Can Congress Get Our Money Back From AIG?

The news over the weekend about AIG and their hundreds of millions in bonuses have pissed a lot people off, including those in Congress. People like Barney Frank want the taxpayer dollars given back and it appears that Speaker Pelosi wants to get involved too.

From The Gavel:

While American workers see their wages decline and face record job losses, it is unconscionable that AIG, which is receiving more than $170 billion in government assistance, would permit such extravagant executive compensation practices without any accountability to the taxpayer.

I have asked Chairman Barney Frank of the House Financial Services Committee to examine options that are legally available to recover taxpayer funds of companies that abuse the privilege of taxpayer assistance.

I call upon the executives at AIG to right the wrong they have done to American taxpayers, who are footing the bill for the most expensive government rescue in history. They should renounce the bonuses and refuse the excessive retention pay they previously agreed to.

Congress, working with the Obama Administration, has put in place tough executive compensation and responsibility measures to ensure that taxpayers are protected and we will continue to take all action necessary to ensure transparency and accountability.

That sounds great, but examining what to do and actually doing it are two totally separate things. Congress has issued many strongly worded statements before with little punch behind them. For too long the Legislature has been great at handing out large sums of money (whether as tax cuts for the rich or blocks of money known as "bailouts" and "rescue packages"). When it comes to watching what happens with that money and making sure it is effective is another matter. AIG isn't going to part with our billions easily, so Congress must act forcefully...and not just on the Speaker's letterhead.

Rachel Maddow Shows Us What Real Journalism Looks Like

No, it isn't just letting politicians say whatever they want while you nod your head diligently. Allow Rachel to take it from here:

Pelosi:"Equal pay is an issue of fundamental fairness"

When it comes to this bill, Nancy Pelosi knows what she's talking about. For Congress to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act quickly is a great start to this new session.

Michelle Bachmann Believes Jesus Saved Us From Global Warming

There are so many lunatics on the radical right and at times it is hard to choose just who is the wackiest of the bunch. Well for right now at least, I award the top wacko award to Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, yes, that Michelle Bachmann. With so many Republicans that stuck around the Capitol to whine about the Democrats not giving away sweetheart deals to oil companies, it seems she wanted to stick out. Like a good Republican, she attacked Majority Leader Pelosi, but to her credit at least she didn't talk about hanging her. Instead, she stuck with global warming and mixed in a little bit of Jesus.

From TPM:

We like to keep track of the, er, intriguing sayings of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, the Christian Right champion from Minnesota. But this latest is really out there -- Bachmann says we don't need pesky environmentalists like Nancy Pelosi around, because Jesus already saved the planet!

"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet," Bachmann told the right-wing news site OneNewsNow. "We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that."

Umm, umm, uhhhhh. What the hell do you say to that? It's kinda like hearing Britney Spears say we should just follow the President without question. That my friends, is a giant brick wall and nothing is getting through that amount of thick headedness. Back in reality, global warming is doing untold damage and Republicans like Bachmann could care less.

Nancy Pelosi At Netroots Nation LIVE! Al Gore Too!!!!

Break out the popcorn!



Honestly though, despite everything she's done, I give her props for coming out to talk to us this morning.

Thank god Al Gore showed up to save Pelosi from her bloviating!

Could We Prosecute Bushies For War Crimes

Rachel Maddow asks the question and backs it up with news from the Red Cross who wants Bush officials to be tried for their crimes in the war against Iraq. And now we see there is some small movement on the Hill from Pelosi that Kucinich may get some time to discuss impeachment.

Congress Compromises The Constitution

I wasn't surprised that every single Republican in the House voted to spit on the Constitution and give the telcos (and George Bush) a get out of jail free card. Spying on American citizens without cause and with no regard for the fourth amendment isn't shocking considering Bush's record thus far. What was sad, dismaying and atrocious was that more half of the Democratic caucus went along with it and have the audacity to claim it is a good bill.

From FireDogLake:

...and the drip, drip, dripping away of our civil liberties continues. The vote was 293 Yays, 129 Nays. As Glenn says:

Today, the House leadership has set aside a grand total of one hour to debate the FISA/amnesty bill, and gave its members less than 24 hours from the time it was released yesterday until they have to vote on it today. That's the same bill which the NYT this morning calls "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years." They're going to enact massive changes to our spying laws without having the slightest idea what they're voting on. All they know is that the President demanded this, and that's enough, because -- as Kit Bond says -- "when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do." In this formulation, "the government" means "The President."

You can register your disgust here...we're well over $250,000 and climbing....

UPDATE: The vote tally on this is not yet up on the House website. But I've confirmed the numbers that the total votes was as follows: 293 yes -129 no. Also that the majority of the House Dems voted no - 105 voted yes, 128 voted no. As soon as there is a full vote tally, will get a direct link up and running for everyone.

UPDATE #2: Vote tally just went up for the roll call vote on HR 6304. You can find the full list of yays and nays here.

Well at least my Congresswoman didn't vote for it, if that is any consolation for the constituents of NY-14. Still, everyone here on the East Side of New York, clear across to the west side of San Diego will suffer from this legislation. Congress collectively told us that our Bill of Rights doesn't matter and that they really don't care what we think about retroactive immunity for lawbreakers.

Congressman Wexler Stands Up To FISA Capitulation

As I said earlier, the deal hatched in Congress by the Democratic leadership was ominous but not set in stone until it gets voted on tomorrow. Therefore there is some, albeit slim, maneuvering room to try and thwart this despicable legislation before it is allowed into George Bush's dirty hands. While conservative Democrats and those in the leadership may try to bend over for George Bush, there are plenty that aren't. One of those is Congressman Robert Wexler.

From Congressman Wexler:

I cannot in good conscience support the so-called FISA “compromise” bill, as the only thing that is really being compromised is our civil rights.

In spite of the earnest hard work of many Members of Congress, the President has continued to demand that Congress rubber-stamp his illegal wiretapping program.

Every American wants to protect our country from terrorists; but, the President is not asking for tools to thwart terrorists. He is demanding unchecked power. He expects the Congress to throw out even the most modest, expedited court review on the absurd premise that a specially designed court with over 30 years of experience handling surveillance requests is suddenly going to bring our nation’s intelligence operations to a standstill.

The rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability needed. A court that is given full and appropriate review of the particular circumstances in each case is the only appropriate venue for making decisions about immunity for actions that may or may not have violated the civil liberties of some individuals.

In addition, while I am sympathetic to the difficult position telephone and Internet service providers, who may have thought they were doing their patriotic duty, the fact remains that I simply cannot support offering retroactive immunity. I have had the opportunity to view some of the documents in question, and I can say that my position on this subject is unchanged.

I will continue to support the March 14th House bill that preserves the appropriate court review of all surveillance of US citizens and gives judges the discretion to review all the necessary documents related to telecom lawsuits without offering blanket immunity.

- Congressman Robert Wexler

I don't know about having sympathies for the telephone and ISPs, but he is right on the issue. There is no compromise in that legislation, only capitulation. It'll be a sad day if this passes, because it is blatantly wrong and immoral. Imagine if you broke the law and everyone knew you did so, you'd go to jail depending on the severity of the crime, right? Not so in this case, helping the right people (the Bush Administration) can get you off scot-free. This is unacceptable in our democracy, and I'm glad there are people like Congressman Robert Wexler that will fight to stop this. Since he blogged this on DailyKos, I sure hope he knows about how to stall using this other excellent DailyKos-frontpaged article.

Pelosi And Hoyer Bend Over For Bush And Telco Amnesty

Much to the chagrin of many Democratic House members and all Americans that respect the Constitution, the Democratic leadership and many conservatives on both sides of the aisle are putting the finishing touches on a bill that will give the telcos the immunity they want. George Bush is a happy man today, because despite his abysmal ratings as a President, the cowardly Democrats still bent over for his willful disregard of the laws in our country. Along with his accomplices (AT&T, Verizon, etc) he broke the law and spied on Americans, not caring about their fourth amendment rights. Instead of holding him and the companies accountable, Congress is just going to rewrite the law so it'll be legal, retroactively.

From TPM:

From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- After more than a year of partisan acrimony over government surveillance powers, Democratic and Republican leaders have agreed to a bipartisan deal that would be the most sweeping rewrite of spy powers in three decades. The House is likely to vote on the measure Friday, House aides said.

Removing the final barrier to action on the measure, which has been hashed out in recent weeks by senior lawmakers in both parties, House Democratic leaders decided to allow a vote on the bill, despite the opposition of many in their party.

The new agreement broadens the authority to spy on people in the U.S. and provides conditional legal immunity to companies that helped the government eavesdrop after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to congressional aides in both parties.

Late Update: The deal-maker was offering immunity to the telecom companies who have already participated in the program.

Critical to sealing the deal was a compromise that would grant conditional immunity to telecommunications companies for assistance they provided from September 2001 through January 2007. If the companies can show a federal district court judge "substantial evidence" they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.

We haven't heard what "conditional" means.

Conditional means that as they long as they show the judge a note that George Bush said it was ok to spy on Americans for him, then they are in the clear. Basically this a free pass, a get out jail free card and a smack in the face to law-abiding citizens everywhere. These companies have hordes of lawyers that knew the wiretapping orders were against the law, but they decided to break the law anyway because the President said it was ok and that he'd have their back if anything went down. Not only does he have them covered, he has the cowardly, spineless Democratic leadership to help him with it.

Now the vote on the bill is actually tomorrow, so there is technically is still time before this becomes law. However, the chances of changing the minds of enough Democrats in time is a slim possibility. Regardless, make sure to call your Congress member and tell them not to vote for this shameful legislation.

Pelosi Stands Up For Fair Trade And Against Republicans

Today in Washington Congressional Republicans and the White House are whining that Speaker Nancy Pelosi played unfair by blocking a vote on a trade deal between the United States and Colombia. As usual when it comes to Republican tears and the truth, neither were anywhere near each other. What Pelosi did today was stop an unfair trade deal from going through that would have helped the pockets of the Colombian government and American corporations while screwing the workers of both countries.

From the AP:

"The president took action" in submitting the Colombia free trade agreement to Congress on Tuesday, she said. "I will take mine tomorrow." Pelosi said that Bush called her Monday to tell her he was sending the agreement to Congress.

The White House has aggressively pushed Congress to approve the trade deal with Colombia, arguing that helping a key ally in South America is in the political and security interests of the United States.

But most Democrats, backed by organized labor and some human rights groups, are against it. They have cited violence against union organizers in Colombia and have also made clear they won't consider further free trade agreements until legislation is passed to expand current programs to help American workers displaced by foreign trade.

Pelosi, at a news conference, said that if legislation approving the trade deal were taken up now, it would be defeated, "and what message would that send" to the Colombian people?

She denied that the rule change doomed action on the agreement this year, saying that "depends on the good faith in which we conduct these negotiations." The administration has been talking to Democrats about ways to help American workers. The House last year passed legislation to expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program that provides financial aid and training to people who lose jobs as a result of trade, but the White House threatened a presidential veto and the Senate never took it up.

Trading with our friends around the globe is certainly important, but how we trade should come first. Before George Bush became President our country was looked up at as a symbol of freedom and equality. We should demand that of our international trading practices as well as what goes on internally here at home. As Representatives Hale and Michaud said yesterday, they would be dead in Colombia for doing what they do with labor here in America. That needs to change before we agree to anything.

Did Speaker Pelosi Just Endorse Obama?

There have been rumors on which way her support was leaning in the last month or two, but yesterday's statement about an Obama-Clinton (or vice versa) from the Speaker gave further confirmation that she is a fan of Barack Obama and who knows, possibly giving an endorsement of the Senator from Illinois in due time.

From Boston TV:

(NECN) - Thinking a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket sounds too good to be true for Democrats? The Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California says you're right.

"I think that ticket either way is impossible," Pelosi told NECN's Alison King shortly after an environmental event in Waltham, Massachusetts today.

Pelosi cited comments made by Clinton officials that John McCain would be a better commander-in-chief as an example of why the 'dream ticket' wouldn't become a reality.

As for who she favors at this point, Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic National Convention in Denver, isn't tipping her hand.

"I'm uncommitted," she reiterated to Alison King.

But for hopes of a Clinton-Obama dream team, there's no subtlety.

"I wanted to be sure I didn't leave any ambiguity," she said.

Ambiguity eh? Interesting word choice Madam Speaker. Shutting down Hillary Clinton's statements about Obama as VP due to Clinton's praises of John McCain tell us more than we need to know Congresswoman.

Thank you!

Constitutional Showdown: Bush Vs democracy

Although the amount of time it took was surprising, the Bush Administration's lackey Michael Mukasey (a.k.a. United States Attorney General) handed back an all too expected response to Congress that he will not fulfill his duty to prosecute Miers and Bolten. When it comes down to it, Bushies will protect Bushies over the Constitution any day of the week. So what is Congress going to do about it?

From The Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

"The House shall do so promptly," she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

First off, Mukasey doesn't know shit other than subverting the rule of law. For him to decide what is right or wrong is ridiculous. If your goal is to thrash our system of government and install an autocratic dictator, then maybe you are on the right track. Its just, well, the American people might have something to say about that.

So anyway, this civil lawsuit will go to a judge sooner or later. Mukasey will argue that Miers and Bolten could not testify because the President said so. He obviously believes Bush has more power than the Congress, despite the fact that the United States was set up with three co-equal branches of government. This isn't a case that is hard to determine, it is a slam freakin dunk for Congress. All this does is delay the American people from hearing the truth about what Miers and Bolten did on behalf of the White House.

Oh and just in case you forgot what this whole brouhaha is about.....Bush and his cohorts had United States Attorneys fired for not prosecuting people based on the political beliefs of the Bush Administration. When several of the dismissed Attorneys came forward with what happened, Congress started asking questions and no one that is involved with doing the firing is answering. Finding out those answers could implicate Bush Administration officials in a crime. The American people deserve the answer, and those that violated any laws of our land must be held accountable. It is that simple.

Wow, Pelosi Actually Wrote The Letter

Congratulations Madam Speaker:

Washington, D.C. – Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, informing him of the referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor on contempt citations of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Taylor is required by law to bring the matter before a grand jury. However, Mukasey has indicated that the Justice Department intends to prevent Taylor from complying with the law.

“There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury,” she wrote.

“I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim,” she added.

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 979, which holds Miers and Bolten in contempt of their subpoenas.

You can read the letter via the link if you so choose, but this excerpt sums it up. Now the ball is in Mukasey's court. Will he comply with the Constitution, or continue being Bush's lackey? I'm going to go with the latter, you know, based on the last seven-plus years of this pathetic excuse of a Presidential Administration.

So once he ignores the letter, Pelosi will have the Judiciary Cmte (see Congressman Conyers) file a civil suit. This is the agreed upon action and it isn't even an idea hatched by Democrats. No, this one was concocted by no less than James Sensenbrenner, the Judiciary Cmte Chairman back when the GOP held the house.

Gee, look at that, Republicans actually do have some relevant ideas!

We All Knew This Was Going To Happen

The weekend has been a slow one for me in terms of news. Seeing old friends, driving down Candy Cane Lane, eating Latkes and enjoying the warm air of L.A. have all been priorities of mine in the last three days or so. However, I am sad to see that the Democrats cowered and caved yet again to George Bush. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are pathetic attempts of two human being to make difference in our government for the multitudes that helped give them power in the Congress last year. Completely, utterly, wholly.....pathetic.

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The White House budget director warned on Saturday that President Bush was prepared to veto a $500 billion spending package being assembled in Congress if Democrats pushed for too much additional money for domestic programs.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, accused Democrats of trying to tie money for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to what the president considers excessive spending for federal agencies and home-state projects.

“Instead of trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending, Congress ought to pass responsible appropriations bills and the funding for the troops our commanders say they need to build on their battlefield success,” Mr. Nussle said.

This is already after the Democrats agreed to give the President all that he wants for his war in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid are cowards. Yeller belly, goddamn cowards. These two people do not deserve to be in the leadership, they do not exhibit any of the requisite qualities of such positions. We need people with real guts to deal with out maniacal President and his cohorts that still exist on Capitol Hill.

For Mitch McConnell to have any kind of authority on the budget is ridiculous. The guy is looking like he'll have trouble keeping his own Senate seat next year, yet Democrats treat him and the President like the kids that'll beat them up for lunch money. Nancy and Harry have now failed three times to try and do something about the war that the people spoke to last year in the voting booth. I personally think three times is enough. When 2009 rolls around....and we still have our majority...those two need to be demoted.

It's Time To Come Home

It sounds good, but we'll see where this goes....

Colbert Goes Glamourous For Pelosi

Colbert may not be able to do his show with the WGA strike going on, but he did introduce Nancy Pelosi for Glamour Magazine's award show at Lincoln Center this week. At least I can see something funny from him while WGA fights it out with the studios.

S-CHIP Take Two

Once again, the House passed another, slightly adjusted form of S-CHIP. The bill would ensure that children in families that make less than three times the poverty level have health insurance. It sounds like good policy to make sure that our children stay healthy, but many Republicans seem to feel differently.

From The New York Times:

Supporters of the new bill said it addressed all the major concerns that prompted Republicans to oppose the earlier version. The measure, they said, would end coverage of childless adults, ban coverage of illegal immigrants and generally prohibit states from covering children in families with incomes above three times the poverty level — $61,950 for a family of four.

Ms. Pelosi said the restrictions on adults, illegal immigrants and high-income families were clear in the first bill and “are even clearer in the second bill.”

But Mr. Bush said his concerns had not been addressed “in a meaningful way.” He derided the new bill as “more of the same,” and many Republican lawmakers said the changes were insignificant.

“The new bill puts lipstick on a sow,” said Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York. “Today is raw politics — trotting out a vote just for the sake of a vote.”

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said, “This is nothing more than a political game, getting ready for the next election.”

One hundred and forty two Republican Congressmen and President Bush are more afraid of cigarette taxes, illegal immigrants and a solid government program that works than giving these benefits to our nation's children. Their excuses are sad and pathetic, as their records clearly show through the years. So why should this be any different? As long as their kids have insurance, they could give a damn about anyone else's, even their own constituents.

And as for Boehner's quote that this is nothing more than a political game....him and his party chose that road. They could have just made the smart choice for the kids and our country, but to them, everything is political.

Newsflash: Pelosi Has No Balls But Pete Stark Certainly Does

Anatomically speaking, this isn't earth-shattering news. What is a matter of importance is that Nancy Pelosi does not have the heart to stand up for her fellow Democrats when they speak from their heart. Fellow San Fran Bay Dem Pete Stark had harsh but justifiable words for the President and Republicans that opposed S-CHIP for its costs while pouring billions of money that we do not have for the war in Iraq. So what did the Majority Leader have to say?

From The Huffington Post:

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand _ providing health care for America's children," Pelosi said.

Stark's comment came as the House failed Thursday to override President Bush's veto of legislation to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark accused Republicans. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

After numerous Republicans called on him to apologize, Stark said it was they who should be apologizing, for failing to provide the votes to override Bush's veto.

Stark continued to stand up for himself and the American people want to see exactly that. Eighty-eight percent of those polled by CNN believe he should not succumb to right wing pressure by apologizing for his beliefs. This type of bullying by right wingers is the hypocritical code that they live by. Rush, Coulter, Hannity and the rest can trash libs all day long, but when a Dem does it back they get their panties in a wad.

Good for Stark and his continued perseverance, don't give up buddy.

Pelosi Admits Congress Isn't Doing Its Job

Speaker Pelosi made an appearance on the Sunday TV talk show circuit and the most important question that came up was about how Congress is dealing with the war. By and large, the majority came about because Americans want out of Iraq and they thought that Pelosi would help lead us out, yet nothing has changed yet. Even non-binding resolutions have trouble getting passed and our troops continue to die for an illegitimate war. So what does she have to say for herself?

From The Hill:

Pelosi said Democrats are “doing all we can to change the debate” but stressed that they do not have the kind of power that the White House has.

The speaker, in an interview aired on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” stated it was ironic that, as an outspoken opponent to the Iraq campaign, anti-war activists are targeting her now. However, Pelosi added that she understands and respects the frustrations of the Democratic base.

“We will continue to pass legislation to make that point [that the war should end],” she said. “And we happen to be blocked by a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, but the public doesn’t want -- care about that. They just want us to end the war.”

Thats right, we want you to end the war Madame Speaker. Although she said herself she would not give Congress high marks on its performance to end the war, she shifted the blame on the White House (deservedly) and the fact that the Senate is not filibuster-proof.

Frankly, that is not good enough. Ending the war can be as simple as not funding it. Yet Pelosi and other Dems are too cowardly to take such a principled stance. They would rather cower in fear of Bush's empty rhetoric and Senate Republicans' threats to filibuster, even though they haven't done so yet. If Pelosi wants a passing grade, she might want to take a look at defunding the war...while Congress still has the power of the purse.

It's Official, Sheehan Running For Congress

California's 8th district has been a lock for Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi since she was first elected Congresswoman in 1986. It is especially helpful that the boundaries are solely wrapped around San Francisco, the beautiful city Bill O'Reilly loves to hate. Now there is a famous challenger in the race for the 111th Congress next year. The challenge isn't from the right, but from the left. Cindy Sheehan has given up on the two party system and is running as the anti-war independent that she represents so well.

From The International Herald Tribune:

SAN FRANCISCO: A tearful Cindy Sheehan cited her son, killed in Iraq, as her inspiration as she announced her candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives against Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker.

Sheehan last month said she intended to run against Pelosi, the House speaker, if the San Francisco congresswoman did not move to impeach President George W. Bush by July 23.

Sheehan said Thursday that Pelosi had "protected the status quo" of the corporate elite and had lost touch with people in her district, most of whom want American troops out of Iraq.

Pelosi is a relatively good Democrat, but as Speaker of the House she has tremendous powers to get things moving. Announcing impeachment off the table was a serious blow to many people who helped her ascend to the Speakership by voting Republicans out of office across the country.

Not acting against Bush may have been a 'political' move to help the Congress get stuff done, but ultimately without a veto-proof majority, Bush kills almost every good bill that they produce. The rest of what they come up with are weak compromises with Republicans that do not reflect the will of the American people.

Now there is a woman that is willing to do what it takes to get our troops out of Iraq. No one doubts she has the motivation for it, vilified by Republicans and even some Democrats, she is still a symbol of the peace movement in this country. Her chances according to conventional wisdom are slim to none, especially with the power and the resources that Pelosi possesses. Nevertheless, Cindy was brave enough to stand up to the President back when he was popular, and she continues to speak out for what is right, not what is 'political.'