Attention, Democrats

An open letter to U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver:

In the November 2006 election, a message was sent to Washington to end the war and right our floundering ship of state. Five months after the new Democratic majority assumed power, we have witnessed nothing but feeble leadership.

John Ridley, a PBS/NPR reporter and commentator, called the ill-advised Alberto Gonzales vote of no confidence fiasco “a useless dollop of turgid showmanship that in the end the Dems couldn’t even get to the floor for a vote.”

The electorate probably voted against the Republicans more than for Democrats, but there is still the expectation that the new majority in both houses will deliver what was promised during the campaign rhetoric period. That has not happened. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been disappointing in her leadership role.

It’s time to shake up the comfortable status quo. Your colleagues are no doubt digging in for a long and lucrative incumbency at the expense of the rest of us. Only those who are willing to put it all on the line and subordinate re-election to solving real problems should have another chance to return to Washington.

Congress’ low approval rating was acquired the old-fashioned way. It was earned.

Kent Comfort
Kansas City

Comments

[CRD]

Chill pills, really, dude. [chuckle]

[GCYL]

Meanwhile back to your stress factor: direct questions.

“CRD
You have never presented any evidence of actual personal knowledge of or experience with the EPA. Do you have some, and if so, under what circumstances?” - Engineer

Clear. Direct. Question. Any answer other than feigned disassociation from reality?

[CRD]

G, you don't make much sense, man. Probably should lay off that coffee. Or whatever it is you're on. You sound stressed. ;-P

[GCYL]

“Oh, but Lloyd, you've already conclusively established that I have none, per your post below.” - CRD

Incorrect. YOU have conclusively established that you have none.

“I'm a big fan of going to the source and seeing what she really did say, so let's see it and then let's discuss.” - CRD | Jun 4, 2007 11:24:54 AM

When given the chance of you being an “original source” and you not taking that chance to make a point is not within the realm of our reality. However, you acting like this again:

“CRD
There is torture and there is abuse. What is your definition of torture?” – Engineer

“[raising eyebrow] what's yours?”

“CRD
You are the one accusing people of torture, surely you had in mind what you were accusing them of?”

“[chuckle] Thanks, Lloyd. That was just about as illuminating as mud.”

Is our reality. Feel free to disagree again CRD.

[GCYL]

“That was too easy.” - CRD

And incredibly ignorant. I can’t believe you took the rope and hung yourself. Again.

[CRD]

Oh, but Lloyd, you've already conclusively established that I have none, per your post below.

[tomw]

"However, can you name me one left-leaner on this blog who does not do it?"

T. Hanson, openmind and Jack come to mind.

[Engineer]

CRD
You have never presented any evidence of actual personal knowledge of or experience with the EPA. Do you have some, and if so, under what circumstances?

[CRD]

"Feel free to disagree CRD."

Okeydokey. I disagree that he knows anything about my knowledge of EPA.

That was too easy.

[GCYL]

“[chuckle] You're exposing your own ignorance in presuming to know anything whatsoever about my knowledge of the EPA.” - CRD

[laughing]

Because you’re to freaking lazy to prove otherwise.

[I just can’t stop laughing.]

I’d have to say Engineer made an all too easy guess. Feel free to disagree CRD.

[SNORT!]

[CRD]

"CRD, in a case where I had actual personal knowledge about the EPA and he had none, called me "ignorant"."

[chuckle] You're exposing your own ignorance in presuming to know anything whatsoever about my knowledge of the EPA.

[Engineer]

Irishguy
"Especially with a person who tries to gloss what he writes with fake credentials, then demonstrates why his remarks can't stand on their own." Please explain just what you mean and just what charges you are making. Are you saying that I have presented false credentials? And how do you gloss over things with credentials? If so, what and how? And what do you mean by the statement about remarks? You have previously demonstrated a tendency to make chages and withdraw, let's see if you have the integrity to explain your remarks.

[irishguy]

There is a difference between calling what you write stupid and ignorant, and calling you stupid and ignorant.

But I do not recall calling anything "stupid," except for Buddy's incessant stupidity and immaturity (see below).

Using "ignorant," I will own up to. Especially with a person who tries to gloss what he writes with fake credentials, then demonstrates why his remarks can't stand on their own.

[Engineer]

Irishguy
Both of you have called me "stupid", CRD, in a case where I had actual personal knowledge about the EPA and he had none, called me "ignorant". You, in a case where you apparently misunderstood what I wrote, gave a link which did not pertain to what I had said and made insulting, erroneous remanks for which you never appoligized. But you may have a point in that our recent exchanges, and mine with CRD, have been civil.

[BuddyT]

Iggy, you and CRuD crack me up...you guys would have been the ones we called "Stinky,and or Fartsmeller" in highschool...LMAO...you are wound so tight you can't even see over the horizon....Rock on dudes, rock on...lmao.....

[irishguy]

“Certainly not CRD or Irshguy, who are quite free with names and, in Irishguy's case, insults.”

And what, pray tell, are the names that either CRD or I have called you, Engineer?

I believe in my case, it has been "Engineer" and in CRD's and occasional "Lloyd."

[Engineer]

CRD
"The level of corruption and contempt for the law in this administration is staggering." If this is true why haven't Waxman et al, in months of intensive efforts, turned up a single instance under which violation of law has been charged in court?
You don't really have a factual basis on which to charge the Administration with "corruption" but, being experienced with you, I realize that it is difficult to know what you mean by "corruption". Please define and present facts.

[Engineer]

Gentle Critic
You seem to have forgotton "Pig book 2000" Link: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2000
And the other ones preceeding it. I'll look forward to "Pig Book 2007".

[Engineer]

Gentle Critic
All your links do is to point out what the Democrats have done in setting up a budget for spending even more. They are no news to me as I have always thought we have been overspending on domestic matters. But tell me, when and where did the Democratic Party ever cut spending wxcept by reductions in the military and defense?

[GCYL]

“Certainly not CRD or Irshguy, who are quite free with names and, in Irishguy's case, insults.” – Engineer

Sign on or I.D.’s I view as proper names. In this tread I’ve expressed my opinion on name calling as CRuD and Publicans. It’s a reasonable, well-defined line for name-calling that I think the moderator would quickly agree to. Yes, CRD still clings to the belief that his brevity excuses his parting remarks of stupidity. But stupidity is generally allowed here and I’ve enjoyed my efforts at stupidity too. During such times I’ll rather have the moderator make the call.

“I agree with most of the views that have been expressed by Buddy T amd Arminius but would hope that they will leave the name calling to those who have nothing else to say to refute arguments.” - Engineer

I will at least agree with you on the point that both of them would score more points during the debate if they avoid nonsense such as “moonbats” and “kookdom”. Heck, I don’t read most of the posts that Mark makes but he scores high with brevity and politeness. At times that’s all it takes to crush the insulting replies.

[GCYL]

“...the Publican led congress... the Publicans hav...” – GentleCritic

Spelling errors or do you find your debating skills lack meaning without name calling?

“Before you prove yourself to be as inept as this current administration, maybe you should enlighten yourself as to the realities of life.” - GentleCritic

It strongly appears that you’ve missed the most obvious realities of our life: in a congress controlled by Democrats a time line for removal of our troops from Iraq was not upheld. They could have and did not. What’s your justification for this? Ineptness or political expediency?

“Only those who are willing to put it all on the line and subordinate re-election to solving real problems should have another chance to return to Washington.” - Kent Comfort

Kent appears very astute to the realities of our time. He wants us out of Iraq now. He wanted the Democrats to keep to their word as quickly as possible and the Democratic Party did not. He may well be considering his options for the next election. Realities of life that the party hacks are aware of. You can tell they get upset at people like Kent.

[Engineer]

GCYL
Personally, I agree that name calling serves no useful purpose. However, can you name me one left-leaner on this blog who does not do it? Certainly not CRD or Irshguy, who are quite free with names and, in Irishguy's case, insults. I agree with most of the views that have been expressed by Buddy T amd Arminius but would hope that they will leave the name calling to those who have nothing else to say to refute arguments.

[GentleCritic]

Engineer - "One thing the Congressional Democrats did do, after criticizing President Bush for over spending, was to pass a budget spending even more. Is this the way they will correct things? Most of their energy seems to be spent on "investigations' looking for political leverage."

Engineer, perhaps you should spend a few minutes reviewing the stories in the links below to see just how wasteful your buddies have been over the past several years. Many of the items that the Dems submitted was for funding that was denied by the Pubs because it didn’t specifically stuff their own pockets. Of course the Dems added some pork to the budget. They all do it but none of what the Dems did this year compares to the years of pigging out that the Pubs have enjoyed.

As for the "investigations". Perhaps it's the quantity of questionable activities that the Chimp-in-Chief and his minions have endorsed makes it necessary to hold investigations that you find needless.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/30/mccain.bashes.bush.ap/

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7287

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2004

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2003

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2002

[CRD]

"Most of their energy seems to be spent on "investigations' looking for political leverage."

one might better characterize it as "long-overdue oversight."

The level of corruption and contempt for the law in this administration is staggering.

[GCYL]

“"CRuD" is not name calling "glycerin", just a nickname. lighten up dude!” - BuddyT

Yes, it’s name calling. Twice. Please stop.