.)for each employee to have health insurance. Let's join the CIVILIZED NATIONS of the world and provide health care for our entire population.

Comment by lambert_strether.corrente

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why on earth is this perfectly innocuous and normal question being voted down? A question like: "What is your advice to young women who are beginning their careers?"

Do the "netroots" have some sort of problem with misogyny? Wait, no need to answer that.

Comment by timfahey

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I agree that Nancy Pelosi should have Karl Rove arrested. This would show the american people that she is tough and is willing to protect the american people, the constitution, and the legislative branch of the government from thugs.

Comment by t.spradlin

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

More drilling only insures more oil consumption. The good side to high oil prices is that people will be forced to use less. They'll buy more efficient cars that cost less and pollute less. The car manufacturers will work hard to build cleaner cars like hybrid, electric, air, natural gas, hydrogen, and water powered cars. The sad thing is that this didn't happen sooner. Even if we drill today, and created more supply in 3-10 years, by then, the developing countries consumption will have cought up to the increased demand and the pollution problem will have become worse. The technology that already exists is the next big business to produce more jobs and improve our economy. Why not lead the world in globalization of all the new energy concepts. Wind and wave power can power our homes and businesses. Let's work to be done with coal and oil. They are dirty pollutants. Lets' give credits to those who develope and use new energy sources.

Comment by blaze

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I agree. Americans need to be repaid before China, India, Iraq, or whomever.

Comment by blaze

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes, do it now, do it right, do it expeditiously!

Comment by blaze

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Speaker Pelosi, tell us about terminator seeds as well.

Comment by blaze

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

In addition to reopening this question and putting impeachment back on the table, I say Speaker Pelosi, you need to do it NOW, and you need to assure that it is a top priority, that it gets done with full proceedings, not just a token session, thinking that will satisfy the electorate. We are irate. We want impeachment proceedings to be completed and completed quickly. The action you're playing with right now with Karl Rove is less important. Impeach now!

Do it now, do it right. If you know what's right; you'll do the right thing. Otherwise, the electorate will continue to clean house.

Comment by libthink

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

World population growth is a national security issue and impacts our ability to control global warming. It is well within the function of the federal government. It is a problem that cannot be solved without the active involvement of national governments, and it is life-threatening.

In addition, the federal government is already affecting population growth through its policies. Thus far, it is making the problem worse instead of better. Simply not making the problem worse through bad public policy would be a step in the right direction.

Comment by libthink

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Anyone who objects to the British or Canadian system needs to see Michael Moore's movie., Sicko, which debunks the common myths about waiting lines. I'd love to have something like the French system, but I'd be tickled pink to get one even as good as the British. We need socialized medicine like Medicare that covers everyone and cuts out the profit motive. The last thing I'd want when I'm battling an incurable disease is someone making money off my suffering.

Comment by epcraig

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Whether or not we drill by the coast or in ANWR the price of petroleum will continue to rise as more and more Indians and Chinese take up driving.
Demand is rising and supply cannot catch up.
The government deserves their share of the revenue from fuel as the price inevitibly climbs, else failure to take their share can be regarded as subsidy.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

NPR has been broadcasting a very interesting series about health care systems in other countries. This morning, they were in the Netherlands. Here, they found that:

1) There are 24 hour clinics available for people to visit on off-hours, instead of having to go to the emergency room for all ills when it isn't necessary. They found this drastically reduces costs.

2) It is actually cheaper to provide on-call doctors who make HOUSE CALLS for those people who are too ill to come to the clinics. A physician's aid will field the phone calls and discuss with the patient what their symptoms are and whether they should come to the clinic or have the doctor come visit or wait until morning. If it is deemed necessary to have a doctor see them, they will send one to their house where the doctor will determine if their illness can be addressed directly by that doctor or if the patient should be admitted to the hospital. During the shift that they were embedded with this particular doctor only one of 10 patients seen required hospital admittance.

3) a database of all the patient's health issues is accessible by these doctors on call so that they can treat the patients appropriately.

4) All health care is covered through universal single-payer health care systems.

HERE, we would have had probably all 10 people visiting an emergency room where the doctors are not familiar with the patient's medical history, the patient will wait in the waiting room sometimes for many hours, doctors are more expensive because they are dealing with trauma cases and there aren't always appropriate facilities to handle all of the people, especially in large cities.

No one in the Netherlands will ever go bankrupt due to illness. Whereas HERE people can fall into debt paying for sub-par health care EVEN WHEN THEY ARE COVERED BY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. Because most people get health care via their employers, should they be unfortunate enough to be too ill to continue working, they could LOSE their coverage just when they need it most.

I am not holding my breath that the Democrats will address this issue. They've not shown that they have enough backbone to be leaders on anything these days.

This is just one of many reasons that my vote is going to Nader this year.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Technically, we don't currently have a democracy, we have a republic (or a representative democracy). Senator Gravel formed the National Initiative with a number of legal scholars who determined that it is legally viable to enact this legislation to allow the people to have more of a voice in how they are governed.

Our form of government was initially created to have checks and balances so that no branch of government would become all powerful. Unfortunately, DIRECTLY because of people like Nancy Pelosi, those checks & balances are not being utilized and the executive branch continues to warp our government to the point that we are on our way to becoming a fascist dictatorship.

Now, most of congress is only looking out for corporate best interests. Everyone seems to have bought into Reagan's trickle-down economics but those of us waiting for the trickle are well-aware that this form of economics DOES NOT WORK. Every time our government has attempted to deregulate an industry it has had disastrous consequences: airlines, energy, communications, banking/brokerage... We are not blind. It is time that our representatives be reminded of the fact that they represent US and not corporations. Corporations should not be considered as persons, but more and more that is what our government is doing.

We have seen in recent weeks and months how our tax money is being misused to bail out corporations that have been irresponsible, but when many of us request that the government help out INDIVIDUALS who are in trouble, the government turns a blind eye.

Now, with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle, we have a pseudo government agency that uses OUR TAX MONEY to fund home loans, cooks the books, pays its executives far more than they are worth while the companies are losing money and then when they get into too much difficulty, the government YET AGAIN funnels OUR TAX MONEY into this agency to bail it out. Republicans constantly speak about responsibility and rugged individualism, but they are the first ones with their hands out for tax payer dollars as long as it goes to corporations.

The National Initiative is the only thing that will fix this. We need to take power over our own government.

As has been stated many other places: "People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people."

Comment by twistdmojo

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Sorry, I'm not a conservative, I am a liberal nor am I confused and if you actually read what I said and did a bit of research, you'd find that what we call "conservatives" here, are referred to as "liberals" overseas.

Comment by jctzhawk

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Is this not a site for all the people? I don't remember seeing anywhere that conservatives are not allowed to post. I am not affiliated with any party and have already been attacked. Speaker Pelosi s should hear from all the people not just her party members. How else will she know what all the people think?

Comment by jctzhawk

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Rasing taxes will do nothing to counter loading the atmosphere. We may contribute to the CO2 as a country but the other countries around the world will not do anything to help. Raising taxes will only hurt our economy. It will not stop global warming.

Comment by dominick

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Absolutely right davism97 and not only that But Iraq was a Soverign Nation with a Soverign Ruler that
Bus toppled while he posed NO physical threat to us. And I do believe it's just not a felony but his actions were treason.

Comment by jctzhawk

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

In response to policks....I have read and reread my post. I can not seem to find anything that resembles "socialist boogeymen" as you put it. Maybe you are just feeling as though you are being subjected to a socialist government? The approval rating of congress is even lower now than when I posted the first time. All of the inaction will cause it to dip even lower. I posted a non-partisan comment and as I would have expected some people are offended. Maybe we should all rethink how we voted in 2006. There was not mandate as some have put it, and with all the inaction nothing is getting accomplished. We as voters should all call out Representatives and Senators and complain. Something has to be done.

By the way by the looks of the rating to the left more agree with me than not.

Comment by davism97

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

"Far left leaning liberal"

Dude seriously just take a few breaths and drink an ice cold glass of water. Life's not so crappy!

Comment by davism97

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You're really confused about liberalism. So is Jonah Goldberg. Are you aware that liberals wrote the US Constitution? All of the conservatives had fled to England with their tails between their legs by then. I guess they came back...

Comment by davism97

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I love how people confirm their own statements by writing "CONFIRMED." Give us some links to follow man.

Comment by davism97

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

waynevermillion, surely you're joking. In case you're not then let me educate you on an impeachable act the Bush administration committed:

Telling Congress and the American people Saddam Hussein posed an IMMINENT threat to our nation although all of Bush's intelligence sources were saying exactly the opposite. This means Bush knowingly LIED to congress. It's a felony to knowingly present false information to Congress. It's a war crime to do so in order to gain support for war against a peaceful nation.

But then again you probalby didn't finish reading all of that...

Comment by davism97

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

economy

Comment by jstruppler

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Your wrong about the few pennies Fortek...It was approx. $20.00 / barrel and stabilized the market...BTW, oil is now at $130.00 / barrel with actual supply / demand price range of $70.00 - $80.00 / barrel...The objective of dumping the SOR on the US market is to drive the speculators out of the market who DON'T belong there...Again, they have NO intention of taking delivery on future contracts; whereby, the futures price has been artifically inflated by fund managers and NOT those directly involved in the movement of a particular commodity...Do your homework!!

Comment by flahooley

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

For the ten year time-line Gore is talking about electricity generation, not transportation. For electricity generation, we already have solar, wind and some water/damning. The technology already exists, and, frankly, the push would create new jobs in the economy.

Comment by rchand46

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Good question. And what will Al Gore use to power his private jet? Methinks Gore is delusional--iif he really believes his own
absurd words. Moreover, how will the global economy all of a sudden change over to some as yet undisclosed energy source
without completely collapsing?

Comment by natasha.chart

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If a teenager decides to wait, they aren't going to do it because a teacher told them so. And if they decide not to wait, they need to know better than to cross their fingers and hope. This is a public health issue, as they noted at Alternet, and it's important that young people have accurate information about their bodies and sexual health. Via Alternet, re Texas, the home of abstinence-only education:

- In Texas, 220 teen women aged 15 to 19 become pregnant every single day.
- Texas's teen pregnancy rate is 101 per 1,000. The national rate is 84. Only MS, NM, AZ, and NV have higher rates.
- Texas has the worst teen birth rate among 15 to 19 year olds at 64 per 1,000. The national rate is 41 per 1,000.
- The teen birth rate in Texas for 15-19-year olds only dropped by 18% between 1992-2000 while the national rate dropped by 24 percent. - Texas ranks 4th worst in decline, after WY, NE, and ND.
- Texas has 7th worst syphilis rate and 17th worst gonorrhea rate in the country.
- Among states with available data, Texas has the lowest percentage of teens that report using condoms at last sex (56 percent; HI and NM were lower).

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

bojo1235 - There is wording in the National Initiative to prevent unconstitutional laws from being created. It has to go through the same vetting process as any law that congress creates, where the judicial branch can strike it down if it is unconstitutional.

Keep in mind that there are 24 states today that have ballot initiative processes. If laws are unconstitutional, they get rejected at the state supreme court level. This would be very similar in process.

Comment by yaroo5

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Congress is not the protector of the people. They act on behalf of special interests such as political parties, campaign donors, or generally anyone that will keep them in power. Unfortunately the Judicial branch of government has become our protectors. Time and time again we see congress pass laws that violate the constitution and the only thing that protects us against that are the courts - sometimes.

Comment by fortek

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Bill Clinton already tried that back in the 90's and the price only dropped a few pennies.
Plus you'd still have to buy oil at today's prices to refill the reserve.
The reserve is not intended for reducing the price of oil, it is there in case our suppliers decide not to sell to us anymore.
In which case you would see how popular drilling our own oil would become.

Comment by fortek

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Pelosi needs to wake up and allow domestic recovery of our own oil before China starts their drilling project off the coast of Florida. This country should not have to be dependent on anyone else for our energy needs. DRILL NOW!!!!

Comment by fortek

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No... government should not be concerned over High Speed Internet Access. That is a matter for the private sector. The less government control, the better.

Comment by verdulo1

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Not all parents think that abstinence until marriage is a good idea. Schools should be teaching facts, and teens should be encouraged to talk to their parents to learn their values. Even the 5% of us who practice abstinence until marriage need to learn about birth control because most married couples use birth control.

Comment by cos+netrootsnation

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Unfortunately, C-Span is a private entity that owns and asserts copyright on all of their material. I once tried to get copies of video from their archives (it's only available online for a limited time), and found that the prices they charge are way out of reach for most individuals. We really should at least have videos of Congress available in the public domain.

Comment by cos+netrootsnation

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This question seems rambly, jumping topics. It's not clear what the focus of the question is.

Comment by cos+netrootsnation

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think this is too many questions rolled into one.

Comment by cundiff

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This was posted elsewhere but it does offer a solution.
National Initiative for Democracy may sound like a silly idea because we are already have a Democracy, don’t we? Or did that fall by the wayside when we surrendered are Constitutional Rights to CORPORATISTS Bush and Cheney? Since we evidently have no practicing representation because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has merged into one. This new joint ‘partnership’ can be called the CORPORATION PARTY (although Washington and Adams would turn in there graves if they knew). I think debbie.wonderkitty has presented a very practical idea and I would suggest that this new branch of government would be known as THE DEPARTMENT OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Since a balance of power concept has proven to be faulty and our government was never intended to be ANYTHING except a government “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE”, the Department of Ombudsman should have veto power over any decisions made by the other branches. Of course for the first Director of the Ombudsman Department should be the only Ombudsman that the American people ever had. This man has worked for us tirelessly for over 20 years with no official capacity and that is RALPH NADER. I think the American people OWE HIM ONE.

Comment by cundiff

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is a repost of my comment elsewhere but it does direct a solution.
National Initiative for Democracy may sound like a silly idea because we are already have a Democracy, don’t we? Or did that fall by the wayside when we surrendered are Constitutional Rights to CORPORATISTS Bush and Cheney? Since we evidently have no practicing representation because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has merged into one. This new joint ‘partnership’ can be called the CORPORATION PARTY (although Washington and Adams would turn in there graves if they knew). I think debbie.wonderkitty has presented a very practical idea and I would suggest that this new branch of government would be known as THE DEPARTMENT OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Since a balance of power concept has proven to be faulty and our government was never intended to be ANYTHING except a government “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE”, the Department of Ombudsman should have veto power over any decisions made by the other branches. Of course for the first Director of the Ombudsman Department should be the only Ombudsman that the American people ever had. This man has worked for us tirelessly for over 20 years with no official capacity and that is RALPH NADER. I think the American people OWE HIM ONE.

Comment by cundiff

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

National Initiative for Democracy may sound like a silly idea because we are already have a Democracy, don’t we? Or did that fall by the wayside when we surrendered are Constitutional Rights to CORPORATISTS Bush and Cheney? Since we evidently have no practicing representation because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has merged into one. This new joint ‘partnership’ can be called the CORPORATION PARTY (although Washington and Adams would turn in there graves if they knew). I think debbie.wonderkitty has presented a very practical idea and I would suggest that this new branch of government would be known as THE DEPARTMENT OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Since a balance of power concept has proven to be faulty and our government was never intended to be ANYTHING except a government “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE”, the Department of Ombudsman should have veto power over any decisions made by the other branches. Of course for the first Director of the Ombudsman Department should be the only Ombudsman that the American people ever had. This man has worked for us tirelessly for over 20 years with no official capacity and that is RALPH NADER. I think the American people OWE HIM ONE.

Comment by cundiff

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Absolutely!!!

How can you hope to pass any meaningful legislation when the whole process is suspect to lies and fraud by lawmakers who hold no allegiance to those who elected them and you are abetting those guilty of ‘High Crimes”? On a scale of 0 to 100 holding those accountable for the crimes against the American people ranks at 100 whereas anything else that you can dream up including, Iraq, Iran, Social Security, Universal Healthcare, Global Warming, the economy, and Nancy Pelosi’s up-coming election has a rank of less than 10!!

Comment by bryan a

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

bojo1235,
Which would you (the taxpayer) rather pay for: One car per adult or one train per 600 adults? A vehicle that gets 20mpg or one that gets 468 passenger miles per gallon?

Comment by cundiff

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

To honor your oath of office, we must have nothing but hearings until all accounts of alleged crimes are heard and satisfied. There is more than enough evidence to prove guilt and all who are guilty must be acknowledged and suffer the consequence because the viability of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are at stake!

NOTHING OF ANY VALUE, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN OR WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED UNTIL GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!!
Comment by Libertybill

Comment by ibonewits

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Bojo, I'm afraid you missed the point of the second sentence in the first paragraph.

Congress routinely passes laws that violate freedom of religion. See the files of Americans United (www.au.org) for details.

I want to know if Ms. Pelosi will put a stop to such unconstitutional laws.

Comment by cundiff

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

A hearing is not good enough!!! We must have nothing but hearings until all accounts of alleged crimes are heard and satisfied. There is more than enough evidence to prove guilt and all who are guilty must be acknowledged and suffer the consequence because the viability of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are at stake!

NOTHING OF ANY VALUE, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN OR WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED UNTIL GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!!
Comment by Libertybill

Comment by dancinglight

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Great question. I'd love to hear the answer.

Not that I think she has a good one.

Comment by waynevermillion

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You speak of Immagrants, These are illegal immagrants. I can not understand why people like you can not understand the word illegal. It means they broke the law.

Comment by waynevermillion

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

When will Mexico give the same rights to an American that they want us to give to thier Illegals?

Comment by waynevermillion

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Those wanting to have a health care plan that is similar to the British need to do thier homework. Both Britan and Canada have Socilized medicine. You do not chose your Doctor and there are long waiting list to have procedures done.

Comment by waynevermillion

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Our Country will never again be strong until Democrats and Republicans learn to work for the Country and not for the Party

Comment by waynevermillion

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Please be assured it is not only the Republicans who benifit from this boodoggle. There are many Democrats on the take also. I am always hearing throw the Bums out, we do and the replace them with some more Bums. Our country will continue to go down the drain until we can find someone who will step up to the plate and do something about all the graft in our Goverment.

Comment by libthink

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Commenters don't seem to appreciate that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the House and have a sufficient number in the Senate to keep any Republican or White House bill from passing. The fact that we have any Republican legislation passing implies that the Democrats in Congress want that legislation to pass. There are many bills that would benefit the American people that have sufficient numbers of supporters to pass. So, why are we seeing bills pass that sell out the American people's rights and favor multinational companies over our own people while we see none of the helpful bills make it through?

Comment by libthink

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Just in case you happened to think that this is a viable option, let me remind you that oil is a world-wide commodity and any additional production here cannot affect the price unless it is in the billions of barrels a day category. Re-opening a few wells won't do the trick.

As to opening ANWAR or the drilling off shore, that would simply suggest you are throwing up your hands because you have no long-term strategy. At our current rates of production, we will be out of domestic oil in about ten years. Drilling in these areas might push that timeframe back by maybe a dozen years at the most. In either case, we will be out of domestic oil in our lifetimes (and I'm not particularly young). We can't afford to burn that oil and dump the resulting carbon into the atmosphere and oceans anyway, unless we want to destroy life on earth. So, let's just move to a sensible plan. Let's take the subsidies we give to the oil industry, and let's move them to the alternative fuels industry.

And, so here's my question: Why did the government let the tax credits for solar expire?

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Or better yet, let's replace ALL the Democrats except the ones that truly represent us (i.e. Kucinich, Wexler, Waxman, Feingold) with third party candidates. It's time to do some house-cleaning. Some elected officials need to be looking for a new job.

Comment by aprichard

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Total expenditures (tax dollars+private expenditures) per capita are almost twice as high in the U.S. as in most other countries and we still have 47 million uninsured Americans and lower lifespans and higher mortality rates than many orther industrialized countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care

In 2007, the U.S. spent $5,711 per capita in 2007. 44.6% of that was through the government. Canada spent $2,669 per capita (69.9% by government). France spent $2,981 per capita (76.3% by government) and is widely regarded as having the best health care system in the world.

Our system is designed to maximize health insurance profits not provide the best health care for our citizens. If we believe that every American should get basic health care, then I don't know how you cannot conclude that private insurance companies are an unnecessary middleman that skims off profits without providing any tangible benefit.

Comment by libthink

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It's a good question, but the assumption is backward. Clinton was able to balance the budget and start paying down the debt because of the Double Bubble (the build out of the Internet and the coming of age of the PC). Unless we have a similar miracle (nanotech and biotech are the two big candidates), we will have to fix the economy the old fashioned way.

That means, of course, earning the money to pay off the debt by such things as:

Fixing global trade (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1956-885),
Coming up with a competitive healthcare system (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1968-885),
Limiting the military-industrial complex (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1958-885), and
Dealing with the declining dollar (see http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/1957-885).

Democrats have a responsibility to fix these problems. $30,000 is more than a year of steady work at minimum wage. Would you sell your children into slavery for a year?

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wow. If this is true, it is absolutely disgusting. What kind of leaders have we elected. I would ask that everyone reading these boards do their due diligence before granting your vote to ANY elected officials. Make sure that they have integrity and can be trusted and have MORALS. Don't believe the republicans when they say they are the party of family values. Does this kind of treatment of children jive with family values? Absolutely sickening. I am completely ashamed of my government.

Comment by archmeg

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Well, in this case, the Federal Government has treaties with these Indigenous Nations. So they do, in fact, have a mandate to uphold.

Comment by sundance521

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Ar;

I am sorry that my comments apparently upset or offended you. That was not my intention. Perhaps I did word my post a little strongly... I did so only because I was VERY insulted by the comments of the prior poster: "Our government has expanded into areas it was never meant to, and in so doing, has taken money from us, in taxes, to be used in programs of their choosing. In other words, it runs charities I have not chosen, using my money."

I take STRONG exception to his/her insinuation that I (and you too, for that matter) would like to be a leech on society by demanding that the government pay my bills. If you are going to throw an accusation like that at me, you had better expect a response, because you ARE going to get one. I never asked for anything from him/her and don't want anything from him/her. I want only that my government do what it is supposed to do, which is act FOR THE PEOPLE (not for the special interests, ie insurance companies and the medical industry). Sound familiar? It certainly should. I suggest that the prior poster do a little research, as he/she apparently never saw those words.

My point is that if our government did not allow the blatant ripoffs of the insurance and medical folks, I would not be in the fix I am in. If that person has enough money to pay off in cash the kind of bills I have, more power to him/her. He/she can go to the country club, shoot a round of golf then retire to the lounge and toast the little people. As for me, I have done everything I am supposed to do and I still have very real problems and a government who apparently could not possibly care less. And people with the mentality of the prior poster are not helping any, but are contributing to the problem.

Again, sorry if I offended you, it was certainly not my intent.

Comment by ghmorrow

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The interests of regular citizens will never be adequately represented until politicians feel beholden to them for holding office, nor will any but the already fiscally elite be able to attain such an office so long as candidates must come up with their own funds.

Comment by ar_foster

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Hello to all of the folks who've been responding to my post.

I feel a sense of community, albeit a sad community, when I hear of others in the same situation as myself.

I am very worried, possibly upset though, when I read a post that says things like this: "I am not asking for any charity from you, you can take your money and guess where you can put it, pal." Or, "now go back into the hole you crawled out of, and in spite of your assinine comments, I hope you never have to find out the hard way that doing all the right things..."

We need to keep the discourse as respectful of each other as possible. It is only then that we can truly bridge the wide gap of the "haves" and the "have nots" who, by the way, are the majority of Americans now.

It's obvious that you are all as passionate about this topic as I am especially having lived through some horrible medical and financial traumas like me. I really wish none of us had to deal with all of this and that we had a brighter facing us and our children. But, we don't. So, let's use our passion and really hammer those in power--those that control a large portion of our destiny--and keep doing whatever we can to change things, even if it's just writing on a message board like this.

Every time I get one of these responses in my inbox, I pray that it's from Speaker Pelosi or her staff...of course, I'll probably NEVER hear from anyone in our government. I will, however, not stop trying and I encourage each of you to keep trying, too. Just tone down the rhetoric with each other, okay?

Sincerely,

Ar Foster
Fort Collins, CO

Comment by dominick

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It was a metaphor sir and it certainly is a written one. AND it does mean what is being implied here.
the "Separation of Church and State." Without seeing in front ofme I think it something like the "Wall of Separation" But I'll give you a link where it is spoken of and How it's intent is, though I'm sure I did this before.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html#first
As for you last statement, THAT is what we have been talking about here and that is what the intent of Separtion of Church and State is for and WHY we need to get rid of the Grasp the Religious Right who has a tight grasp on govenment. ALSO there is NO mandate that a President or any elected official be a Christiain to get voted into office! Any way it appears we are on the same page.
Dominick
**************************************************************************************************

Comment by drflox99204

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

the simple solution to end the Abby Flabby spending is to rewrite the rule regarding the use of the funds to be life long reproductive health education funding- that stresses age appropriate education with a strong comprehensive balance of sexual health facts . We all forget that abstinence is part of the continuum of effective sexual health activities and education- is it really appropriate for a 4th, 5th, or 6th grader to be engaging in sex? NO. so they need to be encouraged to be abstaining from sex until physically and mentally ready to have sex with an active and complete knowledge of how to protect them selves...that said it is totally inappropriate for abstinence to be he focus of late middle school or Junior high curricula, it needs to one of the many options presented to young people along with strong decision making skills, birth control education, universal safer safe precautions and life long sexual health information. The current abstinence funding amounts would do a wonderful amount of good if the rules were adjusted to function in the real world- removing the marriage act language(which is useless and discriminatory) and making sure that age appropriate comprehensive education is used (comprehensive means all from Abstinence to birth control to healthy sexuality)-- So lets meet int he middle adjust the language and get funding out there to provide healthy correct and appropriate sexual health education materials to US youth .

Comment by pritchett.anne

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No, Sadaam was not in violation of any treaties. He didn't violate 17 UN resolutions. And he had NO WMDs either.

And Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11.

Now go on back to free republic and quit trolling this site. Your mom's going to need to use the computer soon anyway.

Comment by sundance521

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Spoken like a true repuke. It is wonderful that you apparently have several hundred thousand dollars put away just in case you have serious medical problems, and will be able to simply pay cash. I would guess that the vast majority of Americans, especially in these economic times (ie, bush's America) do not.

My wife was in an auto accident that nearly killed her, and I had two heart attacks. Neither one of us asked for these things, trust me. Keep in mind, that we have insurance, did the whole time. Between the two of us, our bills are well over half a million dollars. Closer to three quarters of a million (medical costs are a whole seperate issue). Insurance did not pay anywhere near all of that. We are left with enough degt that our net worth is a negative number, a very large one at that (and we own a house that is 90% paid off!!) I guess your solution is to just euthanize us, and all the others like us? Because we don't happen to be among the elite class who has that kind of money to just pay off the bills??

I am not asking for any charity from you, you can take your money and guess where you can put it, pal. I only ask that the insurance that I pay through the nose for should do what it's supposed to do, and that perhaps the medical industry should not be something akin to legalized rape.

Thanks for your comments, now go back into the hole you crawled out of, and in spite of your assinine comments, I hope you never have to find out the hard way that doing all the right things (being a productive citizen, paying your taxes, having medical insurance) will be of precious little help to you if you do the unforgiveable in America; get sick.

Comment by pritchett.anne

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Bojo you are all over this board. Having fun? Please crawl back in your hole now.

Comment by tsikes

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We do a great disservice to adolescents in this country by supporting programs that provide false or misleading information. To truly assist teens, we need to offer factual information on both abstinence and contraception. These programs are proven effective and have been rigorously tested over and over again. Programs like Wise Guys are what we should be funding, not programs that spread lies and harm our teens.

Comment by thedeanpeople

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

CONFIRMED ---- THE REAL REASON ---- CONFIRMED

Sorry Fellow Dems, but as (Salon's) Glenn Greenwald blogged today about (Harpers') Scott Horton's interview with (The New Yorker's) Jane Mayer demonstrates -- what's really been put "off the table" is anything that might reveal Nancy Pelosi's own, active and personal, war criminality.

She and a handful of other self-important (and self-deluded) DC-Dems signed on to the The Torture Team.

They, at minimum, failed to object when they should have. And are now engaged in a furtherance of that criminal conspiracy by shielding their co-conspirators from the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Perhaps now that it is exposed Conyers can reclaim his role as Conscience of the Congress.

He may now see that all their lame rationalizations were just that and that only he can speak for The American People.

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

Comment by cokane

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

bojo1235: You obviously don't understand how the UN works, how peace-keeping missions work, or what international treaties are for (and why we abide by them). The point isn't merely that soldiers died, but that a considerable amount of misinformation was waged promoting war in Iraq to make it more favorable at the time, however less factual the accounts were. The fact is that a sovereign country was invaded, we diverted resources away from Afghanistan (prolonging war there), and started a 5-year war that was sold to us as a 1-year war. Whenever the administration was questioned on the validity of this claim, the questioners were repeatedly told that they were wrong and the administration knew best. This discredited the people who actually had it right to begin with, before the war in Iraq even started. This is all very well documented.

Soldiers in peace-keeping missions who are killed are doing their job protecting civilians in a conflict zone. There is nothing illegal about this happening. In fact in both military and policing conflict, this is a common practice that is not illegal (sacrifice of military or police to safeguard civilian lives). So how do you hold someone responsible for something that isn't illegal? I challenge you to actually come up with real facts supporting the conflict in Kosovo or the Rwandan conflict as being "illegal". Both were sanctioned by the UN, and both saw international military sacrifice (not just USA).

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why do we need help abroad?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We had every right to invade Iraq. Are you all fresh out of high school or is it that your memories are so short?
Saddam was in violation of the treaty and the U.N. knew that.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I don't like our trading partner.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What year did the UN start calling for a 2 state solution?

Comment by jo1028fraser

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I know from personal experience at the state level that the abstinence-only funding is used to support religious right political activity at the local level. Why do the Democrats continue to fund their opposition under the guise of programs that are proven to be ineffective? It is such a waste of tax money, harms teenagers, and fuels opposition to Democratic ideals. It makes no sense; please explain.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What does she plan to do about their deaths here in the U.S.?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Just because someone says this stuff, doesn't make it true.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Well, I hope the funds are still coming from the charities and businesses which have an interest in the above, as
it is not the role, the job, nor the responsibility of the government to collect tax money for such projects.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The U.S. spends almost twice as much money as other countries on health care...
What do you mean?
Do you mean the U.S. consumer spends almost twice as much,
or do you mean the U.S. government spends almost twice as much?
In other countries, their governments pay for stuff with the taxpayers money, right?
They subsidize everything.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Another post from me.
Why do so many of you think that you will be able to get someone else to pay for what you want, and
do not understand nothing in our country works that way?
The simplest way to understand this, is to remember, the American Taxpayer pays for everything!
I mean really every single thing.
When taxes are raised on a business, they either go out of business (now how much tax do we
collect from them) or they stay in business, and they will raise the prices for their products or services to you
the consumer, which is you the taxpayer, or lower the goods or services to make up for
their loss.
When these companies do well, they reinvest, often expand, and hire more people.
When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

debbie,
how would the other three branches put a check on the people?
our laws are not just made up, i.e., might and majority do not always
make for right.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Most other developed countries are more socialist than we are.
But we are catching up.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The first amendment says congress shall make no laws regarding those religious freedoms.
So Nancy isn't supposed to touch this!

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why didn't Bill Clinton uphold the constitution to defend the nation? That was his job as
commander in chief.
Nearly twice as many active duty personnel died during the Clinton years
as have died during the George Bush years.
Bill Clinton certainly had a lot on his radar that was ignored!

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If it is a basic human right, who gave you that right?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I don't own a gun, and probably never will, because I don't have enough motivation to get one.
However, I would support teaching every high school student how to use a gun.
If everyone in the country owned a gun and knew how to use it, and if everyone knew that was so,
there would be a lot less crime in the U.S.A.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We are told we cannot invest in health care, education, retirement, energy research, infrastructure care - even federal firefighting! - because we are so broke.
That's not true.
Our government always has all the money they want; they borrow it from the Federal Reserve Board. We don't actually pay for very much. But our children and grandchildren will be paying.
Regarding the things you want to use the tax money for, that money will be wasted also, and besides that, our government has a poor track record of success in those kind of areas.
However, if a nation is at war, as we are, we can not afford to lose.
Also, it is a primary function of our government to protect and defend us.
When we have been assaulted, and we have, no matter who you think did it, we as a nation have an obligation to
respond, and diplomacy and appeasement are not the way to respond.
The war in Iraq is not just about weapons of mass destruction. It is about the treaty after we turned back the Iraq army that
invaded Kuwait. We ought to have pushed back further at the time.
Saddam violated 17 points of that treaty for 12 years; we should have responded during the Clinton years, but Clinton failed to be the leader he should have been as president.
I am tired of people saying Bush lied when we went to war. Had I been president, I would have probably gone after Saddam sooner
because he violated the treaty. If the commander in chief for the U.S. appears weak to other nations, then that actually does
make us weaker, because we teach the rest of the world they can violate our treaties, they can invade our allies, they can
commit acts of war against us, and we won't do anything about it. That's no way to run a nation!
Taxes are needed for some infrastructure and for national defense. Taxes are not for poorly run government charities.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The phrase separation of church and state is not part of the Bill of Rights, nor the U.S. Constitution, nor any other U.S. Law.
It was a phrase Thomas Jefferson used in a letter, and he did not mean what people today usually mean when they use it, as you are doing. If the founding fathers had thought that, they would not have accepted and acted on Benjamin Franklin's advice, that they
pray for help forming the constitution.
The constitution limits our government. The reason the founding fathers thought that way, was because they believed the rights to be protected were God given rights. Do you understand this? It is not the constitution nor even the Bill of Rights that gives you or me certain rights, it is God who gives us those rights.
So unless you intend to toss out the constitution or the Bill of Rights, and make up a different government other than the one the founding fathers gave us, (and I know that's what some of you would like to do) then God and the word God is not going away.
You are free to think whatever you please concerning God or the word God, but that does not give you the right to remove it from our history nor the role God, as understood by the founding fathers, had in forming this government and nation.
What I don't understand about folks like you who complain in this way, is why you allow the government to exceed its
constitutional limitations by becoming the social avenue for providing help and have allowed our government to fulfill other religious functions, such as providing charity through taxing the citizens? This is the role of the church, and I do think the government
should be prevented from usurping the place of the church in that way. It is the government and its agencies which have become a kind of people's church, and in the name of goodness these agencies have taken on all manner of works which they should not have done.
When, I wonder, will the government get out of the church business?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I support the question, not your thnking. Go ahead, Nancy, tell them why you can't impeach President Bush, nor the V.P.,
nor prosecute Karl Rove.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

NAZIS? the NAZIS were national socialists....

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Can we hold Clinton personally responsible for the deaths of soldiers who died under his adminstration? You know, like the
ones who were not allowed to defend themselves, even though they were attacked?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why ask the government to provide you with travel by train? Why not ask them to provide you with a car?
The government, that is your fellow American taxpayers, pay for it either way, right?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Marriage was not instituted by the constitution nor the government.

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Congress has repeatedly failed to rein in the Supreme Court, another area where balance of power needs to be restored.
And they should get rid of the Federal Reserve Board, which isn't even a Federal agency!

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Can we get rid of the Federal Reserve Board and go back on the gold and silver standards?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

When will those big oil companies just stop working and take a permanent vacation?

Comment by bojo1235

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We shouldn't be running private companies and directing their salaries because we are not a full blown socialist country yet,
or are we?
Neither oil companies or any other companies have to do what they do. They don't have to work. They choose to work.
Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? What if the rest of us who work, and support those who don't produce anything, were to decide to take a very long vacation? Then who would pay the taxes?
BTW, do you know that Canada is our major importer of oil? I just wondered if you knew that, because most people who write
that nonsense like you've written don't usually know that. Maybe you do, just wondered.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is not the job of government.
More competition is needed.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is definitely not a job for the government! What business does government have collecting money for the above
expenditure? This is outdated science news. Embronic stem cells are not even needed!

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What are we going to do about the scientists who say there is not proof at all that global warming is caused by anything
humans do?
Again, this is not a government responsiblility, spending our money for this.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No she won't, because it's a waste of her time and taxpayers money. Karl Rove does not have to respond to their
subpoena. There is not any evidence Karl Rove has committed any crime.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wow! I had no idea this was the cause of our kids failing education!
About 40 years ago, we had similar problems. Students being passed on to the next grade, who could not read!
Just give the parents vouchers and see how fast Johnny can read and write and think!

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Will you vocally support the enforcing of current U.S. illegal immigration laws, and support the enforcing of arresting those who hire illiegal immigrants to work in the U.S.?

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You three simply don't understand. Please listen to Mark Levin.
Once again I must explain:
the goal of a business is to make a profit. If their costs exceed their profits,
they ought to be out of business.
When a business makes a profit, that is a good thing.
When they get taxed, we, the American taxpayers, pay those taxes, besides the ones we pay on our
paycheck.
Just because it would take a decade (highly questionable) does not mean oil companies should not drill.
For many years these companies have been in the business of making a profit by drilling and selling, so
if they think they could make a profit by drilling in some more places, then we should let them. They only
way they get real benefits, is if they sell enough to us!

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wow! What a brainiac you are? Have you graduated from high school already?

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Again, the above issue, monitoring, limiting world population growth, is not a funtction of
the U.S. Government! Nor should the American taxpayer pay for such!

Comment by bdglynn

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It Is the Religious Right, and it is also a Republican "wedge" issue that they believe belongs in the category with abortion, which is also nothing but a wedge issue. Most people in this country believe reliable information and access should be the norm. People in other countries are aghast that the U.S. has fallen into such a trap.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why don't we get rid of the Federal Reserve Board, and put this country back on the gold and silver standard, and see
inflation nearly eliminated?

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

These issues are very important and Ms. Pelosi needs to address them No Matter how confrontational the questions get. After all we've had 7 1/2 years of her joing the GOP at the HIP and we don't even know if she going to finish out Bushs term in office with out further giving into him. We need answers as to why and they need to be legitmate answers, no hemming and hawing. I'm all for having Ms. Pelosi replaced as a leader of the Democrat Party and she, like Diane Feinstein Needs to be Censured! SHe has been actin like the GOP are her constiutiens instead of Democrats! Her actions Do NOT match her words!

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why don't they require that all current spending be paid by current funds? Why should our children, or our grandchildren
be put into slavery for any government programs? Why not give our children and grandchildren what our founding fathers
fought for and won, taxation with representation? WE are the ONES living on borrowed money, and WE have borrowed it
not from the Federal Reserve but from our own children and grandchildren without their permission and without their vote!
WE let this happen. If you want that changed, we have to vote people out who keep spending and vote people in who at
least say they will stop this kind of immoral and irresponsible spending.
Read the grandfather's economic report - google it.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Speaking of the bottom line, do you know that our government collects more money from the oil companies than the
oil companies keep? Some windfall for the government, don't you think?
Thousands of scientists do not agree that global warming is caused by anything humans do.
Besides that, during this last year, the temperature actually dropped.

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I hate to bring this up again BUT this is a Religious Right issue and it's their agenda that keeps creeping up in our government issues.
They are the ones who keep forcing their religious beliefs in our faces. And if Nancy Pelosi is agreeing with this, or any other Senator it's because the Right Wing have them in their pocket!

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

She will probably be very interested in this, because she wants the senate dining hall, after losing millions of dollars for years, and
losing diners, to be privatized.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

After losing millions of dollars for years, she is in favor of privitazing her senate dining hall. What do you think?

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Once again, you are assuming it should be a policy of the government to improve the quality of life for some people in the U.S.
Not trure. That is not the job of our government.
If you personally want to do something, if you personally want to volunteer your time and or your money, then you
make the difference. And if you can organize others to join you, then you do that, if that is the call in your heart.
Although, there are already charities that do help them.
There is no law against doing good.
But there are limits imposed on our government, or there used to be, as to what they could do. For nearly the last 80 years
many have voted and legislated as if our government is supposed to do everything they can possible think up for government, and the American taxpayers, to do. Stop.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Reason seems not to prevail over religion, but it seems that saving the human race is one of the greatest of religious acts of love.
Your above statement may be true, but why are you expecting your government to be involved in such a
religious activity?

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I've been reading comments like this for over 40 years!
We do not have an overpopulation problem in the U.S.
This does not mean we don't have problems, but it is not
due to overpopulation.
My grandparents were what you would call poor, but
they raised 15 children.
A lot of the problems are due to some bad policies that some governments have,
or just plain bad governments and bad economic policies.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Like many others, you are incorrect about several things.
Neither Bush nor Cheney have committed any impeachable crimes.
Regarding going to war in Iraq, he didn't lie anymore than those in the senate,
and given the intelligence information he was given, it is not evident that Bush
knowingly lied at all about anything.
Regarding thousands of people dying,
about 45,000 die every year on our highways, but no one has called for a
moritorium on driving cars.
Hundreds are killed in our cities every year, but no one has called for Americans
to pull out of those cities.
During the Clinton years, almost twice as many active duty military personnel died, without being sent to war,
as have died during the Bush years, with the Iraq war.
How many other things are you thinking are so which are not?
Maybe this one: think we get most of our oil from Saudi Arabia, or some other Middle East country?
Think again.
We import more oil from Canada than any other country, and until recently, Mexico was in the number
two slot.
BTW, don't you see how the Supreme Court has grabbed unprecedented power?
Mark Levin is a constitutional lawyer. Why not read his book about the Supreme Court and its justices?
This is not a question that will get asked, because the Democrats who know constitutional law, know
that the above mentioned have not broken any laws.

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

All of those issues you are referring to here is being Pushed By the Religious Right. Seaparation of Church and State is a Separate issue that also needs attention. We want our leaders to lead from our Constitution and Rule of Law not by how a religious Group thinks we should govern. So yes this is an important issue.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The federal government should not even be involved in schools!
Alan Keyes was right; the department of education should be disbanded.

Comment by stouty77

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is a really important issue to me that I think needs attention. However, there are a lot more pressing matters at the moment (global warming, energy crisis, oil, war, president bush in general) that I think need to be at the forefront of these efforts. I would hate for this question to detract form more pressing matters.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why is it the responsibility of the government to provide for you? Where is that iin the U.S. Constitution?
Personally, I think the government has way overstepped its bounds, and entered into area that at one time
were the function of the Christian Churches and charities.
Our government has usurped certain church functions, which means there is not a
separation of church and state here, and the government is now looked to by many, as if it were
the moral, i.e., religioius duty of government to care for its citizens.
Our government has expanded into areas it was never meant to, and in so doing, has taken money from us, in taxes,
to be used in programs of their choosing. In other words, it runs charities I have not chosen, using my money.
The country would be better if government was returned to the limits our founding fathers set, and
we ourselves managed the churches, charities, and schools, without them. Forntunately, in spite of the taxes
we pay, many people still contribute their time and money to their church and charities. But I contend, we
could do even greater things for one another, if we were not forced to contribute to the socialist programs
which do not help.
Finally, to paraphrase St. Paul, true religion is this: to care for widows and orphans.

Comment by kheeta2

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I'm the mother of four children, one of whom is gay. I've been married 39 years. I want for all my children that special bond that I have had with one other person. I don't want my gay son to be alone and lonely his entire life, thus don't ask that he be celibate forever. But I want him to have the responsibility and security that comes with legal marriage. Right now there are many religions that will spiritually marry gay couples. Research shows couples who are legally bound to one another are happier and healthier. Society benefits with fewer singles seeking care when ill, unemployed or homeless. Society has done a poor job in teaching our gay youth that they have the same ability to be promiscuous, celibate or monogamous. as their straight peers. It has done a poor job in encouraging them to dream of stable relationships or showing role models of gay couples who have achieved this. Where would our straight kids be if all they saw of relationships were from TV shows like Friends and Sex in the City? It is time to allow those gay couples who choose to make commitments to do so legally.

Comment by stouty77

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

There is a typo - "hirt" should be "hurt"

Comment by stouty77

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

maybe take out the "how do you sleep at night" part of the question. A little non-professional in my opinion.

Comment by bojo1235

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Who are you people? Do you have real jobs?
Bush did not bankrupt America. You have to go back further in history than the last 8 years to see what
has happened with the economy in the U.S.
If we do not halt and reverse the socialist practices in our government, the economy will get worse every
year no matter who is president.
If you don't understand this, I suggest you read the grandfather's economic report. google it.

Comment by abbe

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We must get rid of all electronic voting machines period! If you just add a paper trail to these vulnerable machines and make it federal law, then you are mandating secret vote counting being controlled by private corporations with agendas. There is no amount of pre-testing that can ever find secret errant malicious progrmming. Ask the experts. You would have to hand-count at every single precinct the votes to catch vote fraud. Why have the machines to begin with. Am I being too "extreme?" NO, I have studied this issue for five years and understand the problems. This is a very complex issue. Many audits of "paper trails" are triggered by close races. How do you know the race is close if a corrupted machine tabulated the votes? Go read the california red team studies and count the ways op-scan machines and touch screens with paper trails added can be easily hacked undetected! We must remove the vendors and machines from the election process. Microsoft lobbyed successfully and radically changed the last paper trail bill that was in debate in Congress. Software and hardware would remain secret and proprietary. Your votes would be manipulated and have been manipulated with these machines.
Read what happened in the January 2008 recount in New Hampshire. We cannot count on a recount. We must get it right on election night with citzens running and counting our own elections. anyone who thinks that the paper trail is a step in the right direction is not telling you the whole story. WHY WON"T THE VENDORS REVEAL THEIR SOURCE CODE IF THEY WERE HONEST? The source code they were forced to show turned out to be a text book on how to rig an election! Bev Harris with a team of computer experts with Black Box Voting.org proved how easy it is to hack both op-scam machines and touch screens with printers added-a paper trail on real live election equipment under county supervision. I rest my case.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I wish that the folks at Qwest would start a lawsuit claiming discrimination against them for refusing to be a part of the illegal wire tapping program. Why should their competitors be able to get out of all of these court cases? Qwest had government contracts taken away from them for not participating.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This president clearly is one of the slimiest individuals ever to hold a public office. NOTHING being reported surprises me anymore. It is clear that this president is an elitist and he has complete disdain for the unclean masses. If Pelosi doesn't start impeachment hearings soon it will just set the precedent that everything this idiot and his incompetent administration have done are acceptable and no one will ever be held accountable in such an office again. They never should have pardoned Nixon. Just a further bad precedent that being a lying, cheating miscreant is acceptable in politics.

Comment by yellerdawg

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I do not agree that it can be assumed that every person in this country believes in a supreme being of one sort or another, nor that they should be required/expected to. I would like to point out/remind that the only reference to religion in the Constitution is:

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is a very constuctive idea with the best of motivation. However, I would remind the poser that both Goodgle and Yahoo have been exposed as having cooperated with the Chinese government to pinpoint dissenters. Bush, Chaney, and their ilk are little better than the Chinese government officials. Maybe worse, since at least the Chinese government has been actively improving the material welfare of the citizens of China instead of shaking them down to finance a war for the rich and power-mad.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The comments on Rove are applicable here, but in addtion, these guys were elected, and STILL tried to subvert the constitution of the USA and the People of the USA.

Their actions must be investigated, and if sufficient evidence of culpability is found they must be brought to justice.

Comment by yellerdawg

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Here is a forum you might find interesting, if you are not already aware of it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This question is another plant by a wild-eyed right winger.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The poser has presented the question in a rather crude and unsavorary (to me, anyway) way, but nevertheless its thrust has much merit.

This man Rove appears to have conspired with other neo-theo-fascists and neo-theo-nazis to subvert the Constitution of the USA and so sieze power over the People of the USA. He and his co-conspirators MUST be brought to justice if they are in fact guilty.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The poser apparently has not noticed that the Democrats do not have a veto-proof majority. Not being able to override a veto has been a real problem, since the Democrats have no chosen (in the Senate) to try the bare knuckles, backstreet methods of the Bill Frist.

I think, though, that bills should be brought forth for vote even if a veto-proof majority is not a prospect.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This appears to be a plant by a wild-eyed right winger.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I agree with the poser about slowness. I do not have such problem with othe interactive sites so I discount the explanations in the
above comments.

I think, though, the the poser's apparent arrogation to itself the qualification to diagnose the value of what others are doing to
be egotistical and immature.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

One should have more than one verified source of information before believing that any official takes this position or that position. I do think it would be very positive if Spkr. P. would declare her position on torture and what it is unequivically.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You are not doing well in public relations with the People.

Comment by monodb

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It seems to me that I see more than just subtle evidence of an attitude of a "political royalist" in your pronouncements to the people you supposedly serve. You don't seem to be asking the People for their wisdom; you seem to be passing down advisories of how it is going to be. Rep. Eschoo seems to follow in this track. Where would you two have been when Nixon stumbled?

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Marv I'm a little confused by your statement. I feel strongly that Freedom of Religion should be included in our country JUST not used by One religious group to govern our people.
Everyone is entitled to believe in what they choose or NOT believe. That's the Freddom of Religion our Constitution guarantees us. I see no reason to take out the word GOD from our money or even from the Pledge of Alligience for that matter, even though it was added MUCH later when we entered into the cold war with Russia. The word God simply states we believe in a Supreme being and it doesn't denote Which one that is. What "majority" of us are saying is that the Religious Right needs to butt out of government affairs because there is this Separation of Church and State and there should Not be one religion over another..

Comment by marvs2

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It seems that from the moment she took office as Speaker of the House, she had only two items on her agenda.

At the swearing-in ceremony, her first comment was "We (women) made it!" or something to that effect, giving a strong impression that her main concern was having women in office. There is, of course, no reason why women should not or can not hold any public office - but should that be the primary concern of our Speaker of the House? And since she's been in office, beyond sexism, it seems that her only other agenda item is to disagree with anything that President Bush says or does. She acts as though the President of the United States must answer to her, that her opinions should carry more weight than the President and his Cabinet. She has been a totally divisive influence in our Government, doing her best to prevent the elected President from exercising any of his vested powers, effectively trying to exercise her own little coup-de-tat, effectively bringing our entire government to standstill and blaming it on Bush. I always thought that the job of the Speaker of the House was to represent the House and to keep it working smoothly with the Senate, the President and his Cabinet, and all other factions of our Government.

Comment by marvs2

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

How does one reconcile "Freedom of Religion" and an "envirionment of religious freedom" with preventing religious leaders from "interfering" with politics, getting God out of government pledges, and preventing teaching of intelligent design. These are all tenets and beliefs held by a majority of people of all faiths. If these beliefs are to be eliminated or disallowed from our government, it has to be done by the majority of the people of this country agreeing to eliminate religious freedom from our Constitutional rights. If it is dictated, or "so moved" just by members of the government, it violates our entire system of democracy based on the fundamental rights of the majority of the people. Even Nancy Pelosi can't make those changes.

Comment by barbellen3

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I believe the articles of impeachment of President Bush presented by Dennis Kucinich and now residing in the House Judiciary Committee adequately identify Bush's transgressions, including his administration's pre-war lies. All the more reason for impeachment to go forward.

Comment by cos+netrootsnation

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I've had no problems. It's pretty zippy for me. I'm on a cable modem.

Comment by waynevermillion

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If you will check history the Social Security Fund was never meant to be put in ghe General Fund. The money in it is money paid into retirment. If a priviate compay was to take money its employees paid into a retirment fund and spent it for company growth they would be prosecuted.

As for repaying this money back to Social Security, Stop spending so much on foriegn aid to countries that hate us or where the money goes into some desposts bank account in some of shore protected accounts.

A good example is the Bill sponserd by Barrach Obma to turn over Billions of our Tax dollars to the UN for relief in Africa. What about som relief at home first?

Comment by 1tudore

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Well, thanks for you comment, but I'll have to disagree with you on one thing. Certainly, it is incontrovertible that this government has failed our veterans; and that we, as citizens responsible for our government, are obligated to ensure that such a disgrace never mars our history again. However, there is no need to choose between supporting humanitarian efforts and supporting civil societies throughout the world and supporting our veterans at home. It's worthwhile and necessary strategically and morally to increase our foreign aid commitments.

Comment by waynevermillion

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This posting represents one of the biggest failures of our Goverment. We still see many of the Veterans from Viet Nam on the streets and seeking help from an underfunded and overcrowded VA health care system. It seems our Goverment would rather spend billions on aid to t to forgien countries that hate us than a few million Veterans who have shed thier blood and lifes for us.

Comment by waynevermillion

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You are right on the button, until we can get both or all parties of goverment to work together this county will continue to go down the drain. I don't have an answer and do not understand a lot of what is disscussed in some of the other comments, but do know when something is broke you fix it or throw it away. I am afraid to many Politicians would rather give it away than try and get it right.

Comment by waynevermillion

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes we have more wind and sun than we do other energy products, but, I see when companies want to invest in wind farms they have to fight through the enviomentlist to be able to build them. There is an attempt to build one in South Texas where the wind blows almost all the time and is being held up because sea birds might fly into the wind vanes. I for one would love to have Solar panels on my house, the only problem is how to pay for them. I know they will pay for themselves on energy savings, the only problem is I have to pay up front and can not afford to do so.

Comment by waynevermillion

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I see two comments to this question, Ones seems to be all about oil, which is not the question I ask about, The second shows why this country is in the shape it is in. It is simply a rant against the Republican Party showing I guess there can never be again the kind of goverment we are supposed to have. If the Democrats and Republicans can not work together then we simply will sit here in a stalemate while our country goes down the drain.

Comment by peartree4

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Many people, including Bruce Fein, a Republican who wrote articles of impeachment against President Clinton, think impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney is the best way to reverse the administration's assault on the Constitution.

Secondly, the Head Prosecutor for International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against a sitting president (albeit a black, third-world president). One of the points he made is that there is no investigation into the actions of President al Bashir currently underway in the Sudan. Rather, there are investigations into those who have opposed the genocide in Darfur. Is it going to take action from the ICC or from a Spanish Judge Garzón to investigate whether this U.S. admninstration has commited crimes against humanity?

Thirdly, Mrs. Polosi should not be afraid of becoming the first woman president of the United States. We could have both the first constitutional female president, and the first African-American president within six months. American voters will reward a party led by someone who does the right thing, and shows she has a backbone.

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Waynevermillion what in the world are you saying? Dennis Kuchinich spent 4 HOURS, this last time, on the Senate floor bringing THIRTY FIVE, 35, articles of Impeachment against BUSH!!! Wake up and DRINK some of that coffee you've been smelling in the morning.
There is a POSTITIVE vote to this question of 171 so far, there is a need for this question to be answered it has been asked MANY times on this format. WAKE UP MAN!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What are you nuts?? Stop buying into the conspiricy that Bush and his cronies have cooked up. They are the liars. We WILL not, READ MY LIPS, we will NOT benefit from restarting to drill again for oil here on our soil!!!! AND it's just not the Democrats, that Bush likes to blame IT'S All OF us telling them NOT to do the drilling! Wake up and start drinking that coffee you're smelling in the morning!!!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

YOu have 153 Positive votes for this response and I'm sure you have had Many letters sent in asking, no TELLING you to arrest Karl Rove!SO what are you waiting for??

Comment by abbe

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It is critical that this issue be discussed at the Netroots Convention. We must hold Speaker Pelosi to the fire. Our election system is corrupt. We "vote" on machines owned by private corporations. The software and programming that "counts" the votes is secret and proprietary. We no longer have elections, we have selections. Any true computer expert will tell you that computers have no place in counting votes.
Citizens should count our votes not machines. Right now our elections have been privatized to corporations with agendas. The current vendors of these voting machines have documented ties to defense contractors, Venezuela, Middle East interests etc etc.
No true reform and progress can be made on any issue until citizens get back control of our own elections. We must hand-count paper ballots. Optical scam machines are easily rigged and manipulated. Recounts do not occur as the candidate has to pay for it and elections get certified before there is time to conduct a proper recount. Audits do not work period. They are insufficient and easily gamed.
Ask Speaker Pelosi the tough questions and demand true election reform. Hand counted paper ballots with security enhancements such as a closed circuit TV monitoring the ballot box with strict chain of custody procedures. Make election day a holiday. Pay poll workers a decent wage. Reclaim our elections. Demand election reform so we can have true representation!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Excellent question and one that needs to be answerd and one that should go to the top of the list to be answered ASAP!!
We need to know that Congress will be the ones to give the NOD and we know, by the millions of people writing in and talking with their elected officials that- that answer would be a resounding NO!!!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Excellent question! This has happened to me and I'm from California and quiet a few other friends of mine from other states.
I also cnanot tell you the amount of times I have written in using her weboform and have been told her LINE was closed!!!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We absolutely need to adhere to Separation of Church and State in our country. We need to get rid of the Chocking Grasp that the Religious Right has on our government! Our leaders need to govern by our Constitution and NOT someones Bible, be it Christain or Muslim or Jew! Our goverment needs to remember when they took office they SWORE to UpHold our Constitution NOT the Bible!!!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Bobsled I agree with you BUT if it keeps bringing up the IMPEACHMENT question, I'm happy! That is a very important question along with the FISA question. We need honest and direct answers as to why. WHY did only 24 Senators vote NAY on FISA??? ARE Republicans and the BUSH administration holding our Democrat Senators and COngresspeople HOSTAGE for some reason or another?

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Ms. Pelosi and the rest of you in Congress, this is one of those rare times when you are listening to the people and saying NO to opening Drilling, especially on our coasts. We have been telling Mr. Bush and Congress, NO, since his silly notion has begun, that this will help our economy. The only people who will benift will be be the oil companies!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Dennis Kuchinich has been perssitant in trying to bring Impeachment BACK to the table and he finally brought all 35, that's THIRTY FIVE,Ms. Pelosi, articles of Imeachment and Congress, especially Democrats, but for a handful, YAWNED!!! Dennis spent 4 hours talking about these on the floor of the Senate! We wanted George Bush Impeached from the very beginning when Democrats took hold but he prevailed as Congress sat back and did Nothing for 8 years and trillions of dollars later. YOU need to explain your self to us and the country for your behavior!

Comment by dominick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This appears to be a sabatoge technique to disrupt Americans a cause us to go under. How could you and Congress be so blind as NOT see how this is KILLING the American way.

Comment by cos+netrootsnation

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You might like the question I submitted on this topic:
http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/2325-885

Comment by oleary37

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Because he is a controlling jerk.

Comment by davecrump_1

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

rep pelosi, one solution to campaign finance reform i have not heard talked about is a constitutional amendment that would make public financing of all federal elections mandatory. because of concerns by the conservative supreme court involving free speech, any effective reforms of election financing will never be possible. the only solution that makes sense is a constitutional amendment that mandates public financing. this way you eliminate all the special interests buying of elections. our elected representatives can spend their time in washington doing the nation's business rather than spending 90% of their waking hours in one fund-raising activity or another, raising the millions needed for their next election. what a wonderful feeling it would be for all americans to wake up every morning and know that their elected officials are going to have theirs and the nations best interests at heart, each and every day that they serve in washington. dave crump 7-17-08

Comment by nnjjaa

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

gvanhee, the beauty of Arizona's public funding system is that it doesn't limit corporate money. You have a choice. If you want to opt out and raise money for your campaign, you can but your opponent can use public funds equal to what you raise. There is no conflict with the money = speech decision.

Comment by drobins

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

here's my question: how do you manage to stand upright without a spine?

Comment by raparo

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Public financing of our elections is the key issue that will allow us to finally create pollicies that are for the common good rather than the financial wealth of a few.

Comment by yellerdawg

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Haven't they already passed a bill that gives him carte blanche?

Not that I don't think this should be asked! If they won't save the Constitution, they can at least keep us out of World War III!

Comment by yellerdawg

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wow. I have no problem with it at all, and I'm on 26.4K dialup. There's got to be some other issue here.

It does work best if I let the whole page load first, but really even the time for that is not bad at all compared to some other sites I have learned to avoid.

Funny coincidence - just as I was posting this comment for the first time, their website had a glitch and gave me the sorry try again thing! First time it has happened though, and it's fine now.

Comment by yellerdawg

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Thank you! I get so tired of those people who say these words are not bothering anybody. They bother *me* and they bother the Constitution.

Comment by yellerdawg

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

She did have a primary challenger - Shirley Golub. Got about 10%. Either it wasn't a very well-run campaign, or was a weak candidate, or her constituents are not as angry with her as some say.

I don't know details as I don't live there. I expect at least in part it was not a very well-run campaign, as appeals for donations did not, to my recollection, make it clear that that particular primary was in June. That's one of the reasons I didn't donate - it seemed pointless, at the time I heard about it, if one assumed that primary was at the same time as the Presidential primary.

Comment by kiddermus

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The final part should read "Don't you know that torture is both immoral and counterproductive. It sends our people on wild goose chases, and causes fiction to be published as fact. People will say anything to stop the pain.

Comment by bobsled

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is a very disconnected question - what happened to the impeachment thought? That's the one to focus on, in my opinion.

Comment by cos+netrootsnation

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think this would be a waste of a question. She's not gonna step down. If we're upset at her, we ought to run a primary challenge - even if it doesn't succeed, it could change her behavior. But asking this question at the forum won't provide any value, IMO. We can use the time for better questions.

Comment by johnra0a

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I want to second the 'Get A Backbone' comment. I'd very much like to see Clean Elections, but it seems to me that the first step should be the impeachment of the criminal Bush Administration for stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections in the first place. But one could even skip that and throw him on the dustheap of history for his murderous illegal war against Iraq or for his many other International War Crimes.

I expect my elected leaders to stand firm on fundamental principles, but the Democratic Congressional 'misleadership' has taken essential accountability 'off the table'! Given our Party's shameful waffling, and our Nation's inadequate two-party-only political system, we're being left with few alternatives.

Comment by sallyb36

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I've been reading some Matt Taibbi books ( also writes for the Rolling Stone. ) Currently reading the Great Derangement (an investigative work) in which he is enabled to see congress in action, first hand with all the warts, etc. One problem that sticks with me is that congress has done its real work through its Rules Committe late at night, when no press is around, in a drab little room away from press and public scrutiny. They only pass bills that please the powers in control of politics. The rest of the congress gets these tombs to evaluate with next to no time for reading or assessment. So, who is in charge of the government? Not me... or you... or anyone else untethered with scads of money. When or if they fix THAT scam we'll all feel alot better. I hope.

Comment by rfowler204

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I don't expect either of the duopoly duet to release their stranglehold on our former democracy that has become a plutocracy of the corporate elite. The only option is a constitutional convention. But in spite of more than the required states requesting Congress to call a an Article V Constitutional convention, which makes them in violation of the Constitution, they still will not obey the will of the people. There has to be a way to compel Congress to obey the constitution. 1. Dump everybody currently in office, and only vote for candidates that will swear to call for the convention, once elected. 2. 3/4 of the states must combine in a class action federal lawsuit against Congress to compel them to follow the Constitution in calling for an Article V convention.
Of course this will never as long as the American voter continues to dance to the two party tune.
If Democrat & Republican elected officials would
forsake corporate interests, support clean
elections, keep jobs in the USA, put America
before party, obey the Constitution, support
an Article V convention, they would become
Independents.
http://www.helpchangeamerica.com

Tired of being robbed at the gas pump?
Run Your car on Water!!
http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=rwwheeler

Comment by ktews

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I'm not having a speed issue at all, by the way--have a T1 connection. Perhaps the DSL line is being used by many people at once? That is a known drawback of DSL . . . on the other hand, perhaps it was just a temporary glitch, and you'll find you have better luck if you come back to the site after a half hour or hour. My responses are being registered rather immediately. Hope this helps.

Comment by gvanhee

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The first obstacle to such a worthy and about-time law is the arguments the right will proffer that claim limiting corporate campaign funding is against the Second Amendment. If it comes to a legal debate to be waged in the Supreme Court is there any doubt concerning how that Court with its current makeup will decide?

Comment by ouilassie

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Say what? Who are you talking to? McCain wanted to make "the illegals" citizens. Bush took down the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Perhaps you should stop listening to Rush and Bill O and find out what's really happening in this country.

Comment by ouilassie

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The Senate Republicans have blocked anything from happening by filibustering every positive bill to help Americans. Anything that does pass is vetoed by our court appointed 'president'. Bush vetoed nothing when the Republicans controlled Congress. He has vetoed most everything since the Democratic party took control. The Senate needs 60 voted to close debate and there is at best a 1 or 2 vote margin. So 48 Republicans can block anything 52 Democrats want. ( Those same Republicans whined when Democrats tried to filibuster anything.) I'm not sure where you were during the Clinton years, but things were a lot better before BushCo took his posse to Iraq. I'd say things went bad after 9/11/01, when Mr 'Bring em on' strapped on his six-shooter and threatened the wrong country. How can we can afford domestic policy when China owns billions in US debt papers for the war?

Comment by gvanhee

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Jonah Goldberg belongs on Fox News with the rest of the neocon propagandists, so what I would say is simply ignore a voice that rarely if ever is objective and or significant.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Just to clarify, this goes way beyond the ability to make our own decisions. This is ultimately about population control. They want to control our food supply. The FDA has already passed a number of things to become CODEX compliant, including irradiating certain foods. The fact that most people in congress don't even know about CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is frightening enough. But this is strictly a TRADE law. It is intended to enable the further growth of agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, health care industry, etc. They all will benefit by putting these into place because they want to remove all natural health care from our grasp. Things that work without side effects, because they cannot be patented. It's all about greed. And I would venture to say a large number of members in congress have conflicts of interest when it comes to things like this.

Comment by rchand46

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

As Rich Lowry said in his review of the book:

Goldberg argues that “liberal fascism” — the phrase was coined by H. G. Wells, and he meant it positively — is a distant heir to European fascism. The liberal version is pacifist rather than militaristic and feminine rather than masculine in its orientation, but it also seeks to increase the power of the state and overcome tradition in sweeping crusades pursued with the moral fervor of war.

Comment by tedfaigle

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I appreciate that Democrats and Republicans have no incentive to give up anything that would weaken their stranglehold on power. I had not heard of the National Initiative before and I'm not convinced that it is the best solution. Maybe so. I have to look into it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Meanwhile, I feel it is important to give the current lawmakers an opportunity to state their position on this important point. Let them try to explain why they are so committed to their party even when they act against the interest of the country. And why should voters commit to a political party when doing so demands compromising on issues that we are passionate about. If we wish to influence the lawmakers in this "democracy" we currently have to buy into a platform that conflicts with our own political stands. As progressives this just maddening and it assures that we will never have a strong voice on those issues that define us.

Comment by stremington

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Obama's FISA votes can easily be explained by the $200,000 he's received from telecom companies. There is no small donor "revolution."

All donations from corporations are bribes -- and investments. And these donors get repaid with votes that serve their interests at the expense of everyone else.

Congress (whichever party is in the majority) has caved to corporate interests on virtually every major issue for years. This is the most extreme corruption I have seen in my lifetime.

Corporations will be the only interests represented in congress until both corporate political contributions and corporate purchasing of broadcast campaign ads (another form of contributing) are banned and elections (including advertisements) are publicly funded.

Comment by imdshep

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why, if we are really concerned about the price of oil do not we regulate the companys who are based in this country from
speculating on the stock exchange. That is legal. Morgan Stanley for instance, not the only one by a far cry, but very prominate in
this action. The price would probably not be rising at the rate it is if all that profit were not being made by hugh companies, or even the smaller one. Not American as it appears to me.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

sundance521 - I do understand how you feel, but I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't consider it a matter of being idealistic. I think Obama is only slightly better than McCain. Honestly, they're both fairly bad. McCain is a repeat of Bush. Obama is already backpeddling on nearly everything he ran on in the primaries and he isn't even officially the nominee yet. I don't trust either one of them. They'll both end up being bad for the country in the long run. I don't like to vote just along party lines. I did that in 2004 because I felt as you did. The Democrats wanted a majority in congress and they got it. They haven't done ANY of the things they said they would: we're still in Iraq, health care is worse than ever, our economy is a shambles. I don't blame them for all of it. But the bi-partisanship continues to whose benefit? Certainly not ours. They lost me when they refused to stand behind Kucinich and Gravel. I got tired of them calling and asking me for money and none of them even knew who Gravel was. Someone who did more for progressive values than most of the jokers in congress today. It got so bad that he left the party. He's disgusted with them and so am I. Now that Gravel is no longer in the running, Nader is the only choice for me. Nader also FULLY supports the National Initiative. He's the only one with the guts to support it. He's got my vote 100%. The Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same beast now. Just look at this board. Look at the vitriol. People are ANGRY. Our representatives no longer represent us.

At the very least, even if you still want to vote for Obama, please look into voting for the National Initiative. www.ni4d.us. It might just be the only way we can save this country.

Comment by twistdmojo

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

"Liberal" and "Left" have a different meaning in Europe. In fact, they're exact opposites. Facism is marrying of industry
and government, usually accompanied by extreme nationalist themes and militarism. Sound like any party here in the U.S.?

Comment by imdshep

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I can't see another alternative. We cannot bomb then into submission, we do not have the capability to do so. There oil supply is finite
and they do not have the financial ability to search, find, and dig for more. If we can stall w/ diplomacy, find out what it is they think they want it seems to me that they would be the better of not many good alternatives.
Dodie Shepard Burbank CA

Comment by sundance521

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I understand what you are saying Debbie and I would probably have agreed with you a while back, in the days when I was a little more idealistic than I am nowadays. There was a time when I refused to vote for someone that I didn't think deserved the job 100%. Consequently, I didn't vote much, for most of my life.

Well, my feelings on that have changed. Here is reality... either Obama or McCain is going to be the next prez, period.... and Nader has no realistic chance whatsoever. A vote for him is tantamount to a vote for McCain (just as it was for someone else not too long ago...), and I will not do that under any circumstances. Unlike my younger, more idealistic days, today I realize the reality of the situation... it's either Obama or McCain... and I will NOT support the party that has systematically driven my beloved USA into the toilet, therefore Obama gets my vote.

Comment by imdshep

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think the number of days that the House actually sits in session would be a positive thing for the American public to know. It is more important that they stay in session, working on bills than to take junkets around the world.
We really need both the House and the Senate to spend the American peoples more frugally as every one of us seems to have to do just to make ends meet. We need your dedication to us and our best welfare.
Dodie Shepard Burbank CA

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It gets no attention because Democrats are just as much in the pocket of large corporations as republicans these days. Vote third party. We need to end this bi-partisan crap that keeps hurting the average American. Vote Nader. He supports this FULLY. Obama does NOT. Obama will subsidize the insurance companies (with our tax dollars). Don't they get enough already?

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

There are only a few Democrats who seem to support universal single-payer health care. And the presidential nominee is NOT one of them. His plan is to subsidize insurance companies. Kucinich and Gravel both supported universal single-payer. Congress won't do a damn thing about this. Health care is to the Democrats as Abortion is to the right-wing republicans. They will both use these as carrots to get their constituents to the polls each year but neither will follow through. It's time to vote third party. Nader supports universal single payer.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It's obvious there are a lot of unhappy constituents. And it's clear that our representative government has stopped working. Please help enact the National Initiative. It's the only way our government will ever get fixed appropriately. The people need to take some power back from the government. www.ni4d.us

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What we need is to stop relying on congress to do the right thing and enact the National Initiative. ALL of us need to vote for this. www.ni4d.us. PLEASE investigate this great piece of legislation and help enact it.

Comment by phyllismbrown

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I've often wondered what intimidation methods he uses to insdure yiour loyalty to him rather than to We the People. Or is he just paying too large of a bribe?

Comment by ken

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Don't forget Druids Isaac!

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Don't look to the Democrats for help on this. They won't do a damn thing about it. Obama and Clinton BOTH have health insurance plans that amount to subsidizing the insurance companies. What we need is UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH INSURANCE. Kucinich and Gravel proposed this. Nader proposes this. So, in my book, at this time, Nader is the only choice. I think we need to get rid of the health insurance companies altogether. They are only looking for ways not to pay for health care and maximize their profits. We need a system where profit is not a factor in our health. It shouldn't be. And the Republicans are only worse.

Nader is the ONLY choice now.

Comment by proxpe

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I agree that the current party structures do not lend themselves to true democracy, but I believe there may be different solutions than the one presented. As I remember from history, many founders were concerned about forming parties because of the fear of monopoly and duopoly. I wonder if instant run-off voting would help. There have to be other ideas out there.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Again, the Democrats and Republicans both are not going to fix this problem from within. They have no incentive to. What we need is the National Initiative. Let the PEOPLE have the power to make legislation and impeach people from office. Then we'll see how much partisan politics will remain. www.ni4d.us. I'm 100% sure that Pelosi won't support the National Initiative either. Nor will most of the rest of the politicians in office today. They are all FAR too cozy in their current positions. It's time to give more power to the people so we can move this country in the right direction.

Comment by phyllismbrown

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What are you afraid of, to not take a positive stand to allow the use of OTC vitamins & other remedies? We are old enough to make our own decisions and do not need government control. To deny us this is to be in favor of Big Business? Are you? Do they line your pockets?

Comment by phyllismbrown

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Are you too afraid to make a decision to imopeach? If so, you need to be replaced!

Comment by flora489

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Obama has been showing that he is nothing but another pol. He is even flipping on his flops. Yes, Hillary is the one to get him elected, but it will never happen. He is afraid of her and her abilities. If what is known about him now, was known during the primaries, he would have not lasted beyond the first primary. He belongs in church as a pastor, not in Washington as President. I am worried, oh so worried

Comment by phyllismbrown

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

...and what gives you the right to rule out the one desire of the p[eople? Impeachment. I thouight you were there to serve the wishes of the people. Am I not correct? I have the right to niot vote for you, too!

Comment by phyllismbrown

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I find Pelosi's reasons for not imopeaching totally without logical reason! Is there a way to by-pass her and get the impeachment going?

Comment by flora489

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It is long past time to do away with delegates, caucuses and most of all the Electoral College. the EC was formed in a time when communications were slow and only those who were property owners could vote. We, the people, should say who we want to
represent us. This past primary season was an absolute disgrace. Publicity was given to two of the candidates and the others were quickly dispatched. Give us our right to elect who WE want, not the Party or delegates..

Comment by rucy1

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Nancy Pelosi is a "Constitutional TRAITOR" - and part of a pathetic, disgraceful Congress which was elected to basically IMPEACH BUSH and stop all his illegal activity. Nancy Pelosi, like the rest of them, is more interested in her own power and glory, than the basic fundamental philosophy of our Founding Fathers, our laws, and our Constitution.

If she doesn't follow the lead of the people of this country WHO WANT IMPEACHMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY for this entire Administration, - then she is totally WORTHLESS for anything - and will just sit there and watch - as this vile President Bush PARDONS EVERY SINGLE DESPICABLE, GREEDY, POWER-HUNGRY, ARROGANT SLIME - in this administration.

There is NOTHING more important than the Integrity of our country, it's laws and Constitution. There is NOTHING more important than IMPEACHING BUSH AND CHENEY - Even if it is their LAST HOUR in office.

Comment by nnjjaa

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Election funding underlies virtually every problem we face - health care, education, poverty, mortgage regulation, environmental and health regulations, and even decisions involving war. Until we at least moderate the effect that money exerts on policy, our actions as a society will show that we value money over people.

On a practical level, it just makes sense that we allow our elected representatives to spend all of their time doing their job rather than raising money for their next campaign.

Comment by sundance521

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I hear you too. My wife and I are out in the cold, as you are. My heart goes out to you.

My wife was in a very bad car accident (near fatal) in '01, and her medical bills were astronomical. I had insurance, still do... even with the insurance, the medical bills were bad enough that I had to swallow my pride and file bankruptcy. That was three years ago. The following year, I had two heart attacks (and triple-bypass surgery). STILL with insurance, supposedly great insurance.... yet we are back to where we were before we filed bankruptcy, with one exception.... bankruptcy is not an option because we already did it. I have only a small balance on my mortgage, less than 10% of the market value of the house... yet, I could sell the house and still NOT be able to pay off the medical bills I have. Again I remind you, that I HAVE medical insurance, have had it all along. Our mail mostly consists of threats from collection agencies. We are already paying more than 20% of our income toward accounts that have placed judgements on us, and we are about to be sued again. I am back working, still have insurance, and our financial future is bleak indeed. We have to be careful with every penny, and that gets tougher every day. We need our phone service, how could my wife (who is still disabled and homebound) call 911 without it? I need my car, or I don't work and therefore we don't get my salary... that means gas, insurance, upkeep... I guess the only luxuries we have are internet and cable TV, but I don't consider them luxuries as without them my poor wife would only be able to stare at the walls 24 hours a day.

We have done everything right, decent, and honest. And where has that gotten us? One small step away from homelessness. Don't take what you have for granted.... and whatever you do, DON'T get yourself injured or sick in America, if you do your financial life is OVER!!

Comment by flora489

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Mrs. Speaker, when you were running for Speaker. You said your first priority would be impeachment proceedings. Then, what did you do? You said to the nation that "Now is not the time." When is the time? The democrats got the majority, but you did not have the internal fortitude, to face a veto from Bush. In fact, on many urgent issues, you never even showed us that you were who you professed to be, by not showing us that you would pass legislation even knowing that it would be vetoed. Is it any wonder that the Congress has such a
low rating? We are no better now than we were with a Republican Congress. Shame, shame on all of you. Mrs. Pelsoi you betrayed
us and with Obama running in November, you will see how we are reacting to the election. Wake up and keep your pomises.

Comment by rduerr3

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Rather than mildly refining a totally broken system of campaign financing, I'd rather a totally new and entirely publically funded route be taken. In other words, I'd like to see a system where donations of any size from anybody are forbidden. There are plenty of examples in the civilized world - pick one of them!

Comment by ronboren

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What in gods name is ( acconomy ).

Comment by dmf_ky

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I do not have any faith in being able to count on Nancy Pelosi to do anything to benefit anyone but her President. Sorry. She's taught us all a great deal about how Democracy won't work when you have a misled Congress. She won't do this.

Comment by waynevermillion

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

There have not to my knowledge been any impeachment acts performed by Bush or Cheney, although I do not doubt that Cheney would commit some if he had the chance

Comment by gezendorf

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Save the dollar by drilling for oil here, drill now! We give our enemies over 10 times the money by importing their oil than we do in fighting them!

Comment by swtangkiss

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I believe these are important issues to be addressed. I just think it should be reworded as a little less offensively confrontational. You
might get a more straight forward response if you dont put her so much on the defensive.

Comment by madfog

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I live with the results of the bogus Gulf of Tonkin resolution.I was sent to Vietnam and was wounded.I did get to come back,but many of my buddies did not .Our government should not be allowed to lie to us just so that "they" can advance their own agenda.I want bush,cheney and rove and the rest impeached and sent to jail.58,000+ were killed in Vietnam and over a 100,000 wounded and add the 4,000+ killed in Iraq and you see alot of lights put out that could have shown brightly if not for lieing politicians.

Comment by abshiers

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Please excuse the typing misspellings, but I have very little time to, answer, as I must get ready for work.
Thank you.

Comment by abshiers

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

My point does not seem vague at all. There are no Socialistist governments in countires with a middle class.
The reason is that once a government decides to provide for all the needs of its citizens, i.e. Health, education and welfare, without making everyone do their fair share to contribute to the system, the government taces the middle class out of ewxistance and ultimately the only ones with money are the ones who run the government, at least until the poor, now peasant population revolts and causes a revolution.
Read world history, Russia is an excellenty example of a country whose massesb wanted the government to take of them. You don't see Putin and the other leaders standing in line for food and necessities.
The onlty reason American has the standard of living it has it because the majority of the population takes responsibility for its own health, education, and welfare. In other words they go out and work, pay taxes,
carry medical insurance which they in many cases pay for themselves, pay for their educations (Obama is not the exception, that's how many of us got our educations), and try to keep our heads above water.
WE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR OWN LIVES AND WELFARE! Is is it easy, NO, but then no onew said there would be a free lunch for everyone.

Comment by jasondanielknight

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Thanks for the comments v but there is a lot about DADT that many do not understand. First is that there are allready gays and lesbians serving in our military, always have and always will.

The difficult thing is that the law mandates that someone is to be fired and removed from the military if they are found to be gay or lesbian. This can be from anything from a photo on myspace to a simple rumor. This has nothing to do with conduct and is ousting able bodied Servicemembers simply based on who they are. This law is unamerican and needs to be repealed.

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Ok so I am not a homosexual but that does not mean that you don't have more or less the same rights as Citizen's as I do. I think perhaps the government took what they saw as 'the easiest way out' of that situation, don't you? Who has sex with who should not be a concern for the military AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF ALL PARTIES.

In other words, I speak it as I think it even if others don't like it. That is my right. I do not believe that any non-homosexual person should ever have to be confronted by this choice you have made. You should, especially in the public, not demonstrate anything with sexual conitations but in a private setting where others are not effected by your sexual preferences. Then it would be permittable.

No one should act lude in public. In the case of the Military I would not like a Homosexual male to be showering with my son or others sons who are not homosexuals. Just as there is a Womens' bathroom and a Mens (plus Bysexual one) none of us want to have someone eyeballing us and our body parts in a sexual way, it is just not appropreiate. The military does not want such incidents on their property. And neither do I. So if you 'keep it in private' and act accourdingly in public you can still try to be happy with you choices in private. VJ

Comment by dgrant

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

My question, too!
It would explain a lot of the spineless actions by Congressional Democrats. And don't fluff the question off as if it were unreasonable. Any sentient being who has followed politics the last seven years would agree that the Bush administration would love to spy on Democrats, and would be sorely tempted to use the results for blackmail. It's not hard to imagine that this batch of Congressional Democrats would be too cowardly to try to stop it.

A good follow-up question is, "If you were being blackmailed, to whom would you report it? To one of the three Attorneys General who've served in the Bush administration? To the press? To the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asking him to investigate and impeach?" To whom SHOULD you be able to report it?

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Ok we hear you this is not a position that the American Citizen would willing approve of is it? Ok so how would you correct this bad position? Who can you personally find to support this issue with you? How can we over turn this policy and require full disclosure from all parties under the law? Can we 'as the people' drum up adequate support (perhaps from Newpapers& TV) to get the word out? If you truely want to change this it will require a few of your friends say 10,000 to get attention. Once we as citizens are heard "loud and clear" we can then enact laws to prevent them from going around us and our powers of observation and change. We are the true OWNERS of our nation and we must have the LAST WORD. Good luck . VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Ok well you lost me there, I do not know the people you are referring to but I am interested in the topic. For sure we the Americian people need to take responsibility for the mistakes of OUR EMPLOYEED and ELECTED (or appointed) officials. Why would we as a smart nation ever allow the government so much controll over us. Our constitution says basicaly 'we must make the government do the WILL of the poeple," that you and me, us.

So let's get busy and offer solutions and put in controlls that prevent the same events into the future. What do you think about Citizens having the final VOTE or VETO (thru a protected website) to protect our God given rights as the caretakers of our fair nation. Can we truely hand over the controlls without concern or responsibility? VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Again this is an interesting question but if you want to get anything done you should also provide a solution. Such as Citizens having the direct right ot VOTE on all issues from the WEB on secured hack proof websites and to be informed of all actionable issues before they are inacted "since when did the Americian people give away their rights to dissagree and speak out about it."

If OUR EMPLOYEES (elected and employed by the Americian Citizens), do not do what we as a whole nation require (this does not mean business interests) people should have the option to vote on all issues. Why not allow us to vote by the Internet once we have identified and proven our citizenship, or if someone does not have a computer then the city hall where they live could provide a site to vote online. Secure and in a safe environment untampered with! Then after telling us what the issues are we can VOTE or VETO. VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Ok I understand your question what can we do about it? Well what I think might work is "begging." Begging other Citizens to help you solve this problem. If you state a consise statement of what we need to do as Citizens to help our Troops come home, then perhaps other will jump onboard and with a quota of followers some one may have the exact fix. Here in Phoenix AZ we have a group of women (CLUB) that gets donated items and packs them up to send to the troops. But my question is WHY isn't the govern meant providing what every soldier needs daily as they are required to do as "custodian of the people." If you are really concerned about this I think you should go forward with it, It is a good cause. Others may like to help you with the solution. I personally think that only New Citizens should have to go to war. If they want to become Americians then let them earn it. I really feel that this war is wrong on many levels and seems to be about GAS not Terriorists. And NO WAR should ever be fought without the approval of the citizens. What is wrong with the plain truth? Why must everything the government does be a secret from the Americian people. We employ them the answer to us as a whole. So if you can get some backers and find a newpaper to listen maybe they will go ahead and correct the problem. We can all be squeeky wheels if we want to. We are the owners of the country not the government. Don't give up help is out there. VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Although I hear what your pointing to it is a bit vague. Perhaps if you broke it down to the main idea and then provided a solution. It all well and good to have opinions as citizens of the USA that is our God given right. So say it in a more concise set of words so it has a hook or impact on your readers. You stated it in a negative manner so how would you say the same thought in a positive way? Like perhaps Can the Government provide a Census of the Americian Citizens Middle class? To focus and explain why the distribution between having money and not having money is determined according to their statistics? Then they would have an answer I think. Your question above would not get you any answer. Good Luck on getting what you think you deserve out of life here in America. VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Every Citizen knows that in order to get some official out of power they must banned with other citizens and take action as a whole. Citizens have the power if we stick together don't we? Your comment was well thought out and hit the target but if you have a problem to solve you must find a solution. You know like Good News and Bad news. Have you formulated the solution yet? Then spread the word to gain momentum with your solution. Just do it. VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I realize your point but we must tell our government what we the CITIZEN's want to allow. Not some business with private interests or some official getting money from someone to vote their way. The problems are owned by the people and as Americians we owe it to the world to give them "our learned input" to the problem. Well it is not citizens ruining the enviorment is it? Mother nature is simple defending here children, we need to 'fix what is broken' before it become unfixable. As we progress [USA all the way] we must find a way to be heard by all on "solutions for our country" and possible the world. Like converting Sea water into a secondary water source. And WHO gets that money for the OIL prices problem? A large portion goes overseas. We as Americian Citizens should never all foreign countries to have such a "rope around our necks" but what does out Government do but add a TAX on to that insults us. What are we doing to get that rope off our necks? WAR no that was not for OIL was it? Isn't a terrorist anyone who puts fear into the hearts and lives of America?

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes I realize what you are saying here, I agree with you somwhat, but an alternative to that is that Government employees and elected or appointed officials [City; State, and Federal] , must remember, and we must continually remind them, that our Constitution that formed the OLD government is due for a change. But it is and has always been FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE which equates to ONLY CITIZENS RIGHTS are their concern. Not the rights [other than humanitarian help] of NON-CITIZENS. No foreigh person or Business [US or other] has rights over the Americian people, not even our Government. Their rights start and end with what the voters want.

So if you want to get something moving on removing BAD officials this is the way to get started. Good Luck I hope my solution helps. VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I agree he should be fired and expected to repay the country (and his followers too) for the horrible Budget Deficeit, they have put us in. If this were a real business he would lose his pension for costing the "company" profits and ruining their good name. There has to be a better way. If we all got to gether we could possibly enact this LAW all it will take is about a million people and they would have to pay 1$ to pay it down? Whose willing? Really though the ones who benifited from a Republician President most are the Businesses getting the TAX breaks that we should be offered. They are ones who ask him to "bend the rules" so they should share the losses. Good luck with you topic you have served to open many eyes to what seems to be INVISABLE. Thanks. I intend to write a book soon maybe it will get citizens off the couch to vote. VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I agree with you that in all areas of the Government that they VOTE their selves raises and disregard the PEOPLE who put them in office. I belive that our elected officials have forgotten "Just Who Is Boss!" Our constitution was made to protect CITIZENS RIGHTS but cowards an feel helpless fighting the government. Why?

They should not have the ability to create ANY LAWS or ACTS with out the VOTE of the CItizens. Do you agree their is too much "behind the scenes activities" going on in OUR government? I feel so strongly about this issue you've fired me up to do something about it. I worked in Banking 15 years and I hear what you are saying. Are they even to be trusted. Some banks think they are like above us some how. I want to cover this in my next book. Best of luck on your isssue. VJ

Comment by vbyrd6

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Hi! AR, I do hear you. My recent years were similar and their response was similar. But what did help me is when I turned 60 I was eligible for MY HUSBANDS Social security it was only $1,342.00 but it is like 'a god sent' to my mounting bills.

My husband of 21 years died of a hospital Bacteria they let into his brain during multiple surgeries. NO Saint Joseph's Hospital never paid me either. I had $15,000. in legal fees and 'got no where' - as you say they just don't listen to us. I hope perhaps as you approach 60 go see the Social Security office about this coverage so you can wait it out until your retirement age without starving. I do believe that the Social Security Administration may be the one who should answer you. Good Luck. I feel so strongly about these issues like Crime and Immagration rights that I want to write a book about it, so wish me luck and maybe someone will finally hear you. VJ
PS, the benefit above is based on how many years you were married to him/them.

Comment by gina

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Old link aside, thanks for championing this process :)

Comment by yellerdawg

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

FALSE ALARM, rate this down, please.

Somebody posted this at DU, and I was looking for a supporting link because they didn't provide one, and didn't notice the date on what I found. Apparently they *did* cancel last year, but have not done so this year.

Comment by gina

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Actually, you are linking to a link from last year. So far no one has canceled anything.

Comment by yellerdawg

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I'll get it straight one of these days. Not the front page of this site, but of Netroots Nation:
http://www.netrootsnation.org/
Can't find a thing, although the link with the news of cancellation that I Googled *is* theirs. 'Tis a puzzlement.

Comment by yellerdawg

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I may have jumped the gun - here's the background. There was a report of this on Democratic Underground, and I found the links to the announcement by Googling. But when I go to the front page of this site, I can't find it by browsing. I am very confused, but that's not unusual.....

Comment by yellerdawg

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Oops - once again I click too soon. Here are links:
http://www.netrootsnation.org/node/730
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-to-work-overtime-ahead-of-recess-2007-08-03.html

Discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3613367&mesg_id=3613367

Comment by yellerdawg

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Since impeachment is off the table, can Congress at least try to prevent these maniacs from starting World War III?

Comment by yellerdawg

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It's a nice thought. Not gonna happen, of course, but worth mentioning to her. I am so tired of watching our government being dismantled.

Comment by lerna

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I heard that if we are not in the process of impeachment hearings, Bush can pardon all his cohorts and everybody gets off free. That is a good enough reason to impeach right there, even if we don't get him out of office!

Comment by carylzook

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No matter how much $$$$$$$$$ he spends, there simply is not enough time for Obama to earn the trust of the 'vital center.' He cannot lead a nation when denying who he is or is not is a full time job. He and Hillary shared similar positions on the issues (until he turned RIGHT after the primaries), so what is the advantage to nominating a candidate with such little legislative experience and NO international experience in these times of fragile international relations. HILLARY is correct on the issues AND has the experience. HILLARY HAS EARNED the trust of voters by making the hard decisions when she is just as anti-war as Obama. HILLARY is FAR MORE LIBERAL AND PROGRESSIVE THAN OBAMA. HIS OWN CAREER WOULD BENEFIT FROM SERVING TWO TERMS AS HER VP. What is the benefit of selecting Obama because he talks pretty, or in the case of African-Americans, simply because he is black.

Actually, now that the Greens have nominated Cynthia McKinney, I can tell you I will not be voting for her.

Please know I have been honored by the Urban League and I am not a racist. I am Left of Liberal and a pragmatist.

Comment by dunhamfarm

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Our debt, in large part, is due to our economy being based on war. We had a balanced budget under the Clinton presidency. In the Bush era, the focus has been on perpetual wars. That was their actual plan - remember the term neo-con? If we are in perpetual war, if most of our funds go toward it, rather than using OUR money right here at home, of course there won't be anything left for programs that help American citizens. That was their plan as well. Factor in diminished funds, try to convince its citizenry
that we HAVE to cut programs for the people because we're committed to XYZ wars and, oh, by the way, if you don't support "us" you are unpatriotic. Some of "their" scheming worked for a while, but eventually even the most hardened devotee began to suspect this plan was doomed to fail. In the meantime, the problem is not fixed, and won't be fixed until Bush is out of there. I am encouraged when I see reports like this morning that the Iraqis have refused to agree to a long term military presence. So, that could free up billions right there from what we would have spent on X # of military bases. It's a little late to stop construction on the obscene U.S. embassy there, but maybe we will ultimately do the right thing and turn it over to the Iraqis to use as an educational facility, perhaps a hospital.

Comment by libthink

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Second. This has to be about single-payer healthcare. Our healthcare system is no longer competitive on the world market. It sucks money out of companies, making it difficult for them to compete on the world market, while setting up a situation where many people lose their livelihoods over healthcare problems. It's heartbreaking to read what garyehowe wrote; and I have to believe this is only one of hundreds of thousands of such stories, based on the statistics. We need to know that at least one single-payer plan will come to a vote in the House. Will you make sure that happens?

Comment by libthink

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If you voted against this, would you re-read it and tell me what, exactly, you're voting against? Do you think that the politicians should duck this issue?

Comment by libthink

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

While I agree with your sentiments, this is overly long and really redundant. Did you look at the many preceding questions on this already posted?

However, I voted for it on the basis of "The U.S. Constitution says that Congress SHALL Impeach, (not 'may if it is convenient'), the executive when such crimes against our Constitution and mankind have been committed."

Still, try looking before leaping.

Comment by politicks

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I can't imagine why this question is being voted down. How soon the Minnesota bridge collapse is forgotten...

Comment by politicks

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Judging from the ample use of the "socialist boogeyman" sprinkled liberally (heh) in your commentary on this site, I question your motives in asking this question. I believe you just want the current administration to walk away scott-free from the mess they've created.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think we already are a banana republic. It's probably too late to save us from that fate. Ours is worse than most cause we have too much money & power. The entire world is not safe from us anymore.

Comment by debbie.wonderkitty

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It's a great idea, but we know that the Democrats will never go along with this. Not when they are still trying to exclude third party candidates from ballot access. Shameful.

Comment by freefoodfun

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

As long as Democrats in Congress keep capitulating to the Republicans even when the Democrats are the majority, it is really hard to make the case to vote for Democrats. If I wanted Congress people who vote like and with Republicans, I might as well just vote Republican.

Start having some integrity and dance with the one who brung you

Comment by freefoodfun

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

And chain of custody laws that make it a mandatory federal offense to take ballot boxes home or break the seals so that even with paper ballots we know they have not been tampered with. Also make a federal law of handcounts at a 10% trigger rate and at least 30% of the ballots and random controls so that no state law can supercede the federal.

Comment by gdfulford

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Who says "Obama is clearly unelectable", besides you? No, Hillary can't beat McCain, and Obama can. We've had many fine presidents who people have felt "do not have the experience". In some cases ... like this one ... that can be a truly good thing. We want CHANGE.Not Washington DC business as usual. Your "conclusion" that Democrats want another Republican adminstration is a wrong conclusion. If you throw away your vote on a GREEN PARTY candidate ... then I am lead to believe that the people who think as you do, are the ones who are wanting another 4 years of the Republican party in office.

Comment by craig

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No other progressive public interest measures will get past all the special interest lobbyists until we free our public officials from their dependence on private campaign contributions. Public financing of campaigns like they've had in Arizona and Maine for a decade has proven successful at doing this so government can be more responsive to voters instead of big donors. Note: while corporations cannot give directly to candidates or political parties their executives and employees can and do; then they "bundle" these individual contributions and donate them in order to gain the access and influence they seek. Now we need Speaker Pelosi to strongly support public financing for Congressional elections. (BTW the presidential public financing system is broken and needs updating but the basic idea is still sound. For additional non-partisan info see www.publicampaign.org or ww.just6dollars.org or www.CAclean.org)

Comment by dblager

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If asked, "What are the basic government provisions of a Democracy with CIvil Rights?" wouldn't we have to say, "Fair Elections, Fair Justice System (courts, emforcement), Economic and Commercial infrastructure, etc., etc., in some such order of priority. And we don't question that the Judicial system be funded by public moneys, nor much of our infrastructure (roads, water works, public health). Seems to me, in the USA, where "money equals free speech" that fair elections (priority #1) should be funded with public money to level the playing field and give the power of "speech-money" to candidates who can demonstrate a credible constituency, rather than just privately well funded candidates. A "credible constituency" can be defined by popular, small contributions and signatures, such as currently defined in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut. Voluntary, Public funding of campaigns works, now, constitutionally!

Comment by dazedmchugh

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wanna forget MORALITY? Then, appeal to greed--to competitiveness! Single-Payer Healthcare will make our US companies more competitive w/all the OTHER countries that DO have UNIVERSAL healthcare! This will SAVE OUR JOBS: The money NOW wasted on 1000's of insurance-company paper-pushers could cover all of us.

Comment by corinnelivesay

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I don't understand why people can't connect the dots between poverty, hunger, war, environmental degredation, pollution, etc. to there being way too many of us consumers, and millions more to come. Reason seems not to prevail over religion, but it seems that saving the human race is one of the greatest of religious acts of love. Restrictions on maternal care, birth control, and allowing women to manage their own fertility all over the world seems totally reasonable, and religious, under the present, dire, global circumstances. Everyone knows this is true, but don't seem to have the guts to address, or even explain the consequences. Can you get real on this subject?

Comment by erader03

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The federal debt is approaching $10 TRILLION. That is 10,000,000,000,000! That is about $31,000 for every man woman and child in the USA. The so called social security trust fund is this debt!

"If nothing changes, the federal government's not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else – national defense, homeland security, education, you name it," former comptroller general of the United States, David Walker warns.

Future benefits voted by the government is on the order of $50 TRILLION more!

How much do you feel the government can owe before our standard of living sinks to that of a 2nd or 3rd world nation, or the nation ceases to exist, and some other takes it place?

Comment by dindin98

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think anyone who thinks fossil fuel is an answer is stuck in the 50's. We MUST look for renewable ,clean energy sources.We have had the technology for DECADES, but people in power have kept us using fossil fuel to line their pockets.The time has come to say NO to DRILLING, SCRAPING the mountains away to get coal,destoying irreplacible gems of nature in the process.These "people"are only concerned with their bottom line.We need to move forward and use the energy supplies that will NOT destroy the earth and us with it so these greedy bastards can make a few dollars more.

Comment by sperber_jy

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The arrogence of these white collar criminals flies in the face of democracy. It behoves you to bring them to justice.

Comment by clara.haignere

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

For the past 25 to 30 years, teen pregnancy rate in the US has either declined or stayed the same. Now for the first time the teen pregnancy rate has gone up and those getting pregnant are younger and more likely to have premature, low-weight babies. Do you think this could have anything to do with Bush's 8 years of abstinence-only education? Connect the dots.

Comment by kpomeroy

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I would add a comment/extension to this question regarding the fact that if they begin the impeachment proceedings it will prevent Bush from issuing pardons to the executive branch people, INCLUDING HIMSELF. The impeachment must include Dick Cheney as well to prevent additional shenanigans such as Bush resigning an hour before the inauguration and then Cheney pardoning him if Cheney is not also under impeachment.

That is the only way to make sure all these lawbreakers are held to account and for the American People to find out what they were doing. And that is far more important than their election calculations. Polls show that the public is ready to impeach - so the Dems will not suffer if they STAND UP AND DO THIS - FOR ONCE!

Comment by robinphelps44

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

YES BUT AT THE SAMETIME ITS NOT FOR BROTHERS AND SISTERS.
ITS FOR COUPLES WHO IF THEY WISH TO GET MARRIED,THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT AS ANYONE ELSE...END OF STORY..

I THINK IF ANYONE WANTS TO PROVE TO THEIR LOVED ONE AND WANT TO MARRY THEM,THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET MARRIED AS GOOD AS ANYONE ELSE THAT CHOOSES...

WHY TAKE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AWAY FROM THEM..

Comment by betsysbigbrassones

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why does marriage have to be the solution period? Marriage does not work in all circumstance! Two sisters (for example) who live together and take care of each other cannot leave their share of the house to the other. There are numerous other situations that are applicable here, such as those boyfriends and girlfriends who live together. Just because they are not married does not mean they love each other less than those who are married! They also have no rights. Everyone should check out the latest issue of Utne magazine where there is an excellent article detailing this very argument. . .

Comment by blueislandbobsue

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

When are you and the members of Congress going to Reform Election Bills?
I think each Presidential Candidate along with all other Political Candidates should have equal amounts of money available. No one person, within the campaign for the same office, should have more than the other. Naturally, the Presidential runners, should have more funds available. This process could prove to be fair for each Candidate, and for us, the voters. They should be free to spend the money as they see fit for their campaign. This structure could be easily implemented with one major Fund. What do you think?

Comment by Call Up

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Sources:

NYT: Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html

WashPost: Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm - Qwest Feared NSA Plan Was Illegal, Filing Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews

Comment by donpoling

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Lack of action on this issue proves that the Democrats are bought and paid for by the same corporate interests that own the Bush administration.

Comment by garyehowe

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

IT IS ALL ABOUT CORPORATE GREED AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IN OUR PRESENT ADMINISTRATIOON, SU9PREME COURT AND CONGRESS.

Comment by libthink

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The only sure way to stop Bush from launching a war with Iran is to impeach him and Cheney right now. Not impeaching them is equivalent to encouraging them to go to war with Iran. This just goes back to the impeachment issue.

Comment by garyehowe

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I was middfle class till my wiufe became ill. She lasted 5 years, and cost me everything I ever had including my house, furniture, clothing and even the respect of my own kids (who kept their distance, so they would not loose any money,) I lost all of this over medical bills and prescriptions even though I had a grouip plan health insurance. UI have lost all respect for my country, the only one where this happens over medical bills. I cannnot even restart because I had to file a bankruptcy, and ther Federal Judge listed it twice for the credit bureaus. You cannot even imagine what that did to my credit score, and the possibility of my finding another employment at my age of 72. This is a criminal act committed by my government against myself, and I resent it. I am very saddened that this couintry has stooped this low, and noone in government has stepped in to help. lThis is disgraceful. I cannot even obtain food stasmps because my social secuirity check ias too big?

Comment by garyehowe

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

No matter the party, this team in Washington is a den of thieves. In any o9ther country, there would have been at the least demonstrations daily in the streets, but not her. Have we Americans become too afraid to even demand what is right for our country.

Comment by garyehowe

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Imperachment is too mild, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and all their compatriots, including our entire Supreme Court should be tried at the Hague for Crimers Againast Humanity, and in our Congress for TREASON., a real crim committed agains our country, and punishable by HANGING or FIRI8NG SQUAD. Nothing less is acceptable for these terrible crimes committed against our country and the world. I cannot understand how these crooks have been able to continue so long to destroy us.

Comment by bhutton99

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

at last count, you are running below %10 approval rating.

Comment by bhutton99

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

a little guts would go a long long way right now.

Comment by bhutton99

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What is your understanding of the fourth ammendment?

Comment by bhutton99

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The choice not to pursue accountability for this administration's numerous abuses of power is absolute cowardice.

Comment by peterjross

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It is obvious that the Democrats were and still are afraid of impeachment. They think the public will see it as dirty politics and a payback for the impeachment witch hunt the Republicans waged against Clinton, and they think they will loose the upcoming election if they institute impeachment proceedings no matter how appropriate impeachment is.

The fact is that the Democrats, and in fact the Republican members of the house have failed to perform their sworn duty and fear of what might happen in the next election if they did perform their Constitutional duty is not an acceptable excuse.

It cannot be Pelosi herself making that decision.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have perpetrated what is probably the most corrupt and incompetent administration in the history of our country and they have committed so many crimes that impeachment is not only appropriate, but demanded by the Constitution. Since the Bush administration refuses to comply with congressional investigations, in fact all legitimate investigations for that matter, it is the only way that the truth of how deep and pervasive the lawlessness and contempt for our Constitution by the Bushies can be uncovered.

The Bush criminal conspiracy's blatant contempt for our laws and the Constitution make the myriad of Republican scandals far worse than Watergate, and if this lawlessness is left unaddressed will destroy the public's confidence in our entire system of government in the future.

When our elected officials are not required to obey our laws why would anyone expect the public to do so!

The evidence of the public's loss of confidence in our government can be easily seen in the national polls which now show less than ten percent of the public has confidence in congress and of course the dismal ratings for Bush shows the public's disgust with the current administration.

Comment by tkz35

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Here here also. Excellent comment and question. when I have the floor I can never come up with the right words.

Comment by s_bl_208

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I really do not think this is away to ask a question. I agree about the Bush administration but this kind of question is almost threatening it its on way.

Comment by tpmclaren

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

...sayeth the Partisan Hack.

If you would read again--or perhaps have someone read for you --the original question, it stipulates that "success in Iraq is good for America", as in ALL of us.

The Speaker, as well as the Democratic nominee for President, have said on numerous occassions they intend to "leave Iraq immediately". In other words, "retreat" or "surrender". Since that will be devastating to the nation for decades, I want to know very clearly which she values more: Her nation, or her party.

Comment by phatkhat

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I really would like to see this in the top 10 questions. It is vitally important, and yet, most Americans are ignorant on this issue, taking what their pastors or AIPAC says to be the absolute truth. Been to Israel, seen the "settlements". A two state solution is the best solution. But perhaps we could give Utah to the Israelis...

Comment by m.grish

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Separating Democrats and Americans identifies you as a partisan hack, and as such you should be called out. Failure in Iraq is a reality, and success in Iraq is not possible, unless you are an ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, Total, Blackwater, al Qaeda, or the Iranian gov't.

Comment by kim.yaman

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes, Seymour Hersh has talked about this in some of his speeches. But he hasn't written about it yet. I guess we'll find out more if there's any kind of truth-and-reconciliation process in the works for the Obama administration.

In the instance of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's children, there are no allegations of actual abuse or torture (except for Mohammed's claim in a hearing last year that another prisoner had told him the children were deliberately frightened with insects), but those who know that they were kidnapped do not know where they are now, or whether they were returned to their mother.

Comment by kraben

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

it was going to take a woman to clean up the house........what happened? You really let us down...Andrea

Comment by showland2

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

STOP ALL WAR! STOP funding war! There are no winners. Only negotiations can solve conflicts.

Comment by showland2

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Torturing children for leverage in interrogations was not unique. I heard a former intelligence agent, a whistle-blower, explain to an audience in Ukiah, CA, two or three years ago, that children were frequently tortured in front of their parents at Abu Ghraib. How low we Americans have sunk to allow this!

Comment by prysmith

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I would not be surprised if Speaker Pelosi were trying to shield Rove. Something about the White House has scared her enough to immobilize her and make her a pretty ineffectual leader. I wonder what?

Comment by jock

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Universal Heath care will fail and the cost will be higher if Insurance Companies are not brought under control too. When I got sick, I had more problems with the Insurance companies than anything else. When an Insurance company denies a procedure it does so with out examining the patient, getting the information about the reasons for the procedure. The insurance business needs to be held accountable for their actions and to be sued for their lack of the patients care especially when a procedure is required by a physician.

Comment by digital_arts_instructor

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

In the interests of truth in advertising, this program is being renamed. It will now be referred to as "Accidents Only".

Comment by edgould1948

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Don't forget all the other Bush items that deserve impeachment the list is just too long. The republicans did a job on Clinton it is time for the Democrats to pull the same dirty tricks on the Republicans.

Comment by edgould1948

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Agreed. Because of Bush's continued obstruction of having Rove testify to the Congress, this alone deserves impeachment. Never mind that he can now legally (with FISA) listen in on any and all of our conversations. FISA is another point for IMPEACHMENT. The list goes on and on YOU MUST put IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE.

Comment by jock

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

As we are trying to get control of heath care cost it seems that American Citizens are being ignored and their health care is given to illegal aliens that should be deported in the first place. This should stop completely. The "anchor baby" should only apply when both parents who are here legally and have worked in this country as citizens for at least 5 years. In other words If you are here illegally you don't have any benefits, health coverage and property ownership.

Comment by seeker

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Suggest you state HOW we know this. I think the case against the Qwest CEO indicated that Qwest was asked BEFORE 9/11. I am not sure of this, but it is worth checking. Backup is needed; otherwise, it might be denied.

Comment by edgould1948

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Given that the Democratic President has voted "YEA" for the law how can you ask other Democrats to vote for him?

Comment by showland2

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We are criticizing Ms Pelosi and the Democratic leadership for not doing their Constitutional duty. Impeachment cannot be "off the table" for ANY President. It's in the Constitution.

Comment by prysmith

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Pelosi is an old-fashioned politician from a line of old-fashioned politicians and her genes tell her that she knows better than to take notice of the rats in her neighbor's house when her own cupboards are filled with roaches. Her reluctance to take on this crew of war criminals makes me suspect that there is something very seamy in her own recent past, private or political, that she is trying to hide and is afraid that will be revealed in a retaliatory strike by the Republicans. I once was very glad to see her as Speaker. Now, I have concluded that she is just another crook.

Comment by dottyhop

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This might be a bit strong, but I do think her support of FISA is a scandal and she should be asked to explain herself.

Comment by libthink

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Beyond pay (which is a critical issue), much could be done to improve eduction. The federal government must take the key role because education is a fundamental right and we can't let variations in the wealth and capabilities of states prevent students in some places from exercising that right. Also, public education is critical to everyone having the basic tools for understanding and working in the world. So, we can't let it be privatized, which splinters the experience of people, creating divisions and inequities in access. Any attempt to privatize education should be looked at with the same extreme skepticism with which we look at any kind of outsourcing. (See http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/dtd/2022-885, Eliminating the Profit Motive from Government.)

Modern technology provides huge opportunities for improving education. Just using cheap video technology to capture teaching in schools and classrooms with excellent education and making that video available in all schools (call it "Video On", passing video of great teaching on through the system) would help improve access. We no longer have to be limited by location.

We also need to make sure that science is a high priority. Learning to think scientifically is important to critical thought. It is as important as literacy or math. We need emphasis on citizenship. Children are left behind when they don't understand the political process, when they don't know how a bill passes Congress or why separation of powers is important or what their constitutional rights are. We need emphasis on history. Citizens need to understand history to put current political proposals in perspective and make the right decisions about them. We need to put priority into the arts. A society that neglects the arts impoverishes itself, the first step to downfall.

Many of the proposals by radical conservatives are designed to destroy public education. This is important strategy if you want to have a small group of rich people control society. Conversely, expanding and strengthening public education is important for democracy. Putting high priority on strengthening public education is a strategic imperative for us.

Comment by libthink

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Additional questions: Can we see some version of net neutrality passed? Can we be assured that no company will be allowed to favor its own content over that of competitors or prevent users from accessing any portion of the net on an equal basis? Will we see them required to deliver all content on an equal basis and give each user equal access (based on how much they pay)?

Comment by libthink

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The problem is that Democrats are afraid to simply stand up and call themselves liberals or even "progressives". You never see this problem with Republicans, even after all the core tenants of the "conservative" political philosophy have been shown to be bankrupt by recent events.

The first thing they need to do to show that they've gotten over their victim status is to start calling themselves liberals. Once they realize that they ARE liberals, then they'll start to ACT like liberals, and then we will finally HAVE some liberal (and successful) policies.

Comment by libthink

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

While it's a good question, the truth is that it is Congress's responsibility to investigate this and hold the administration to account. That's why Congress should have impeached Bush and Cheney long ago. That would have given the Senate the responsibility for investigating this.

Of course, the result of this failure is to show that Congress is just as guilty as the Bush Administration for these crimes. They don't respect the Constitution or the rule of law.

That begs the question, why should we as citizens follow the law if our government won't?

Well, we should because we do believe in the rule of law, and we have integrity and honor. But we don't exactly have inspiring leaders, do we?

Comment by libthink

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

She shouldn't be supported. We should have supported her challenger in the Democratic primary, and we should probably find one of her challengers to support in November. Nancy Pelosi hasn't supported us. She's allowed all kinds of bills to come up that supported the White House. She refused to consider impeachment, which is morally wrong and poor political strategy. She's made deals with the Republicans and the White House while ignoring the desires of the majority of the Democrats in the country. As a result of her decisions, the war in Iraq has dragged on, nothing significant has been done on global warming, Congress has sold out the Constitution, and they may even be moving to go to war with Iran. She has no accomplishments that would suggest she should stay in the House, let alone be Speaker. So, let me make the case right here that we shouldn't support her, that we should, in fact, do everything in our power to see her defeated in November.

I know this is a brutal assessment, but the truth is that, from the progressive point of view, this Congress has been almost a total loss. I defy anyone to tell me a battle with the Republicans or the White House that we've won. Given the situation, the sooner we make changes, the better.

I don't like to make it personal, but unfortunately only humans hold office in Congress. When mistakes are made and the job goes undone, we have to hold our leaders responsible. As the top leader in the House, Speaker Pelosi is the one we have to hold responsible for the losses and extremely poor performance of Democrats there. If I had a vote, I'd replace the whole Congressional leadership with new people.

Really, I would have preferred that Democrats in the House had taken the hint when there were loud objections as they caved in on the first war supplemental. But no. They wouldn't hear what we had to say. We have to withdraw our support for these people, even if that means a few Republicans manage to get into Congress. Only then, it seems, will these people get the message and start working for the interests of Democrats in this country.

Comment by libthink

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It's time for the House to study how we can increase civil liberties in this country. The House should form a group, either a subcomittee or a task force, with the power to look into how our security apparatus and federal law enforcement is being conducted and recommend changes to the system that will increase protection of constitutional rights. The process should respect the individual. This is not inconsistent with national security. Trading off rights for security isn't necessary, and I'm tired of hearing that people in our government are too lazy to find other alternatives. What are the changes to procedures and organization that are necessary to get it right? It's time to do some actual work on this, instead of throwing up your hands and raiding the Constitution.

Comment by libthink

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Thanks for the comments. Yes, it's worse than I thought.

As for the exact model to follow, I'd love to have something like the French system. When was the last time a GP came out to your house to see you when you felt sick?

As for process vs. substance, well, no. She's a member of the House. It's totally within her portfolio to move a bill that would provide exactly this kind of healthcare system in this country. I want to know whether she will take responsibility to do that. She also has power over how bills make it through the system and a lot of personal power to twist arms to get what she wants. If she wants this kind of bill to come to the floor, it will. She's the right person to hold responsible for this.

Comment by rik

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I had cancer thirty years ago. There is not one health insurance company that will even consider offering me coverage at any price. So I'm stuck in a dead end job in which I will never make enough money to retire, when I could be making triple my salary if I could freelance. And yet, I have to chip in to pay for your very excellent health insurance.

I'm 63. This means that I'm going to have to wait two more years for Medicare to kick in before I can start earning a decent wage.

Bottom line: I'm buying your health coverage. When are you going to help me get something similar?

Comment by nberning

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Drilling is not the answer, and Pelosi has rightly called it a "hoax" that will not solve anything. If we're serious about addressing the energy crisis, we have to end our addiction to oil. That means alternatives to driving, and more efficient cars with cleaner fuels when driving is necessary.

Comment by daktech

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Agree - We need Democrats to boldly address this crisis with suppport for Conyers' Hr-676.

I don't care how tough a fight you think it would be or what chance of winning you think we would have - we will never know and will give up too much if we don't start with asking for more than we expect or at a minimum - what we want and what this country desperately needs.

I may be dying and don't know because I am a cancer survivor, who can't get health insurance now and can no longer afford to pay the labs for tests I need.

Please - it is insane that we are the only industrialized country that does not have a system to provide healthcare for all its citizens. And to cap that failure - we still pay way more than most other countries.

Comment by robertkezelis

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

How can we ignore this issue, especially when the GOP tries to sell unwarranted, warrantless, illegal surveillance on Americans as a necessary step in our protection - when this pre-9/11 surveillance did NOTHING to stop the attacks on that day.

We suspect that the spying started for political reasons, and really, the question should be amended to ask her bluntly - were Democratic office holders or candidates scrutinized or spied upon? Including you, MS. Speaker.

Comment by libthink

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

These companies should be nationalized. We should just use eminent domain and scoop them up. All of these people should be drafted, i.e., given an equivalent position in the regular army and their pay rationalized. (In other words, they should get whatever their new pay grade specifies.) This is just another example of outsourcing gone wild.

Comment by bryan a

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Archmeg, one can also take the train from Vancouver to Seattle, but on two trips I've taken the train has been replaced by a bus due to some technical error or other. That's unacceptable in other developed countries.

Comment by archmeg

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Along with better international train travel - the only access to Canada comes via Niagra Falls, yet hundreds commute every day from Michgian to Ontario and vice versa, via bridges congested with traffic. Why this hasn't happened yet befuddles me.

Comment by melissahavard

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We can't have meaningful discussion in this country about wasted govt monies, effects of population on environment/global warming, health safety of our young people, reducing unintended pregnancies, equality, women's rights, and the future of our country, without aggessively addressing the wasteful, non science based, illogical, and now proven to be ineffecitve govt funding of "abstinence only programs."

Comment by joann

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I'd love to hear what response you got. Please keep us posted.

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wrong comment for her. She does process, not policy... and healthcare is definitely process. Don't waste your time thinking that you'll bet anytihng from her on this. Ha!

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Do you honestly think that the Speaker cares? I called the HJC today to find out the status concerning Rove. They said that the chairman hadn't made any announcements as of this afternoon. I asked it it's true that the Speaker is pressuring the Chaiman not to proceed with inherent contempt. I won't discuss the response.

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The approval rating for this 110th Congress is so bad because of the decisions made by the Democratic Party leadership (Pelosi/Hoyer/Reid). It's too bad because there are some brilliant and hard working members of the House and a few in the Senate who all look like failures because of the decisions made by the members of the Democratic Party leadership.

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

You say: "...why don't you move forward with the only option remaining -- appointing a Special Prosecutor with wide-ranging ability to uncover the truth?"

I don't think you understand that she has spent the last 2 years attempting to make sure that the crimes of the Bush administration are covered.

Because she's let it go so far, the only remedy now is impeachment hearings. But she took it off the table, didn't she? She did but the only remaining tool is impeachment because Bush/Cheney cannot stonewall, cover-up, hold documents or deny Congress whatever they ask for because impeachment investigations/hearings trump executive privilege and the Bush (Addington/Yoo) concept of the unitary executive.

Alls she needs to do is give Chairman Conyers the go ahead and he'll do the rest. However, let me repeat: she is not looking for the truith.

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

That's why we have c-span and oversight hearings take place live. Webcasts of all oversight hearings are available on the committee's website. Congress is still 20 years behind the rest of us. They still don't know how to recover the e-mails that the Bush administration destroyed and the hard drives they smashed to avoid criminal charges. Do you really think that Congress could manage such an every day event? Hardly!!

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I am so angry at what this woman has done to our country. I had hoped that she would have been a bright light when she was elected Speaker; instead she has done more damage to this country in less than 2 years than Bush did in 8. Shame, shame.

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Don't give her policy questions... she's a process person and doesn't create policy.

Comment by victoria2dc

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It's another Pelosi fiasco. Here's what she's saying about it: The legislation, H.Con.Res.362, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill, has gained bipartisan support rapidly, with more co-sponsors signing on by the day. Once it hits the floor, it's bound to "pass like a hot knife through butter," a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office told Chelsea Mozen of the nonprofit Just Foreign Policy.

Well isn't that exciting? We give the president the power to spy legally and then she could decide to rush through a resolution which could lead to war with Iran, gives a wink to the 7,000 members of AIPAC who lobbied Congress recently. My, my... isn't life in the Speaker's office full of excitement?

Comment by siegead

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

A. Your figure is off by an order of magnitude. US spends about 16% (not 1.5%) GDP on healthcare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States)

B. Having lived in multiple countries/health care systems, I would suggest not emulating the British. The French system produces far better results, with general satisfaction, for significantly less per capita than US medical care ... while covering 100% of the population. In addition, the French system would be more easily adaptable to US society as it has many more private practice elements, creating true freedom of choice for patients.

Comment by jmhmail

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It is totally appropriate for legislatures to determine the rules for allowing (or excluding) evidence. In California, for example, the entire Evidence Code is a set of laws passed by the state legislature.

Please note - this would not prevent lawyers or judges from reading presidential signing statements, nor would it prohibit lawyers from making the same arguments. Judges could use the same reasoning that in a Presidential signing statement if they found it persuasive. What they could NOT do would be to mention the source, or claim the presidential signing statement required the court to construe a law in a particular fashion.

Short version: presidents have veto power, and Congress has the ability to over-ride vetoes. Granting evidentiary weight to a presidential signing statement allows the president to in essence veto a bill without giving Congress its Constitutionally-mandated right to over-ride that de-facto veto. This should be banned.

Comment by impeachmentwatch

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

They should do so know. Vote for anyone but Pelosi so the rest of us dont have to deal with her any more. She has done nothing for the country or your party in the last 8 years. You win elections in spite of the congress dems not because of them.

Comment by yellerdawg

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why (since the Constitutional issues are "off the table" - grrrrr) is this not priority one? There's convincing evidence that the Presidency was stolen in 2000 and 2004, and other races in 2006. What is being done to mitigate this in 2008? Is it even on the radar? Are you even aware that they will steal again if given the opportunity?

Comment by dxwoods

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

When the Republicans start screaming "witch hunt" just use their own FISA logic against them: If the Bush administration hasn't done anything wrong then it should be OK for Congress to read their email. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the law.

Comment by mowder

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Try C-SPAN.org. C-Span channels 1,2,and 3 are webcast live, and you are also to watch recordings of prior proceedings on line.

C-Span is really a great resource that way.

Comment by dxwoods

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Well John, it's because you get tarred with the brush of anti-semitism if you propose or agree with that solution. I completely agree with you and would take it one step further. Make all of Jerusalem an "international sanctuary city" and relocate the UN headquarters there. Have it policed by UN peace keeping forces and no weapons are allowed inside the city. Ever. Not even under cover of diplomatic immunity.

As to why the media doesn't report this: Well, it's complicated.

Comment by tpmclaren

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Does it bother anyone else that there are nearly TWICE as many votes against additional energy drilling than there are to change the National Anthem to "Low Rider"?!

Comment by halszkac

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It seems that any consideration of such actions has been trumped by fear of the conservative/Republican machine going into a fit over "partisan retribution". And it is election year - we cannot do this in an election year! Cowardice feeds on itself. Next, when Obama wins (which I still hope, in spite of the Great Disillusionment over his FISA position), it will be "let's move forward, there are more important problems to deal with". Sorry, I think the election year is precisely the perfect time to start a debate over what is at the core of our identity as a nation. By pushing these issues aside, the Democratic leadership in the Congress has done us a lot of harm. What a great choice we have! Either (R) people who transgress laws in their power grab or (D) people who condone this, having been terrorized by the efficient noise machine controlled by the original transgressors! Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly caved in to our home version of terrorism, on war funding, FISA, impeachment, subpoena enforcement... The list goes on. Unfortunately, in times when the Constitution is under attack, we need heroic people in Congress, and Pelosi is just a run-of-the-mill politician.

Comment by gohlkus

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is a very good question. Now is a perfect time to make train travel more viable and popular here in the US.

And the Speaker might be relieved to answer this question after all the hardball FISA and impeachment questions.

Comment by halszkac

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

As the other comments say - plus the real solution is to put those resources we can muster into seeking new sources of energy, not drilling ourselves into a deeper hole.

Comment by jbones0420d

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It is a shame you are all wasting a good opportunity to ask a real question.

Comment by libthink

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It isn't appropriate, and to the degree that the telecoms violated the Constitution Congress doesn't have the power to grant them immunity in any case. When this gets to court it will have to be thrown out. So, even if Congress votes for this, it's nothing but throwing the White House a bone. It just gives them an unnecessary victory when we can ill afford to do that. It was truly stupid to allow this bill to come to the floor. I can only hope the Senate sends it off for a long sleep in committee.

Comment by libthink

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

There are a constellation of policies that support rich people, and increasing population is in the short-term interest of people who have a lot of money. The faster workers reproduce, the more there are and the lower their wages are. It generates more consumers, increasing profits. Also, if you have a big population, you increase the supply of cannon fodder. That's why you see policies intended to increase population. This is why it's a sin to have an abortion, why there's a tax credit for children, abstinence-only education policies, and so on.

Conversely, overpopulation is bad for anyone who earns a living, and it just makes the world a more dangerous place. Unless you get your money from equity, you have a vested interest in seeing population reined in. Lower population growth means higher wages and a better standard of living for the majority of people. It puts a lot less burden on the environment. All environmental problems would be greatly lessened if we had taken significant steps in the Sixties to get growth down. The vast majority of people in the world would benefit from more funding for family planning, research on birth control, tax policies that favored less children, etc. Even just talking about the problem in sensible terms would have a positive effect.

Comment by orangemush

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Hmm, maybe because the president can veto legislation and the Senate which only has a tacit and in name only democratic majority is really setting the agenda. It is win win for the republicans in the Senate, they in essence get to block legislation without any blame. Sure the House could keep pumping stuff out but why? I'm not sure it is a terrible idea just for the sake of doing it, ie having the upper hand at election time by saying this and that were blocked, and to have it on the record, but isn't everyone complaining about gridlock and ineffectiveness, didn't Madame Speaker have a mandate to enact meaningful legislation. From what I've seen of her term, she's all about the big picture. As Dubya says, Git 'er done, y'all.

Comment by libthink

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Drilling won't solve anything. It just puts more carbon in the air, which not only contributes to global warming but increases the acidity in the oceans. Oil is over.

Nuclear fission isn't a good long-term answer. The type of uranium we use won't last a couple of decades, and it is very expensive, even if we knew what to do with the waste.

We ought to put money into fusion because it has better long-term prospects, but solar, wind and thermal are the best options at this point. There ought to be a tax credit for passive solar, too, because it is very cost-effective.

And, BTW, all the oil we could get from ANWAR and the continental shelves just delays the inevitable by a year or two. We have to get off the oil habit. Energy independence is a national security issue. At current production rates, the U.S. will be totally out of domestic oil in about ten years, whether we drill in all the wildlife refuges or not. At that point, we can expect Saudi Arabia to dictate U.S. foreign policy. I think they've been practicing already.

Comment by blaze

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I'd like to add that the longer this whole criminals in Washington thing gets brushed aside, the more we wonder what part all of those in congress who are doing the brushing aside played themselves in the crimes committed. It appears more and more that Washington needs a thorough laundering. Not just of the ones we know committed crimes, but also those who are unwilling to see that those who committed them are brought to justice.

Comment by 1tudore

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If there really is not enough of a legal basis for impeachment now, why haven't we seen a massive push to criminalize this type of behavior for subsequent administrations? Even people who believe impeachment may be impractical now should at least want to make it as easy as possible should any President decide to extend Bush's legacy.

Comment by shane.flannelly.king

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Interesting, I like this approach.

How effective and/or appropriate would it be for the legislature to decide what may be given evidentiary weight?

Comment by legendmn

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Even if the story is public, she still cannot comment on it...

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

NASA better be putting up a sunshade around the earth by the end of the next Congress. If it isn't, then we won't need to worry much about anything else it's doing!

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

That's fairly obvious. They aren't any different from the Republicans. They're bought off.

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Since Congress is now in the habit of passing laws to benefit specific companies, maybe they could pass a law that defined solar thermal as a technology necessary for national security and intrinsically better for the environment than nuclear, coal- or oil-based power. Maybe they could bypass the environmental impact studies on this. I think I'd rather give up a few square miles of desert than the equivalent space on the continental shelves.

This, of course, would require common sense. Does anyone think Congress has any of that?

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I don't think we've made the point clear to them because we haven't taken sufficient measures. We needed to vote for their challengers in the Democratic primaries and we need to take money away from the DCCC (and the DSCC). We have to be willing to hold them to account before they will consider going outside their comfort zones to see after our interests.

As time goes on, people will find they have increased power though the blogs and online contributions to campaigns. Of course, people like Pelosi are still behind the curve on what this all means, so they will probably suffer the consequences as this picks up speed. Maybe this visit will help them get clear on what it really means to have the netroots up in arms about their actions.

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We need someone to explain to Hoyer what the interests of the Democratic Party and the American people are before we send him off to parlay with the Republicans. He doesn't seem to be very clear on this. I get the impression that he's confused our interests with those of the large corporations and a few, rich, neocons.

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes, we should be alarmed. Given the administration's track record on (lack of) truthfulness and (lack of) willingness to know and act on the true interests of nation, we can be certain that they are off doing covert activities in Iran, risking a shooting war that could envelop our troops in Iraq.

Let's be clear about one thing: the American's people are in charge. Congress is their representative in the federal government. It is not morally defensible for any member of Congress to keep vital information from the American people on any issue that could lead this nation into war. No power of the President trumps this and no member of Congress has any duty to keep such information from the American people. It is never in the security interests of the United States to prevent the American people from knowing whether their representatives are being used in illegal activities, whether it is a domestic or international law. If the administration is breaking the law, then it is mandatory that any member of Congress who learns of this make that information available to other members of Congress and the American people, so that the culprits can be brought to justice.

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is another reason why the Democrats should have impeached Bush/Cheney as soon as they took office in 2007. We've wasted two years when we could have been working on global warming because we coddled the President and his lackeys. Every meaningful piece of legislation was held up because we let this guy off the hook. Never mind that we've essentially set a precedent for other administrations to ignore the law and loot the Treasury. Just keeping impeachment on the table might have given the Democrats enough power to push some changes through on critical issues like this.

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yeah. Why are we obeying the law when the President doesn't? Is he above the law? Should we take a hint?

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We the People should consider constituting our own tribunals to try Bush, Cheney and key members of their administration for their crimes, and maybe we should simply bypass Congress. Since Congress seems incapable of carrying out this on its own, it may be necessary to go around them to do it.

These people (I call them The Bandits) took over control of the executive for their own, personal interests and the interests of their business partners and friends. They robbed the country of literally trillions of dollars in lost assets and money wasted on a needless war (when they obviously knew it was needless), by outright fraud and embezzlement, by carelessness in the execution of government agencies, and by misusing or ignoring regulations of key segments of the economy. They caused loss of life, both for Americans and others, by launching an unneeded military attack on Iraq. They failed to stop a serious attack on the mainland of the United States that cost nearly four thousand lives directly and countless others as a consequence. The intentional misuse of government assets and powers is one of the most criminal actions taken since the close of the Second World War. But Congress has failed to hold anyone in the administration accountable. If this continues beyond the close of the current session of Congress, it may be time for Americans to constitute their own tribunals and hold those responsible to account.

This is the outcome that could come if Congress fails to hold these people accoutable.

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The question is, which part of the bill do you (Speaker Pelosi) support? Can you quote us the text and tell us why you think it's essential that this be passed in the middle of a presidential election? Why did you think it was worth bringing up a divisive issue like this and risking having people who care about the Constitution--left, right and center--decide not to vote for the Democratic candidate because he voted in favor of this (or give the Republicans a campaign issue if he didn't)? Why would you give the White House a win on this issue? Why were the positive aspects of the bill as you see them more important than the detrimental aspects of putting political pressure on the courts (something we abhorred in the Terry Schiavo case) in the telecom immunity aspects? Also, why would you side with people who committed criminal and unconstitutional acts against the American people? And, then, why would you interfere with having the crimes of the Bush Administration put on the public record, as they surely would be in these court cases? And, BTW, to the degree that his weakens congressional and court oversight of the process, this bill could damage the security of the United States. Did you realize this when you allowed this bill to come to the floor?

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Maybe the question is whether she should be treated as a Republican. Probably everyone who's dissatisfied with her answer should contribute to one of her challengers in the November election. Here's the list:

* Republican: Dana Walsh
* Independent: Cindy Sheehan
* Libertarian: Philip Z. Berg
* Socialist Workers: Lea Sherman (write-in)

Democrats have been way too comfortable. They don't think we have anywhere to go but to vote for them. If they make major mistakes, we have to hold them accountable. The first line of defense is the Democratic primary elections. However, those are over and the only recourse at this point is to hold them responsible at the general election.

Obviously, there are many issues where we want our elected representatives to use their judgment, even if we disagree. However, on questions like this, where we are talking about the successful functioning of the government, we should not permit our officials to escape responsibility at their next election.

Comment by peterjross

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Impeachment of Bush and his corrupt and incompetent cronies was required as a duty imposed on Congress, in particular the House of Representatives by our Constitution.
Not impeaching high elected officials and those they appointed to high government positions who dishonored their oaths of office by disrespecting the Constitution, the laws of our country, and those of the international community and who were complicit and guilty of bringing our country to war and dishonor using deceit and lies amounts to complicity!
It is still not too late, but if those in the present administration are not held responsible the terrible precedent will have been set for future administrations to deem themselves above the law, as those in the Bush administration have.
Madame Speaker,
Please do your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our country!

Comment by jctzhawk

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Daily Kos is a terrible site with posts from the most socialist nutjobs in our great country. Speaker Pelosi is using her head for a change.

Comment by jctzhawk

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Delia,

What are you smoking? There was not Mandate. Witness the all the
new legislation our new Democratic congress has passed. Also witness their wonderful approval rating. I say replace all of them.

Comment by jctzhawk

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The fairness doctrine is socialism. The radio talk shows that are successful are still on the air. For heavens sake look at Air America, bankrupt in less than 18 months. No listeners mean no advertisers which means so long. The liberals control TV, look at MSNBC, Keith Oberman is the most biased host I have ever heard on the air. He is really vulgar and rude in my opinion. I will not watch MSNBC when he is on. Let's not slip into a failing socialist state with government controls on everything. If you do not want to hear what is being said on the radio, don't listen or change the station. Let's keep our right to choose!

Comment by jctzhawk

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I agree the Republcans have not been that effective, but please take a look at the approval rating of congress right now. All of them should be replaced. Getting rid of the old guard will be the only way to effect real new change in Washington. I will speak with my VOTE in November.

Comment by jmhmail

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Could you also please add the Office of the Vice President explicitly, so that we don't hear the "neither executive nor legislative branch" excuse?

Comment by jmhmail

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It seems likely that the US Government patented cannabinoids so that they could file "roadblock" patent infringement actions against medical marijuana providers for the life of the patent. Ms. Speaker, will you propose legislation to force the government to issue low-cost licenses under this patent to anyone producing medicinal products based on that patent's claims?

Comment by jmhmail

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Now that so many criminal acts of the Bush Administration have come to light, such as torture and illegal wiretaps, have you considered putting impeachment hearings back on the table?

Comment by msdavi01

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Our tax money is being spent on unecessary and outlandish "defense" contracts. It's a good time to be an engineer working in the defense industry or a hired mercanarie free from the Geneva convention rules.

Comment by msdavi01

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Speaker Pelosi is being viewed as someone who cannot or will not stand up to the corruption of the Republican party. How does she answer this charge?

Comment by msdavi01

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think it's getting voted down because it's not the kind of question that will have any practical benefits for our country. I think long term too, but the fight to preserve our constitution and liberties is a bit more pressing and urgent than our 1000 year legacy right now. So your idea isn't getting shot down. Only your question in this particular conference is getting shot down.

Comment by msdavi01

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This question is too obvious. Anyone who puts a few minutes thought into it can figure out the answer for themselves. Let's not waste time asking her questions like this.

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

And, how about replacing him in the "leadership" with someone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?

Comment by joann

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

How about censuring them since you've taken impeachment off the table? Is there NO accountability?

Comment by joann

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

How about censuring Rove, Myers, Bolton et al since you've taken impeachment and subpoenas off the table? Are you going to do NOTHING while they continue to violate the law and then laugh while they get away with everything?

Comment by libthink

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

BTW, that should be "Healthcare costs" in this country "are often shifted to companies, leaving their products at a competitive disadvantage on the world market."

Comment by diane

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why did you bring the FISA "compromise" bill for a vote before anyone had a chance to read the bill?
It has become public knowledge that the Bush administration started their spying program BEFORE 9/11, so how can you continue to use "national security" as the reason for this bill?
On exclusivity in the "compromise" bill, the old FISA bill had exclusivity too, so how will this prevent future administrations from
ignoring this law too?
How can you give immunity to a company if you don't even know what they did?

Comment by blaze

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes, and if we, the citizenry are paying for your health care, why is that so? Many of us can't afford our own health care, so we should not be burdened with helping to foot the bill for yours?

Comment by blaze

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Yes, paper balloting should be law, as well as protections for citizens with regard to ID requirements. There has been so much fraud, primarily on the part of politicians, in rigging elections, and preventing citizens from their legal right to vote.

Comment by davism97

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Speaker Pelosi is definitely looking spineless in the face of the Republicans. Compromising in order to win an election is understandable, but laying down and letting criminals do what they want isn't a compromise. It's criminal to the American people and Pelosi herself should be held accountable for her inactions.

Comment by davism97

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

That was a beautifully written question. I don't actually have anything to add to it. It's a question I'm sure many of our Founding Fathers would like answered as well were they alive today. Let's hope Congress hears it and responds.

Comment by davism97

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Refer to "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Muder" by Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/).

In this book Bugliosi (the man who prosecuted Manson) lays out the legal framework for bringing Bush and his criminal administration to justice AFTER they leave office. He focuses on the lies and deceptions that led us into Iraq and claims that Bush can be held personally responsible for the deaths of our soldiers over there.

Comment by davism97

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Given Pelosi's reasons for not pushing to impeach Bush (refer to rayleeholden's comment which I'm taking on faith since I haven't heard Pelosi personally say this), Congress needs to be aware of the high price they're paying for this. They are setting a dangerous precedent for future executive abuse of power. If politicians aren't called on to answer for their crimes then what does it matter whether we have Republicans or Democrats in office. We will have ceased to be a Republic at that point. The fact that President Clinton was almost impeached for nothing more than a blowjob also makes this all the more outrageous that W's actions aren't being smacked down by Congress (who are seeming more and more to be boneless and corrupt themselves).

Impeachment is NOT a partisan issue. It is an issue of justice in the face of facts. It's justice to the American people.

Comment by trouble97018

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Not to mention that the oil companies are sitting on LOTS of oil and gas leases and WILL NOT DRILL. Let them use up the leases they already have!

Comment by dapperd72

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Any bona fide universal health-care system must be single-payer by definition, lest the profit orientation of the insurance industry has free reign to deny coverage for anyone with pre-existing conditions or other arbitrary factors to preserve their bottom line for their shareholders. We do not have any "health" care system in the technical sense, as our present structure revolves around reactive approaches to ailments and diseases that have already occurred. Health care, as opposed to sickness care which is the nature of our profit-oriented approach, focuses on preventive medicine, which starts with a healthful vegan diet, ideally raw and organically grown as much as possible. Anyone eating the Standard American Diet based on flesh, dairy and eggs cannot ever hope to achieve optimal health or avoid becoming a drain on public health resources. Medical school rarely if ever teaches nutrition, so very few MD's have any integrity in promoting nutritionally adequate or life-promoting habits to their patients. Second to 100% vegan diet in priority is regular exercise as a daily routine. One's physical and mental muscles must be constantly exerted to prevent them from dying and disease. Furthermore, a true single-payer universal health-care system must include naturopathy, homeopathy, holistic massage therapy and other non-invasive forms of so-called "alternative" medicine to effectively treat patients in contrast to allopathy, which only treats symptoms as SOP.

Comment by jwlevis

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

How about because it would take nearly a decade for new development in ANWR to actually hit refineries. Also, current US oil resources in restricted areas would only meet 6 months of the current world supply. No analysis has ever shown that completely opening the US to oil drilling would lower gas prices by more than a few pennies. It's a short sighted policy that offers no real benefits except to oil companies, who are already doing very well.

Comment by zanesafrit

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Here's the question: Ms. Speaker, did you consider your oath of office, the oath that included the provision to defend and protect the constitution, our constitution...did you consider that oath and its terms as you voted to allow activities now and in the past that clearly violated the terms of that oath?

I think I have the appropriate punctuation preceded by the appropriate interrogative pronoun to qualify as a question.

But at the end of the day, with never a response from the Speaker herself, does it really matter if it's a rant, a question, a dialogue.

Comment by abra2345

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think you pose a great question. I don't understand why it is getting voted down. After all, should Congress not be concerned with great things that will confront the very biggest problems that we face - that people 1,000 years may look back on the way we look back on the Romans, the Greeks, and other great civilizations and ask what they did that changed the course of their history (and ours). Thumbs up from me!

Comment by abra2345

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Given the magnitude of the problems we face that threaten the very foundation of our nation and our ability to survive on this planet; from catastrophic environmental destruction to enabling a complete dismantling of the Constitution, to amassing trillions of dollars in debts, to sacrificing for decades our ability to have clean, affordable, renewable energy to the profit interests of polluting, non-renewable, conflict breeding, and cartel priced oil companies, what, if anything, are you working on now that future citizens will look back on and be thankful for?

Comment by michel

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I believe that Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath, not for the affair per se.

Comment by danciruli

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is a good preamble, but needs a question. Perhaps it could be combined with one of the other proposals on this same topic.

Comment by flahooley

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Nicholas Kristof wrote a terrific column on this on July 6th. I think it is well known enough (and this comment appeared after his column), that the question should reference his column, which shows the broad importance of this idea. http://www.wecansolveit.org/

Comment by bccpcole

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

And to preclude her standard reply that it's politically unfeasible, here is a raw story link pointing out that Bush had a "strongly dissaprove" rating by Gallup - two months after she assumed the Speakership ( March of '06) - that was only 2 pts higher than Nixon *when he left office*:

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Gallup_Bush_disapproval_rating_lowest_of_0308.html

That was almost 2.5 years ago and his numbers have fallen precipitously since (and we needn't even mention Cheney's numbers which are as dismally low as Congress' - in the low teens).

Comment by bccpcole

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Actually, she needs to start with Articles I, II and III of the Constitution itself, which delineate the separation of powers, then she could go on to the Bill of Rights. After that, the Geneva Conventions would be nice. Then she could peck away at the remaining hundred or so that the Bush administration has made defunct.

Comment by thisisme_me

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

We can ask this, but we already know the answer. It is perhaps far more profitable to push her to do some investigation, and put the information in the public domain. As things stand right now, we would not even know everything that went on.

Comment by arleenroy57

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Is it true that Nancy Pelosi is urging the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt against Rove?

Comment by amiethegreat

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I don't have a problem with the distribution of pledged delegates. I have a problem with unelected party insiders on a power trip as regards the convention and trying to tamp down the activist base. Being elected at one time or another only offers the tiniest amount of accountability for their actions.

Comment by faruq_nelson

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Any question about impeachment should extend beyond Bush and Cheney to include key members of their administration, past and present, such as Rice, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales. In fact it might be even more important to target the latter than the former, as the Constitution provides that the punishment upon impeachment and conviction may extend not only to removal from office (already a moot point for characters like Rumsfeld and Gonzales) but also disqualification to hold and enjoy any further office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. It is vital that we prevent the reappearance of Bush/Cheney's henchmen in future administrations. And for those who think that a Rumsfeld or Gonzales is beyond the reach of impeachment, remember that Secretary of War William Belknap, the only cabinet official ever subject to impeachment, was impeached after he had already resigned from office.

Comment by yellerdawg

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Sorry, the rest of *them* - it's hard to type straight when you are really, really angry, and this board does not seem to allow editing.

Comment by yellerdawg

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I hear that you are against contempt for Rove. If true, this is contemptible. Please do your job and send the Sergeant-at-Arms for him, and the rest of him. What is going on up there??

Comment by briandeanabramson

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The problem is not the role of the superdelegates (most of whom are elected officials who represent voting constituencies); the problem is the distribution of pledged delegates, which should more strongly reward the winner of the popular vote (50%+) in a state.

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Perhaps the sheer magnitude of this lobbying machine will buy enough Representatives and Senators to make it impossible to change. Perhaps we need a law that mandates that that each Representative and Senator will need to grow a pair of balls (ovaries?) to help resist the lucrative siren call of lobbyists?

Comment by david

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Talk about a tautology. Why do you think they aren't enough votes? Would it have anything to do with party/caucus discipline being enforced by Pelosi? If you want to give her a pass on this fine, but do it honestly. She is the obstacle and you know it. Your reasoning is insulting.

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

And if you choose not to do this -- move out of the way!

Comment by daneshughes

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Madam Speaker, how much did it cost to buy you? Or more charitably, What terrible thing did they threaten to do to you? Failing in an effort to do good is not evil, but failing to even try to do good while caving to the the bribes or threats is. What is your defense to the charge?

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Central, primary question. Given what the current Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate have done, or not done, why would you continue in your positions of leadership, when you have shown no leadership, and have yet another problem that must be fixed?

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Thank you revdeb, thank you.....a thousand time, thank you for this question!

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Here! Here!

Comment by daneshughes

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The Speaker of the House along with Senator Reid has flagrantly and repeatedly abdicated their responsibilities to check this administration. Why should we believe that you deserve any future leadership role in the Congress based on your current and past performance? What will you do to repair your tattered reputation with the people who put the Democratic Congress in place?

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Makes the Democratic Party look ludicrous! And it is...when it allows all of this to happen. Question is not: What have you done to alter this perception, but: Why have you colluded with the Republican Party in forming this perception?

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Strict and immediate actions taken to limit excess speculation, or removing oil futures from any speculation .. by legislative fiat.

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Exactly....why not repeal the obscene subsidies, demand repayment of same, and tax the profits. This at the very least. And, please! no forming of a bi-partisan committee to "look into" this. Do this, with a sharp eye to uncovering criminal activities by these companies, and individuals in these companies. Hearings of this nature were held, and televised, chaired by Patrick Leahy (?). Blatant, gross, and egregious acts and omissions committed by many companies, resulting in harm and several deaths to American troops, e.g., being electrocuted in the shoddily constructed shower facilities.

Comment by daneshughes

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The Speaker gives every evidence by her behavior of having been bought or frightened by the Administration into the High Crime of Malfeasence in Office. Why should your failure be seen as anything other than the deliberate abandoning the work of the people to support the unconstitutional acts of this administration?

Comment by ugb942

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

This is one of the top issues for me. Why should we trust you, or Steny Hoyer, to do do now what you have thus far refused to do? Defend the Constitution and stop playing politics. No more CYA! Do your job -- or move out of the way. Remember that old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

Comment by harolynne

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Hoyer only allows emails from people who live in his district, but he is the House Majority Leader and as such represents us all. Also, in the recent runup to the FISA retroactive immunity legislation, he lied to the people and possibly his staff.

Comment by oedrex1

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Not will you, when will you. She has already announced she supports it, but I have seen no legislation to that effect.

Comment by daneshughes

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Steny Hoyer is your creature even though you prefered Murtha. His treason is your treason. Why should we not support removing both of you from any vestage of leadership roles.

Comment by dwgelbman

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I believe Executive Immunity only applies to those acts carried out within the scope of a government official's duty. If we can establish that he acted OUTSIDE his constitutional authority EI may not apply.

Also, the landmark case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), on EI (and most others) grants immunity from CIVIL liability. I don't know what test there has been as to CRIMINAL liability -- and perhaps we can find a way to serve that bastards up under International Law to some international tribunal under WAR crimes liability. I think a few sovereigns have had to answer for their deeds in such circumstances no? Or better still, we can create a NEW "military tribunal" ala Rumseld to take on the job. What's good for Guantanomo is good for the creator thereof no?

Comment by daneshughes

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Speaker Palosi and Harry Reid have either been bribed or threatened into supporting the felons of the Administration. The threats probably have to do with there knowlege and support of the torture, spying, disappearing, and theft of American rights and property. Lets be straight and ask her, would you impeach Bush to keep us from starting an impeachment against you?

Comment by dwgelbman

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Have the Capitol Police frogmarch the little bastard right in the Capitol building in full view of all the world and lock up in the basement until a waterboard can be procured for his hearing. Then call in C-span during his testimony under oath (and only under oath) to show us all the method that is "not torture." Executive priviledge THAT asshole.

Comment by michel

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I would remove the "how would such a prosecution work?" follow-on question. Perhaps modify the question itself to a more inclusive "would you support investigation into criminal activity after they are out of office by either Congress, the DOJ or both?"

Comment by bols.ewhac

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Add a reference to Inherent Contempt -- the principle which allows Congress, on its own authority, using the Sergeant at Arms, to arrest and detain people found in contempt of Congress.

Comment by stvnjon

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Isn't the very act of "taking impeachment of the table" an attack on the Constitution and therefore an impeachable offense?

Comment by ammasdarling

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I would not worry about multiple questions about the same issue. I agree that HR 676 is currently the best bill for passage of Single Payer. When you read on the home page about how this process works, they say, "Some questions will be posed exactly as they were submitted, some will be edited down, some will be combined with others."

I have no doubt that if all the single payer questions get a lot of votes, then there will be one question about the issue. The way I read the rules, it is better to have five questions about the issue, each of which gets above average + votes rather than one question that gets +++ votes.

Comment by george_orr

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Because she didn't want to? I think you should ask WHY FISA wasn't taken off the table; or, more accurately, why it was put back ON the table.

Comment by george_orr

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I believe the adage is "sold down the river"....

Comment by jmhmail

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It would also help GM, Boeing, and other US companies become more competitive in world markets. Currently, companies like Airbus don't need to factor employee health care costs into their pricing - Boeing does.

Comment by dr.steveb

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It would be great if all us folks for REAL universal health care could get our votes together.
I suggestrevising this to specificy or reference in context of support for John Conyers HR-676 (since that is the real universal health plan that also happens to be the plan in the House with the most co-sponsors), and combine votes with other lower-voted similar please for real universal health care.

Representative John Conyers is the lead sponsor for the only real universal health plan that provides coverage that is truly universal, comprhensive, affordable to inidviduals and families and controls overall costs.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.shtml

That plan also has more co-sponsors then any other plan in the House.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@P

Please make sure that it is an active part of the discussion as we move forward to real health care reform.

There are many proposals for “reform” of the U.S. health care system out there. For the newcomer it can be very confusing. Here are the four simple questions to ask of any health care proposal.

1. Is it Universal? Does it cover all people? This would seem to be pretty basic, insofar as all other developed countries do it. But just being, or claiming to have, universal coverage is not enough. It is a common error to claim universality and then let it go at that. When thinking about a so-called health care reform proposal you must also explore how the proposal deals with items 2, 3 & 4:

2. Is it Comprehensive? Does it cover all needed conditions, prevention, treatment? What care is included under the proposal? What care is not covered?

3. How much is it going to Cost Individuals? Is it affordable year-in and year-out. How much does it cost you and your family if you are not sick? Can you afford to get sick. What is the total cost of the system to you and your family including taxes, premiums, deductibles, copays, uncovered conditions/expenses, coverage refusals. What is your total out of pocket costs? If you get sick are you going to go bankrupt?

4. How much is it going to Cost Overall? What is the cost to the system, to the country, for example as a percent of GNP? How does it control costs. How is it paid for, and who is paying, all the pieces, direct and indirect?

Too many folks fall for the trap of hearing “reform” or even “universal” and don’t realize that it is not really Universal Coverage, IF that Coverage is really “coverage” because it leaves you with too much legitimate care not actually covered, leaves you and your family with bankruptingly high out of pocket expenses when somebody

Comment by jmhmail

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Congress could certainly make this a requirement for federal elections, which would "trickle down" to state-only elections.

Comment by dr.steveb

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It would be nice if all us "real universal health care" folks could get our votes together on this.
Should revise this to specificy or reference in context of support for John Conyers HR-676 (since that is the real universal health plan that also happens to be the plan in the House with the most co-sponsors), and combine votes with other lower-voted similar please for real universal health care.

Representative John Conyers is the lead sponsor for the only real universal health plan that provides coverage that is truly universal, comprhensive, affordable to inidviduals and families and controls overall costs.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.shtml

That plan also has more co-sponsors then any other plan in the House.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@P

Please make sure that it is an active part of the discussion as we move forward to real health care reform.

There are many proposals for “reform” of the U.S. health care system out there. For the newcomer it can be very confusing. Here are the four simple questions to ask of any health care proposal.

1. Is it Universal? Does it cover all people? This would seem to be pretty basic, insofar as all other developed countries do it. But just being, or claiming to have, universal coverage is not enough. It is a common error to claim universality and then let it go at that. When thinking about a so-called health care reform proposal you must also explore how the proposal deals with items 2, 3 & 4:

2. Is it Comprehensive? Does it cover all needed conditions, prevention, treatment? What care is included under the proposal? What care is not covered?

3. How much is it going to Cost Individuals? Is it affordable year-in and year-out. How much does it cost you and your family if you are not sick? Can you afford to get sick. What is the total cost of the system to you and your family including taxes, premiums, deductibles, copays, uncovered conditions/expenses, coverage refusals. What is your total out of pocket costs? If you get sick are you going to go bankrupt?

4. How much is it going to Cost Overall? What is the cost to the system, to the country, for example as a percent of GNP? How does it control costs. How is it paid for, and who is paying, all the pieces, direct and indirect?

Too many folks fall for the trap of hearing “reform” or even “universal” and don’t realize that it is not really Universal Coverage, IF that Coverage is really “coverage” because it leaves you with too much legitimate care not actually covered, leaves you and your family with bankruptingly high out of pocket expenses when somebody

Comment by oedrex1

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Two words, Executive Immunity. He can't pardon himself but we won't be able to prosecute unless we remove EI through the impeachment process.

Comment by dr.steveb

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

It would be nice if all us "real universal health care" folks could get our votes together!
Personally, I like to reference in context of support for John Conyers HR-676 (since that is the real universal health plan that also happens to be the plan in the House with the most co-sponsors), and combine votes with other lower-voted similar please for real universal health care.

Representative John Conyers is the lead sponsor for the only real universal health plan that provides coverage that is truly universal, comprhensive, affordable to inidviduals and families and controls overall costs.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.shtml

That plan also has more co-sponsors then any other plan in the House.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@P

Please make sure that it is an active part of the discussion as we move forward to real health care reform.

There are many proposals for “reform” of the U.S. health care system out there. For the newcomer it can be very confusing. Here are the four simple questions to ask of any health care proposal.

1. Is it Universal? Does it cover all people? This would seem to be pretty basic, insofar as all other developed countries do it. But just being, or claiming to have, universal coverage is not enough. It is a common error to claim universality and then let it go at that. When thinking about a so-called health care reform proposal you must also explore how the proposal deals with items 2, 3 & 4:

2. Is it Comprehensive? Does it cover all needed conditions, prevention, treatment? What care is included under the proposal? What care is not covered?

3. How much is it going to Cost Individuals? Is it affordable year-in and year-out. How much does it cost you and your family if you are not sick? Can you afford to get sick. What is the total cost of the system to you and your family including taxes, premiums, deductibles, copays, uncovered conditions/expenses, coverage refusals. What is your total out of pocket costs? If you get sick are you going to go bankrupt?

4. How much is it going to Cost Overall? What is the cost to the system, to the country, for example as a percent of GNP? How does it control costs. How is it paid for, and who is paying, all the pieces, direct and indirect?

Too many folks fall for the trap of hearing “reform” or even “universal” and don’t realize that it is not really Universal Coverage, IF that Coverage is really “coverage” because it leaves you with too much legitimate care not actually covered, leaves you and your family with bankruptingly high out of pocket expenses when somebody

Comment by acbonin

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

wrong recipient. Pelosi's in the House.

Comment by hekebolos

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Sorry, but this can't happen. The committee appointments are controlled by a Senate Organizing Resolution passed at the beginning of the Congress. Trying to strip Senator Lieberman of his appointments would require a new organizing resolution which could be filibustered easily, AND which Lieberman and the Republicans would all likely vote against, leaving a 50-50 split.

Lieberman won't lose his Committee appointments until next congress.

Comment by jmhmail

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Wouldn't Harry Reid be a better person to ask?

Comment by oedrex1

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The question needs to be modified to include " Given that impeachment is necessary to remove executive immunity in order to try him for federal crimes yet to be uncovered, does not removing impeachment from the equation make your refusal to move through the Constitutional process make you complicit in those crimes? How can we trust Democrats with our country's future when you fail to hold accountable those responsible for our country's present?"

Comment by dr.steveb

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Should revise this to specificy or reference in context of support for John Conyers HR-676 (since that is the real universal health plan that also happens to be the plan in the House with the most co-sponsors), and combine votes with other lower-voted similar please for real universal health care.

Representative John Conyers is the lead sponsor for the only real universal health plan that provides coverage that is truly universal, comprhensive, affordable to inidviduals and families and controls overall costs.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.shtml

That plan also has more co-sponsors then any other plan in the House.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@P

Please make sure that it is an active part of the discussion as we move forward to real health care reform.

There are many proposals for “reform” of the U.S. health care system out there. For the newcomer it can be very confusing. Here are the four simple questions to ask of any health care proposal.

1. Is it Universal? Does it cover all people? This would seem to be pretty basic, insofar as all other developed countries do it. But just being, or claiming to have, universal coverage is not enough. It is a common error to claim universality and then let it go at that. When thinking about a so-called health care reform proposal you must also explore how the proposal deals with items 2, 3 & 4:

2. Is it Comprehensive? Does it cover all needed conditions, prevention, treatment? What care is included under the proposal? What care is not covered?

3. How much is it going to Cost Individuals? Is it affordable year-in and year-out. How much does it cost you and your family if you are not sick? Can you afford to get sick. What is the total cost of the system to you and your family including taxes, premiums, deductibles, copays, uncovered conditions/expenses, coverage refusals. What is your total out of pocket costs? If you get sick are you going to go bankrupt?

4. How much is it going to Cost Overall? What is the cost to the system, to the country, for example as a percent of GNP? How does it control costs. How is it paid for, and who is paying, all the pieces, direct and indirect?

Too many folks fall for the trap of hearing “reform” or even “universal” and don’t realize that it is not really Universal Coverage, IF that Coverage is really “coverage” because it leaves you with too much legitimate care not actually covered, leaves you and your family with bankruptingly high out of pocket expenses when somebody

Comment by askthespeaker

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I believe you were looking for "rantatthespeaker.com" One good way to tell whether you've written a rant or a question is to look for question marks. If there aren't any, you may have just written a rant.

Comment by rayleeholden

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

The rules of the House of Represenatives give her the power. She can be over rulled by a majority vote but that isn't likely. No point in asking a question with so obvious an answer.

Comment by rayleeholden

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Actually she has answered this several times. She admitted that is a political caculus. That it is all about the election and winning democratic seats. She and her advisors believe that the inherent food fight that an impeachment will be more damaging to their election chances than the importance of punishing the president. And I might add (she didn't say this) and protecting the constitution. Howeer this is her answer. I don't agree with it but I believe it is what they believe and I do give her credit for a truthful answer, a rare thing in politicians.

Comment by orangecrush1

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Sheehan's got too much baggage. I'd prefer Pelosi if that's my only other option. I'd rather see a strong primary opponent who calls her on FISA and repeated capitualtion of the house under her watch.

Comment by okie38

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

If she did we would take the government away from her and her worthless entourage and return it to the people

Comment by okie38

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Sorta like what kind of a tree would you be!

Comment by okie38

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Pelosi Speakership, COMPLETE FAILURE

Comment by okie38

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Arrest Rove. That's all those idiots understand little sister!

Comment by okie38

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Why no investigations of BushCo?

Comment by okie38

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Appeasing Bush is being on his side!

Comment by okie38

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

2010? Why the hell not this year with Cindy Sheehan's independent/green campaign.

Comment by klangley2

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

They already are. Cindy Sheehan is running against Speaker Pelosi this year.

Comment by michael

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What's the question here, exactly?

There are other actual questions on this issue.

Comment by jmhmail

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

What are the odds that if Barack Obama wins, George Bush pardons everyone in his administration, including Dick Cheney - and resigns one day before the end of his term so that newly-sworn in President for a day Dick Cheney can pardon former President Bush?

Comment by weelzup

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Excellent question, however I would like to add an extension to the end of it that asks her what would prevent any future presidents from breaking the same laws if there is no repudiation.

Comment by dxwoods

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Very funny and great selection. But I'd prefer "Let's Get Together" by Canned Heat or "If I can Dream" by Elvis Presley.

Comment by orangecrush1

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I think this question really needs to be asked, but it needs some elaboration. The bankruptcy bill was a big wet kiss to the credit card companies. Maybe something along the lines of:

"What do you plan to do to strengthen consumer protections against skyrocketing fees, interest rates and predatory lending practices by credit card companies?

Comment by miketheliberal

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

In addition, do you see a way of regulating banking so that the banks stop charging fees that were once considered usury?

Comment by hopemonger

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

the Speaker has broad powers to decide what comes to the floor.

there are ways to bring things to the floor over the objection of the Speaker, but Kucinich has not pursued any of those options, presumably because he knows that he doesn't have enough support.

so if there aren't even enough votes to bring it to the floor over the Speaker's objections, that probably means there aren't enough votes to pass it.

Comment by zanesafrit

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Last,

Great comment.

You're right. Our personal privacy isn't the issue, either, really. As you point out we freely share our calling records with the phone companies (we have no choice) and our buying habits with companies and the cookies they place on our computers.

Nor is the procedures of the FISA court, the issue.

The issue is the willingness, or the lack, of our congressional leaders to fulfill their responsibility as our representatives and honor their oath of office, to uphold the Constitution, to uphold the rule of law. Allowing warrantless searches by the telecom community of our calling records on behalf of a secret program aimed not at international calling, but ALL calling, by American citizens is both illegal and unconstitutional. (They usually go hand in hand...) And by then allowing for retroactive immunity at this point...failing to uphold their oaths, our form of government.

Comment by lasthorseman

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I am puzzled. Sarbanes-Oxley in it's implimentations have openly discouraged even outlawed contributions from companies to public officials, well at least that is what they are telling us proles in the re-education compliance seminars.

Comment by lasthorseman

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Have you met David Rothkopf at either Davos or the Bilderburg Group meetings.

Comment by lasthorseman

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

FISA is a diversionary issue for idiots. Right now corporations know far more about you than you know about you. It has come about due to the permanence and instant exchange of millions of data points corporations collect, analyze and report back on how stupid the general populace is and how best to make a profit out of it.

Our monetary exchange system is so open, so "convienient" that one is essentially leaving piles of cash on the street for anyone to pick up. Having money though one can pay for a service that watches all of this activity and will answer that nagging question 24/7 for you. "Did I steal myself". the answer is LifeLock or Identity Truth. Now outside of my credit rating what corporate agency can I contact to find out how much of me lies on the internet in digital form. Truely I would like to know if that information is true, complete and not subject to the interpretation of mouth breathing goons at Homeboy Security.

Comment by lasthorseman

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Rest assured, stock up on homeopathic remedies now. Globally codex alimentarius is seeking to lay the foundations for nutrient deficiencies only to have big pharma sell you "the cure" at 3000 percent profit. In addition the data mining of your personal medical records can and will be used against you.

Comment by lasthorseman

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

A false flag domestic "terrorist" plan according of my information. What about the large numbers of people who know stuff. What prompted the government to create the red list and the blue list.

Comment by lasthorseman

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

I should hope it would not be modeled after the Massachusetts plan of mandatory health insurance which sees zero regulation by the government. United HealthCare sued in New York under the RICO statue for routinely and systematically denying benefits and short changing health care providers.

Comment by flahooley

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Fundamentally, we need to move towards public financing with free air-time for candidates. Can that happen incrementally? Additionally, as we look at this issue, I think the distinction between soft money and hard money has perhaps outlived its usefulness. We can't restrict just money to candidates but not parties and 527s.

Comment by ormond

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 PDT

Please vote for this, even though Pelosi will brush it off.