The REAL plan for what Democrats will do if they take control

[ProfJohn]

Who the Democrats will put in positions of power say WAY more about them than some talking points memo that is posted on one of these threads.
So here they are the people who will lead congress if Democrats take over.

Speak of the House Pelosi

Polls show that most Americans know nothing about Pelosi and many don't even know who she is.
There is no denying her voting record over eight terms as one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives. Pelosi's lifetime rating by the Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal benchmark for members of Congress, is 96 percent. Her lifetime rating by the counterpart American Conservative Union is 2 percent.
Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi said publicly that she didn't consider the United States at war. This year, she said that national security should not be a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections.
Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act, opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist communications. Pelosi also reportedly told colleagues that she would appoint as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee overseeing America's counterterrorism efforts Rep. Alcee Hastings, an ultra-liberal and at least formerly sleazy Florida Democrat. Hastings was impeached and removed as a federal judge by a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1988-89 on bribery and obstruction of justice charges.

Chairman of the Way and Means Committee Charles Rangel

Rangel says he would oppose extending any of the Bush tax cuts past their expiration in 2010 ? imposing a huge tax increase on an economy fueled by Bush's first-term tax reductions. Rangel also supports bringing back the draft.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers

A zealous liberal. Conyers has spent the last few years compiling a case for impeaching President Bush. Pelosi denies that a Democratic House would pursue Bush's impeachment but Conyers pointedly demurred from echoing Pelosi's denial.

Chairmanship of the investigative House Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman,

Among the most partisan liberal Democrats in the House. No one doubts that Waxman would use his committee and its subpoena power to launch a flurry of investigations of the Bush administration, including its counterterrorism intelligence programs.

Some other great facts about Democrats who would run congress
1. More than half the House Democratic caucus voted against legislation authorizing construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border.
2. More than half of all House Democrats also voted against legislation last month to increase immigration law enforcement.
3. Twice in the 1990s and twice more since the terrorist attacks in 2001, half or more of House Democrats voted to cut finding for U.S. intelligence agencies.
4. A majority of House Democrats voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act, against authorizing military tribunals for captured terrorists, against modernizing electronic surveillance legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists by the National Security Agency and against creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Thanks to The San Diego Union-Tribune for the details used in this post Link

The reasons above are why myself and millions of other conservatives will vote for Republican on election day. It is not that we are happy with Bush and Co, but putting Democrats in charge would be WORSE.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

 

[Craig234]

Better buy a home in another country if the democrats win, because clearly the US will fall within days.

A lot of the above is twisted in the usual ways; a lot of it I have no problem with; some bits I do. I'd rather the voters of the 23rd district in Florida found someone who had not been impeached and convicted of corruption to represent them in Congress.

But they elected him, and we have the republicans, the 'put Foley in as chairman of the committee to protect minors from sexual predators' party, lecturing. Predictably, the republicans are talking about his appointment as a fact, while it's actually a matter of dispute among the democrats. The black caucus disappointingly is fighitng for him.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

QFT! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

permit me to expound on your comment.

for quite some time now i've had this nagging hunch that the prof is actually an dyed-in-the-wool liberal double-agent placed here by the DNC whose mission, through the clever manipulation of political verbiage, is to make the republicans look really really bad on this forum.

nah, j/k prof.

but really, for the most part, i came to the same conclusion jack did.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody could f@ck America is the ass like Bush has. I know how hard it is to see when you are blinded by partisanship, but with the titanic evidence of the Bush disaster, you're blindness borders or treason, no? You will vote for a titanic disaster rather than democrats whose policies have consequences you only imagine. It is really hard to imagine, but you're a living example of how self hate stabs us all in the rear.

By the way, I wrote Pelosi and told her when she cast her vote for the war that I would never vote for her again. Had I wanted a conservative as my senator I would have voted Republican. The same is true of our other right winged Democrat.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thanks to The San Diego Union-Tribune for the details used in this post Link

Hi, I'm going to use an OP-ED piece to make my shaky point even more shaky....

 

[Rainsford]

Gee, a bunch of baseless person attacks (I think the insult "ultra-liberal" lost it's pizazz about 6 million repetitions ago). It's a different stance on the issues, and that different stance is a GREAT reason to vote Democrat in my opinion. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke, the PATRIOT ACT is not making us any safer, calling warrantless wiretapping "modernizing electronic surveillance legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists " does not make it any more right or any more constitutional and the need for someone like Waxman to look into the horrific mismanagement and downright treasonous war profiteering involved in the war in Iraq is very real and something we will NEVER see under the Republicans. And Pelosi is dead right, the fact that the only thing the Republicans seem to be able to do with national security is turn it into a partisan campaign issue is pathetic...whatever happened to politics stopping at the water's edge?

"Vote Democratic and terrorists will kill your family" is a campaign slogan of such Orwellian proportions that I have a hard time understanding how Republicans are able to say it with a straight face. And even more unbelievable, that people don't jeer and throw beer bottles when the Republicans do it. And even if that WAS a civilized way to run a campaign, it makes no sense...it's not like the world has become a whole lot safer since the Republicans managed to regain power. Reagan Republicans are (justifiably, IMHO) credited with helping to end the Cold War, Bush Republicans have managed to strip us of our allies, bog us down in a war with a country that posed zero threat to us, and ignored our way into an almost certain nuclear standoff with two countries that *I* wouldn't put on the top of my list as reasonable (Edit: Oh yeah, and failed to capture the mastermind behind the attacks that started this whole thing). THAT'S being "strong on national security"? No thanks, I'll take Pelosi's intelligent approach to national security, if you don't mind. As James Bond's "M" so eloquently put it, she may not have the balls for the job, but that saves her from having to think with them all the time.

 

[aidanjm]

So-called terrorism requires an international policing effort & it should be tackled by police forces, who are far better trained and equipped to deal with this kind of problem than are the military. You'd certainly be getting better results that way. The war on terror is mostly a figment of the imagination of various republican a$$holes.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
So-called terrorism requires an international policing effort & it should be tackled by police forces, who are far better trained and equipped to deal with this kind of problem than are the military. You'd certainly be getting better results that way. The war on terror is mostly a figment of the imagination of various republican a$$holes.

That was John Kerry's position during the 2004 campaign, and the Republicans were MERCILESS in pummeling him for it. They have this problem where they confuse "smart" with "weak". If the stance you take on an issue isn't calculated to show how ballsy you are, it means you are "weak" and can't be trusted to fix the problem. In other words, if you want to fix your car with a wrench and a screwdriver, you are weak because you aren't using a sledgehammer and C4. "The right tool for the right job" is not a phrase that has caught on with the Republicans.

 

[Craig234]

Something to keep in mind about the 'war on terror':

Any time the terrorists wanted, if they have anyone in the US - there are millions of muslims here, and it's not too hard to get across the border - one person could get a gun and go to any local school and create a major national tragedy. Another could do a suicide bombing at the utterly unprotected airport baggage claim.

There's no way we can protect against these sorts of acts - which tells us something about their actual plans. About how the Bush administration is trying to extend US power with its Iraq policy and running into a lot of Iraqis who don't want foreign occupiers with machine-gunned Humvees in their neighborhood.

It makes you ask who the 'bad guys' are to see the force used killing so many, while billions and billions of profits flow into the 'right pockets' in the US.

Unfortunately, so many people buy into the 'party line' about our security being at stake, they are just blinded to the idea that we might do ay wrong.

It took us what, a century, before our popular culture started to say hey, maybe the native Americans weren't completely the bad guys?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Better buy a home in another country if the democrats win, because clearly the US will fall within days.

A lot of the above is twisted in the usual ways; a lot of it I have no problem with; some bits I do. I'd rather the voters of the 23rd district in Florida found someone who had not been impeached and convicted of corruption to represent them in Congress.

But they elected him, and we have the republicans, the 'put Foley in as chairman of the committee to protect minors from sexual predators' party, lecturing. Predictably, the republicans are talking about his appointment as a fact, while it's actually a matter of dispute among the democrats. The black caucus disappointingly is fighitng for him.

Yup, why do you think Saddam is still alive? So that the Democrats can install him into the Whitehouse!!

 

[engineereeyore]

Anyone else look at that list and it just made them sick to think how bloated our government has become?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Anyone else look at that list and it just made them sick to think how bloated our government has become?

Yes, and it raises the question - is smaller government politially obtainable - or are we at a point where we can mainly decide where the big government will help?

Bottom line, money is needed for the elections, and a party who stands to have a whole lot of taxpayers dollars to hand out gets more donations than one who doesn't.

It all goes back to the corporations who stand to make money from the policies being allowed to donate in competition with citizens, dwarfing their say in the system.

We need to get corporate money out of the system so the people are in charge.

 

[heartsurgeon]

to quote the Colbert Report
He had a hilarious interview with some Democrat congresswoman or Senator, and got her to admit her party's platform was:

"raise taxes, cut and run"

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
to quote the Colbert Report
He had a hilarious interview with some Democrat congresswoman or Senator, and got her to admit her party's platform was:

"raise taxes, cut and run"

Er, you do realize that the Colbert Report is making FUN of you guys, right?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

lol, agreed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
to quote the Colbert Report
He had a hilarious interview with some Democrat congresswoman or Senator, and got her to admit her party's platform was:

"raise taxes, cut and run"

Good. What kind of an asshole sends his kids to die on money he borrows from his grand kids.

 

[imported_Lothar]

All the more reason to vote Democratic.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
to quote the Colbert Report
He had a hilarious interview with some Democrat congresswoman or Senator, and got her to admit her party's platform was:

"raise taxes, cut and run"

I'm quite sure you're mischaracterizing what was broadcast, but leaving that aside, the Republican platform on those issues seems to be "stay the course in Iraq, but don't devote enough resources to actually quash the growing civil war, ensuring that we will see thousands more Americans killed before the last GI is airlifted from the roof of the US Embassy in Baghdad; and spend more, tax less, until our entire tax base goes to paying off interest on trillions of dollars in loans from the Chinese."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Who the Democrats will put in positions of power say WAY more about them than some talking points memo that is posted on one of these threads.
So here they are the people who will lead congress if Democrats take over.

Speak of the House Pelosi

Polls show that most Americans know nothing about Pelosi and many don't even know who she is.
There is no denying her voting record over eight terms as one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives. Pelosi's lifetime rating by the Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal benchmark for members of Congress, is 96 percent. Her lifetime rating by the counterpart American Conservative Union is 2 percent.
Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi said publicly that she didn't consider the United States at war. This year, she said that national security should not be a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections.
Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act, opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist communications. Pelosi also reportedly told colleagues that she would appoint as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee overseeing America's counterterrorism efforts Rep. Alcee Hastings, an ultra-liberal and at least formerly sleazy Florida Democrat. Hastings was impeached and removed as a federal judge by a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1988-89 on bribery and obstruction of justice charges.

Chairman of the Way and Means Committee Charles Rangel

Rangel says he would oppose extending any of the Bush tax cuts past their expiration in 2010 ? imposing a huge tax increase on an economy fueled by Bush's first-term tax reductions. Rangel also supports bringing back the draft.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers

A zealous liberal. Conyers has spent the last few years compiling a case for impeaching President Bush. Pelosi denies that a Democratic House would pursue Bush's impeachment but Conyers pointedly demurred from echoing Pelosi's denial.

Chairmanship of the investigative House Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman,

Among the most partisan liberal Democrats in the House. No one doubts that Waxman would use his committee and its subpoena power to launch a flurry of investigations of the Bush administration, including its counterterrorism intelligence programs.

Some other great facts about Democrats who would run congress
1. More than half the House Democratic caucus voted against legislation authorizing construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border.
2. More than half of all House Democrats also voted against legislation last month to increase immigration law enforcement.
3. Twice in the 1990s and twice more since the terrorist attacks in 2001, half or more of House Democrats voted to cut finding for U.S. intelligence agencies.
4. A majority of House Democrats voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act, against authorizing military tribunals for captured terrorists, against modernizing electronic surveillance legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists by the National Security Agency and against creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Thanks to The San Diego Union-Tribune for the details used in this post Link

The reasons above are why myself and millions of other conservatives will vote for Republican on election day. It is not that we are happy with Bush and Co, but putting Democrats in charge would be WORSE.

Oh my gosh, didn't know you were a closet Democrat PJ.

Thanks for your Democrat vote next Tuesday. :thumbsup:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

QFT! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thirded.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The reasons above are why myself and millions of other conservatives will vote for Republican on election day. It is not that we are happy with Bush and Co, but putting Democrats in charge would be WORSE.

It is a very good point. Politically I am an independent and have voted independent many times. But the Democratic party is just so far left these days, and they are so overwhelmingly wrong on war, terrorism, immigration, economic, and religious rights issues, it would be impossible for me to vote for a democrat unless they were a "turncoat" in their own party. The question is, do I vote for an independent or vote against the democrat by voting for the republican. Unfortunately, I think it has to be the latter because of the myriad of reasons democrats would turn waste this country.

edit: just wanted to say thanx to ProjJohn for putting this stuff out there even though it will obviously be very unpopular in this mostly liberal forum

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Overall, a pretty good laundry list of reasons to vote Democratic. lol

owned

/thread Nice try again OP, still batting 0.000 Thinks perhaps you need a job to offset all your free time message board trolling.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The reasons above are why myself and millions of other conservatives will vote for Republican on election day. It is not that we are happy with Bush and Co, but putting Democrats in charge would be WORSE.

It is a very good point. Politically I am an independent and have voted independent many times. But the Democratic party is just so far left these days, and they are so overwhelmingly wrong on war, terrorism, immigration, economic, and religious rights issues, it would be impossible for me to vote for a democrat unless they were a "turncoat" in their own party. The question is, do I vote for an independent or vote against the democrat by voting for the republican. Unfortunately, I think it has to be the latter because of the myriad of reasons democrats would turn waste this country.

edit: just wanted to say thanx to ProjJohn for putting this stuff out there even though it will obviously be very unpopular in this mostly liberal forum

What is up with the deluded right-wingers who think they're independant?

I've said before it's a cult. They have this ideological dread of some nightmarish democrats who are bin Laden lovers, and think they're 'independant'.

They answer the question, how can a party have *terrible* policies that screw most Americans for the benefit of a few and get elected?

Answer: demonize the opponents. And here you hear from the true believed cult members who buy into that line blindly.

UNable to wash their hands of the stain of the republican crooks, they say they aren't supporting them - they just vote for them to save the nation from democrats.

Gee, thanks.