The Democrats Waved The White Flag
 They retreated behind closed doors when Sheehan and Co., disrupted their press conference.Â
Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war activist and mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, led the group to Capitol Hill to warn Democrats that party activists expect them to end the war in Iraq and confront the White House on a change in Iraq strategy.
“We didn’t put you in power to work with the people that have been murdering hundreds of thousands of people since they have been in power,” Sheehan said. “We put you in power to be opposition to them finally and we’re the ones who put them in power.”
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., cut the press conference short when protests drowned out his voice through a dozen microphones set up to record his comments. Emanuel said Democrats would go back to the caucus room and return later.
Ian has the video
January 3, 2007 - 08:50 PM on January 3rd, 2007
[...] Others: Townhall, PoliPundit, Redstate, Sister Toldjah, Right Voices, The American Mind, Jammie Wearing Fool, Slublog, An Army Lawyer, A Blog For All, Hot Air (Video at this one), Dawnsblood, American Princess, Gateway Pundit, Don Surber, Marathon Pundit, STACLU, American Pundit, Dogwood Pundit (GREAT advice), Two Malcontents, [...]
January 3, 2007 - 10:21 PM on January 3rd, 2007
This is going to be fun to watch the Democrats have their drunken parties crashed by their far left crazies.
January 3, 2007 - 10:23 PM on January 3rd, 2007
Hey PCD! What’s really going to be fun is watching you righties squirm like stuck pigs for the next two years.
(!)
January 4, 2007 - 06:45 AM on January 4th, 2007
Hey, Lib, just wait, in about six months the tide will turn after the Democrats go hog wild and break ever promise they ever made, including those to the gay community. I’ll enjoy watching you scream.
January 4, 2007 - 03:23 PM on January 4th, 2007
Seems to me guys like the dems are already breaking promises starting with ethics issues.
You know in some ways it’s good the dems took control. I think after twelve years of a republican congress the citizens of the U.S. needed to be reminded of just how inept and hypocritical the democrats can be.
January 5, 2007 - 07:56 PM on January 5th, 2007
“Seems to me guys like the dems are already breaking promises starting with ethics issues.”
Seems to me that YOU guys are getting a dose of your own bad medicine. (!)
Your team is lucky we even talk about playing nice with eachother…that’s far better than the way Repubs treated the Dems these past 12 years.
January 5, 2007 - 07:57 PM on January 5th, 2007
“…in about six months the tide will turn after the Democrats go hog wild and break ever promise they ever made”
YAWN.
January 5, 2007 - 08:40 PM on January 5th, 2007
“Seems to me that YOU guys are getting a dose of your own bad medicine.”
Sure…cause THAT’S a valid excuse…
I think you all are nuts. You folks sit here and watch out right ethics violations from memebers of your respective parties, then sit there and point finger at each other.
You folks are pathetic. YOU are the reason this nation is declining like it is. You are either too complacent to care about it or have just drank too much damn kool-aid. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are fit to have majority, but your idealistic cheerleading just has to get in the way so “your side” will win.
January 6, 2007 - 10:19 AM on January 6th, 2007
Ted. If you read some of my other posts you will see that I acknowledge that both republicans and democrats have been at fault in the past. However, having said that I also believe that two wrongs don’t make a right and as of now the democrats are in charge and they are acting petty.
With things being as they are in todays world wouldn’t it be better for BOTH parties to acknowledge what is working and what isn’t and quit playing the blame game?
San Fran is obviously a young upstart who probably has more money than he needs and is idealistic in his youth. He has not lived through hard times and doesn’t understand the hardships that often come with poor legislation.
Hence, his often arrogant attitude.
January 6, 2007 - 11:28 AM on January 6th, 2007
7- Obviously you aren’t paying attention or are just paying attention to what you want to. We have acknowledged the violations on both sides of the aisle. This is also a blog where we discuss these types of issues. How exactly are WE the reason for the decline? For someone that demands absolutes (proof of Bush lied), you sure painted with a very broad brush.
January 7, 2007 - 12:40 AM on January 7th, 2007
8 & 9,
It’s simple. Most folks (empasis on most, as in not meaning all) seem to still support the parties when there IMO there is absolutely no reason to. I’m not talking about “violations on both side of the isle”. I am saying that it is the rule and not the exception for the parties. It is that simple- there is no longer valid reasons to support them in any way, shape or form. Being conservative does not mean being Republican, nor does being liberal mean being a Democrat. The Republican institution is a blight on conservatism, just as the Democrat institution is a blight on liberalism. Neither party wants what is best for the citizens of this nation.
But that’s all we have anymore, isn’t it? We get to choose between a Republican or a Democrat, and each year the choices get worse. I beleive Ronald Reagan was a great man, the exception to the rule but besides him what choices have we had? Kerry? Bush? Nixon? Johnson? All crap.
So now, these two institutions are imbedded in control, and who gives ‘em the power? The people of this United States. The complacent defenders of George Bush, John Kerry and the whole lot of Democrats and Republicans. You support the parties, you are part of the problem and not the solution.
Yep- I challenged when someone said Bush lied as a fact, but that is simply because one should not make acqusation as factual when they can not support it with proof. It is my opinion that all politicians lie and as a result one should inately distrust them, but I do not present said opinion as fact.
January 7, 2007 - 10:09 AM on January 7th, 2007
10- until we have a viable alternative, and I mean a situation where there are 4 parties to choose from, we really have no choice but to support the candidates we like on the ticket they are running on. I feel that there should be a legitimatally funded 4 party system. And if we all really thought about it…where else in our lives do we settle on only 2 choices? (other than marriage)
January 7, 2007 - 06:11 PM on January 7th, 2007
I’m with you here Peejz. I was a registered Independent most of my life. After Pres. Bush addressed the problem of terrorism and taxes I changed my affiliation to Republican. Five years later I’m still not always sure I want to remain a republican but the only other party I even partially identify with is Libertarian.
I wish there were four parties in the system. It would really make for some interesting elections doncha’ think?
January 7, 2007 - 06:26 PM on January 7th, 2007
“10- until we have a viable alternative, and I mean a situation where there are 4 parties to choose from, we really have no choice but to support the candidates we like on the ticket they are running on.”
Well, ideally I think a poly-partisan system would be our best bet and the more parties the better. That said…I don’t agree that our only choice is to support the candidates especially on a national level. They are crooked IMO, and represent crooked politics. It is like saying “Well, I support the Italian mob over the Russain because I am Italian and their crooked policies are closest to what I beleive in.”. No, neither party will garner my support. They must earn my vote through integrity and honesty just like I feel Reagan did. To continue to support these parties and their candidates is an endorsement of the status quo and things will never change that way. A grass roots movement for change must take effect, but becasue of the support of the status quo just like you and Bon Bon demonstrated, that change is never going to occur I’m afraid.
Until then, they will not get my vote.
January 7, 2007 - 06:39 PM on January 7th, 2007
I think President Bush is an honest politician Ted and his reputation from Texas speaks of such honesty. I also believed that Maryland’s governor Erhlich with Michael Steele were honest and they didn’t get re-elected and in Steele’s case elected to the Senate. Both men have sterling reputations.
Back to Pres. Bush I firmly believe that our executive branch of government is the bearer of secrets we as a whole cannot and should not know. This often gives the illusion of incompetence and in some cases it’s justified. We all looked on while Clinton ignored the terrorist threat. Bush though did not and he becomes the villian.
I think that one of the main reasons people run is money. If there were a way to elect REAL regular people without all the brouhaha and necessity of money you would have a different electorate. Until such time we have to support someone because this country cannot have anarchy.
January 7, 2007 - 07:00 PM on January 7th, 2007
13- Not voting is not the answer and that is basically what will happen if you don’t support a candidate on the national level.
January 7, 2007 - 07:28 PM on January 7th, 2007
“I think President Bush is an honest politician”
“We all looked on while Clinton ignored the terrorist threat. Bush though did not and he becomes the villian.”
Uhh, Clinton did not ignore the terrorist threat, that is an utter lie. Remember the 93 WTC bombers? Yeah, they’re in jail.
Basically, Clinton – correctly – beleived that brute military strength does little to counter the Terrorist threat, and in most cases makes it worse.
Bush, the lightweight that he is, does not understand this. And because of this, we have Iraq and Afghanistan in chaos.
Another example of how military might does not defeat terrorism?
ISRAEL.
they keep throwing shit at em, and they keep getting hit. It’s an obscene cycle of violence that Bush and Israel is stuck in.
Clinton was smart enough to not get on that ride.
January 7, 2007 - 08:51 PM on January 7th, 2007
16- Uhh, Clinton did not ignore the terrorist threat, that is an utter lie. Remember the 93 WTC bombers? Yeah, they’re in jail. Ummm weren’t they sentenced the week of 9/11? And that was after how many more attacks?
Basically, Clinton – correctly – beleived that brute military strength does little to counter the Terrorist threat, and in most cases makes it worse. Yes, he used it when it served his political purpose.
January 7, 2007 - 09:34 PM on January 7th, 2007
93 WTC bombing conspirators Ramzi Yousef, El Sayyid Nosair, Omar Abdel-Rahman, and Mahmud Abouhalima are all in jail.
THAT’S how you take care of terrorists. Not by bombing their homeland, killing innocent women and children and making more people hate the US so much that would do violence to it.
January 7, 2007 - 10:18 PM on January 7th, 2007
“Basically, Clinton – correctly – beleived that brute military strength does little to counter the Terrorist threat, and in most cases makes it worse.”
“3 WTC bombing conspirators Ramzi Yousef, El Sayyid Nosair, Omar Abdel-Rahman, and Mahmud Abouhalima are all in jail. THAT’S how you take care of terrorists.”
Yeah, because we all know THAT prevented subsequent terrorist attacks. Yep, that stpopped what you described as “people hate the US so much that would do violence to it.”. Yep- stopped all that violence.
*cough*9/11*cough*
No, that isn’t how you take care of terrorists. We must cut off the state sponsored funding of such organizations.
January 7, 2007 - 10:22 PM on January 7th, 2007
“I think President Bush is an honest politician Ted and his reputation from Texas speaks of such honesty.”
I don’t.
“13- Not voting is not the answer and that is basically what will happen if you don’t support a candidate on the national level.”
Voting for them is definately not the answer. Thus far the status quo has been maintained by supporting them. This is on both sides of the isle- it is the rule, not the exception.
Give me one legitimate reason they deserve my vote. All that does is lend support to the problem. When I voted last, I thoiught I was voting for the lesser of two evils. But why should I vote for ANY evil?
January 8, 2007 - 02:07 AM on January 8th, 2007
#18 San Francisco Liberal: No, jail/prison is not the answer! That just sets up a situation for abuse and torture, like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo!!! A guard might KICK A KORAN!!!:shock: There might be an ethnically-sensitive meal served incorrectly!!!
No, the answer is just to ignore the terrorists. As you’ve pointed out yourself many times, the probability of us being a target of terrorists here is statistically infinitesimal. The numbers are so small in the scheme of things, that they are a write off. You made that argument and I agreed with it then, and I agree with it now!