posted
She played right into Bush's trap by denying at least a vote for off-shore drilling in the House.
What a great democracy that we live in, where our representatives fail to consider what is important and best for "their" people.
It's too bad she doesn't give a crap about helping to ease the pain at the pump, and reducing heating oil costs for Americans in the coming years.
Posts: 10750 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the pot calling the kettle black. On Thursday, she referred to President Bush as a "total failure." Yet, the Democrat-led Congress that she captains has even lower poll ratings than Mr. Bush. In fact, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll, only 18 percent of Americans approve of Congress' performance: This is the all-time lowest rating for Congress since Gallup began asking voters to rate the institution in 1974.
Mrs. Pelosi responded to Mr. Bush in harsh terms for his statement that the Democrats are heading into the final 26 days of the legislative session without having passed a single government spending bill. In an interview on CNN, Mrs. Pelosi said: "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." Mr. Bush's poll ratings are indeed low: Only 28 percent of voters say they approve of his leadership. Mr. Bush's ratings are getting close to President Truman's all-time low approval rating: In 1952, 22 percent of voters approved of Mr. Truman.
However, rather than casting aspersions on Mr. Bush, Democrats would do well to take responsibility for their own failures. Since the Democratic Party regained the majority in 2006, its leaders have failed to fulfill their promises. In January 2007, when Democrats took control of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared he wanted both parties to debate their differences and to "seek common ground." He pledged a new era of civility and cooperation: "We must turn the page on partisanship and usher in a new era of bipartisan progress." Yet Democrats have been neither bipartisan nor civil - as Mrs. Pelosi's disrespectful comments illustrate. Worse still, they do not have a brilliant legislative record to boast of.
Mrs. Pelosi's has failed to prevent Mr. Bush from carrying forward policies that she pledged would end - such as halting the war, curbing war spending and blocking the troop surge. Perhaps most galling to Mrs. Pelosi is the fact that Mr. Bush's surge policy in Iraq is a resounding success. This presents difficulties for the Democrats as they head into the general election.
Mr. Bush is far form being a "total failure." He has endured public disapproval while waging a bold campaign against terror, that has, for the most part, kept America safe since September 11. By contrast, Mrs. Pelosi's Congress has both a dismal poll rating and no legacy.
Mr. Bush is far form being a "total failure." He has endured public disapproval while waging a bold campaign against terror, that has, for the most part, kept America safe since September 11.
his campaign against terror is a total failure. binladen is still alive, we never caught the anthrax mail sender, and Iran is poised to own Iraq in the next five years.. because he gave it to them.
the Taliban is still fighting in Afghanistan while they grow more dope there than ever before...
the stcok market is the worst performing since the Great Depression too..
nah, i don't see a single thing Bush has done right...
as for Pelosi? she's suffering low numbers cuz she hasn't impeached Bush yet... so your right she's an idiot.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: if we don't get a major terror attack next year? i'll be willing to acknowledge that Dubya may have contributed to not getting one here,
93 to '01 is eight years and it's also the new presidents first year... i expect one to be attempted on a bigger scale than 9-11 next year
huh? Been sampling Afghanistan's chief export?
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, gave it up when I hit 28 actually. Big butts? Take a trip to good ole mississipp... around the delta.. You'll see what he means.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted that she and the congress have not worked out well so far.
I'd prefer if Reid were out. Petulant little man if you ask me. Too bad Pelosi's bid to get rid of him after she took the hot seat failed.
Pelosi's main problem is that when she started she tried to pass herself off as a strong leader who could take on Bush, but she isn't the type that rules by force of will. She is a consensus builder within her own party. That is her strength. She should have been honest about that from the beginning and not talked tough about taking on the admin when it comes to the war.
I DO think the dem congress leadership had a plan but keeps getting stone-walled by 'Executive Privilege'. They should have expected that though.
Her comments about Bush are not invalid but she herself has not shown adequate abilities in implementation herself.
You really think they will try to strike if Obama gets in? I see it happening if McCain takes it, but I think they might adopt a wait and see attitude with the black president. (No disrespect intended here, but I think as much as race plays a role in our country it plays an even larger one in the Middle-East.)
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
it's not the president they are attacking. the goal of any terrorist is to manipulate the minds of their enemy.
any serious attack planned for next year would most likely already be well underway now, and they won't "hold off" (IMO) on an attack that would take several years to plan.
so, if we don't get one next year? i would have to assume that the current admin had some impact on it not occurring.
of course luck always enters into it. we had a at least one real chance to stop 911 with Massoui in custody. Massoui is the reason that torture became a policy issue.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL... nope, i don't. they did it Clintons first year, they did it Bush's first year...
i expect they are planning one for next year too.
So, you see it as a 'testing the waters' approach, Glass?
so, if we don't get one next year? i would have to assume that the current admin had some impact on it not occurring.
I would pose that it has. Clinton basically rolled over and curled up into the fetal position so they knew what they would get. Bush went in and made it clear that we wouldn't just sit back and take it.
If that's the case, I wouldn't think they'd want to hit us next year no matter who wins. If Obama wins and they hit us it will look like the Repubs were right that we need to increase militarily. They want dialogue, and if they hit us even Obama can't NOT do something about it. And if it's McCain? He's going to hit them just like Dubya. Either way, it will validate the agressive war policies of Bush admin and no matter what they say about bringing back the Great Imam, they don't want us to bomb them.
In the word's of Bill Engvall...
"Walk softly and carry a big stick...and if that don't work, start yelling and grab a shotgun."
posted
Granted that she and the congress have not worked out well so far.
You can't promise to bring in Utopia and not expect some let down when it doesn't appear.
Obama...take a hint.
I'd prefer if Reid were out. Petulant little man if you ask me. Too bad Pelosi's bid to get rid of him after she took the hot seat failed.
Yeah, interesting that during her intial house cleaning he managed to stay standing. I think that who she booted almost speaks more to her leadership skills than who got to stick around though.
Pelosi's main problem is that when she started she tried to pass herself off as a strong leader who could take on Bush, but she isn't the type that rules by force of will. She is a consensus builder within her own party. That is her strength. She should have been honest about that from the beginning and not talked tough about taking on the admin when it comes to the war.
I half agree with that, Big. She basically called the war off without actually looking to see if she could deliver. She also promised to lower gas prices...without having a clue as to how to do it. She also promised to get rid of earmarks...without explaining she meant only republican earmarks. And the list goes on and on. The 'consensus' she built? That Bush is bad. That's about all she's got them united on.
I DO think the dem congress leadership had a plan but keeps getting stone-walled by 'Executive Privilege'. They should have expected that though.
I can't say if they did or didn't have a plan, but they sure screwed it up if they did. Congressional approval has steadily gone down since they took over and is about half of what Bush's is as the above article mentions.
Her comments about Bush are not invalid but she herself has not shown adequate abilities in implementation herself.
Her comments were petty and along the same vein that she, Reid, and Dean have been spewing for the last 4 years.
Bitter grapes and all that.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would pose that it has. Clinton basically rolled over and curled up into the fetal position so they knew what they would get. Bush went in and made it clear that we wouldn't just sit back and take it.
IMO? Bush played right into their hands. you don't really think they expected US to "curl up into a fetal position" after 9-11 do you?
these guys want war, vicious war. they are trying to unite the Islamic world and get their holy war.
my biggest problem with Bush is that he militarised a criminal enterprise. he had to invade Afghanistan, that was a given.
But? Our CIA managed that from the start and it went right on schedule until Bush decided to redirect to Iraq, this allowed the taliban to regroup. And the CIA was not involved in the Iraqi mission...
the miltary is great at what it does, which is kikazz and take names. Making them do police work is stupid. As for their Intelligence capabilities? well there's an old old saying in the military about Intelligence....
all-in-all? i'd say that 9-11 was not only a successful operation? it accomplished it's long term goals too.
i'm listening to Mccain say that when you win wars? you come home...
well, when we "win" and come home from Iraq? Iran will take over their country without any fighting.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't say if they did or didn't have a plan, but they sure screwed it up if they did. Congressional approval has steadily gone down since they took over and is about half of what Bush's is as the above article mentions.
Bush's approval comes from a very samll group of people who would support their own party leader no matter what.
Congress on the other hand has both sides critisizing it...
i've never looked it up, but common sense tells me that congress will always have a lower approval rating UNLESS they are actively attacking the president at the request of the people...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree she is a moron she was elected to do something about bush.
I hope she gets impeached and nobody takes it off the table. She turned out to be a sell out
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
She won't allow the vote on drilling!------------let that sink in!
It doesn't matter which side of this issue your on, you should be outraged!
Posts: 514 | From: Claremore, Ok., USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:She won't allow the vote on drilling!------------let that sink in!
On the other hand, I don't believe that she is doing this for political reasons. She actually IS a socialist freak and actually believes all this environmental wacko nonsense! At least she's sincere - wacko, but sincere.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
