Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 176
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I wonder if the "base" really supports this though? I haven't seen any polls on it, but I should think the moderate Dems would be largely opposed. If not, well they're just setting themselves up for losing the elections in 2008 if you ask me. They've given the GOP all of the fodder they'll need to make plenty of hay this coming election (in terms of distracting the public away from their equally, if not more, abysmal record when they had a monopoly on all branches).
    aside from Armenian-Americans & Turkish-Americans, and the Turks of Turkey -- this issue is beyond obscure.

    The average american thinks that Turkey is where their Thanksgiving dinner comes from. How many have even heard the word Armenia, never mind understanding anything about the place, the people, or the story behind it.

    Domestically this is a non-event, except for those few constituents who REALLY care about it.

    And as I've written earlier, the Turkish problem is far deeper and more complex than this Congressional resolution.

    Do I think this resolution is helpful ?? No. Is it morally right ?? Probably. Would I vote for it ?? If I had constituents and contributors who cared about it, yes.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I wonder if the "base" really supports this though? I haven't seen any polls on it, but I should think the moderate Dems would be largely opposed. If not, well they're just setting themselves up for losing the elections in 2008 if you ask me. They've given the GOP all of the fodder they'll need to make plenty of hay this coming election (in terms of distracting the public away from their equally, if not more, abysmal record when they had a monopoly on all branches).
    I think you might have misunderstood me.

    No, the democratic "base" does not even care about it, much less support it. This is not about Democratic politics, this is about California politics. While the Speaker of the House of Representatives is a national office, in the line of succession to the Presidency, Ms. Pelosi runs only in California. The Armenians in California do care. Indeed, this fight is central to their identities as Armenians. It is what unites them to their heritage, as the English treatment of the Irish link the Irish.

    This resolution only got on the agenda because the Speaker of the House happens to be from California. That created a chance for Ms Pelosi to give something to her local constituency that she thought the "base" would not miss.
  3.    #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    aside from Armenian-Americans & Turkish-Americans, and the Turks of Turkey -- this issue is beyond obscure.

    The average american thinks that Turkey is where their Thanksgiving dinner comes from. How many have even heard the word Armenia, never mind understanding anything about the place, the people, or the story behind it.

    Domestically this is a non-event, except for those few constituents who REALLY care about it.

    And as I've written earlier, the Turkish problem is far deeper and more complex than this Congressional resolution.

    Do I think this resolution is helpful ?? No. Is it morally right ?? Probably. Would I vote for it ?? If I had constituents and contributors who cared about it, yes.
    Well since they are to represent the majority of their consituents, not necessarily those in the minority, then I'd expect they would vote no. I don't believe for a minute that the base in large part supports the timing of this issue...or as you've alluded to, even knows or cares beyond that. We shall see soon enough how much influence the extreme left has in the Democratic party. I cannot imagine main stream Dems pushing for this thing.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    ...........Do I think this resolution is helpful ?? No. Is it morally right ?? Probably. Would I vote for it ?? If I had constituents and contributors who cared about it, yes.
    Agreed but the real reason that the resolution received so many votes was as a courtesy to the Speaker on an issue about which her constituency cared a great deal but others cared nothing. Even Ms. Pelosi was surprised by the push-back but she is committed.

    "All politics is local."
  5.    #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I think you might have misunderstood me.
    Not really. I was just asking, as I really don't know how much the base cares. That said, I agree with you and Barye that it probably isn't much of an issue for most Dems.

    No, the democratic "base" does not even care about it, much less support it. This is not about Democratic politics, this is about California politics. While the Speaker of the House of Representatives is a national office, in the line of succession to the Presidency, Ms. Pelosi runs only in California. The Armenians in California do care. Indeed, this fight is central to their identities as Armenians. It is what unites them to their heritage, as the English treatment of the Irish link the Irish.

    This resolution only got on the agenda because the Speaker of the House happens to be from California. That created a chance for Ms Pelosi to give something to her local constituency that she thought the "base" would not miss.
    While I feel for the Armenians, the timing for something like this to appease such a small facet of her constituency is awfully misguided IMO if your assumptions prove true. Fortunately I think they'll be kept in check by the base but the damage to her reputation has taken yet another beating as far as I'm concerned.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Absolutely, but what it does forbid is "negotiating" with a foreign government (unless explicitly authorized by the President to do so).

    I think samkim alluded to that fact.

    There seems to be a history of a liason between Nixon, to Mitchell, to Chenault, to the South Vietnamese at some point during the closing weeks of the election. I am not sure this is any worse than Johnson halting bombing so Humphrey can do better on election night (which is something I mentioned earlier).

    But what we do know is that there was nothing covert about Pelosi's mission - and that places it into another catagory of arrogance altogether.
    please understand that because of my advanced age and foreign birth, I'm rather slow sometimes at understanding what you write.

    But if I'm not mistaken, my weak brain seems to think that what you're saying is that what Pelosi did was wrong, because it was in the open and was intended to help save soldiers lives.

    And what Nixon & Co. did was O.K. because it was in secret -- and was at the cost of only another 30,000 or so american soldiers.

    And that what LBJ and Humprhey were doing as President and Vice President to attempt to end the war was wrong, because ending the war might have given an advantage to Humphrey over Nixon, who deserved to be President much more.

    c'est vrai, n'est pas ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    please understand that because of my advanced age and foreign birth, I'm rather slow sometimes at understanding what you write.

    But if I'm not mistaken, my weak brain seems to think that what you're saying is that what Pelosi did was wrong, because it was in the open and was intended to help save soldiers lives.
    What Nixon did was something that amounted to backstage political maneuvering, which is something that happens all the time. Correct, or not, it is part of the political landscape

    (See the 1961 election, for example)

    What Pelosi did was above board because her sole intent was to undermine the President in a very public way and gain personal political points in the process. That is a no-no, and indeed, she has paid for her indiscretion dearly.

    And what Nixon & Co. did was O.K. because it was in secret -- and was at the cost of only another 30,000 or so american soldiers.
    This, of course, is pure speculation - as the peace was far from assured.

    And that what LBJ and Humprhey were doing as President and Vice President to attempt to end the war was wrong, because ending the war might have given an advantage to Humphrey over Nixon, who deserved to be President much more.
    Perhaps the proper characterization was that LBJ responded to Humphrey's desperation and decided to help the man at the ballot box by stopping the bombing.

    I do not think anyone believes LBJ wanted to end the war without an American victory.

    c'est vrai, n'est pas ??
    Truth? We doh nee no stinkin' truth?!
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    please understand that because of my advanced age and foreign birth, I'm rather slow sometimes at understanding what you write.

    But if I'm not mistaken, my weak brain seems to think that what you're saying is that what Pelosi did was wrong, because it was in the open and was intended to help save soldiers lives.

    And what Nixon & Co. did was O.K. because it was in secret -- and was at the cost of only another 30,000 or so american soldiers.

    And that what LBJ and Humprhey were doing as President and Vice President to attempt to end the war was wrong, because ending the war might have given an advantage to Humphrey over Nixon, who deserved to be President much more.

    c'est vrai, n'est pas ??
    Nixon's treasonous actions prior to the '68 election are completely dissimilar to this issue with Pelosi. As whmurray said, all politics is local. Each and every House or Senate member, who represent constituents with cultural and economic interests which go beyond US borders, go abroad, negotiate on behalf of their consituency, and deliver the goods. While some easily threatened types may feel that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant with dinner served on-time, they're still in denial about the Earth no longer being flat also.

    As for the Syria trip, what you won't hear from the false indignant Righties is that they ignore the fact that a Republican-led delegation met with Assad on April 1

    In addition, as published by the Washington Post:
    “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Pelosi herself has “described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA),” and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post’s own reporting also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years.
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #149  
    I believe it has been fully established that members of Congress are free to visit whoever they want as long as they do not 'propose policy'.

    The natural question, of course, to the fact challenged, "say anything" crowd, would be what "cultural and economic" interests was Pelosi intending on representing on her trip to Damascus?

    I think the only thing proven here is that there are a few Republicans who are as misguided as Nancy Pelosi is. (By the way, there were three Republican Congressman on that delegation - and they were all, rightly, criticized by the White House.)

    Of course, a bit of critical thought leads one to a certain conclusion: a few joy-riding members of Congress can only do so much damage. Pelosi, however, is the highest profile member of Congress who has the majority. She is the Speaker of the House, not Secretary of State.

    Ultimately, what Pelosi (and Wolf) produced from their respective trips amounts to nothing - which, of course, says quite a bit about the piece of work Assad is aside from the naivety of those US officials who think they can get anything constructive out of him.

    As a sidenote to Pelosi trip, did she not go to Damascus right after the refused to let the house vote on a resolution to condemn the kidnapping of 15 British sailors by Iran?

    Why yes.....I believe she did.

    So there you have it. It is far more important to address a atrocity that occured in 1915 than it is to address the crimes of today.
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/30/2007 at 07:04 AM.
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I believe it has been fully established that members of Congress are free to visit whoever they want as long as they do not 'propose policy'.

    The natural question, of course, to the fact challenged, "say anything" crowd, would be what "cultural and economic" interests was Pelosi intending on representing on her trip to Damascus?

    I think the only thing proven here is that there are a few Republicans who are as misguided as Nancy Pelosi is. (By the way, there were three Republican Congressman on that delegation - and they were all, rightly, criticized by the White House.)

    Of course, a bit of critical thought leads one to a certain conclusion: a few joy-riding members of Congress can only do so much damage. Pelosi, however, is the highest profile member of Congress who has the majority. She is the Speaker of the House, not Secretary of State.

    Ultimately, what Pelosi (and Wolf) produced from their respective trips amounts to nothing - which, of course, says quite a bit about the piece of work Assad is aside from the naivety of those US officials who think they can get anything constructive out of him.

    As a sidenote to Pelosi trip, did she not go to Damascus right after the refused to let the house vote on a resolution to condemn the kidnapping of 15 British sailors by Iran?

    Why yes.....I believe she did.

    So there you have it. It is far more important to address a atrocity that occured in 1915 than it is to address the crimes of today.
    Since you so often write with your tongue in your cheek, I am reluctant to endorse even what I agree with. In this case, I will take you literally and say, hear! Hear!
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    please understand that because of my advanced age and foreign birth, I'm rather slow sometimes at understanding what you write.

    But if I'm not mistaken, my weak brain seems to think that what you're saying is that what Pelosi did was wrong, because it was in the open and was intended to help save soldiers lives.
    No, without regard to her motives, it was wrong because she did, under color of her high office, what the law and the proper authority forbade her to do.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    No, without regard to her motives, it was wrong because she did, under color of her high office, what the law and the proper authority forbade her to do.
    What is the legal justification for your claim (beside broadsided generalities of 'this area of responsibility under this authority')? If such a law exists which forbids the specific actions which Pelosi undertook, which clearly underscores the alleged crime committed, I would appreciate if this could be responsibly addressed. Underscoring the traditional 'duties', 'traditions', etc of the Speaker's role simply do not measure up to a case for illegality. To cite any area of the US Constitution would demand that case law be presented to further define that legal precedent has been established to define Pelosi's actions while abroad, as 'criminal'.

    Please note that this is not an attempt to argue for argument's sake, but an attempt to allow for intelligent discussion which proves that oft repeated allegations either actually have legs or do not. Thanks.
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    ....... Would I vote for it ?? If I had constituents and contributors who cared about it, yes.
    I think that you would vote for it if the leader of your caucus, the Speaker, asked you to and you believed that your constituents did not care and would not notice. I think that is what happened here.

    Responding favorably to a request from the Speaker, on an issue important to her, goes beyond mere legislative courtesy and beyond party discipline. It goes to advancing one's own political and personal agenda. In some cases, depending upon how ruthless and unforgiving the Speaker, it may go to political survival.

    This was not a "far-left" issue. On most issues the Orange County Armenians are quite conservative. It was not even a Democratic issue. A Republican Speaker from California (at least one with a Democratic President) would have done the same thing and carried his caucus. Ms Pelosi did this because she is from California, not because she is "far left" or because she is a Democrat. Of course, the opportunity to put a President from the opposing party against historical justice for "an oppressed minority" was icing on the cake.
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    What is the legal justification for your claim (beside broadsided generalities of 'this area of responsibility under this authority')? .......
    Please see post #124.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I think that you would vote for it if the leader of your caucus, the Speaker, asked you to and you believed that your constituents did not care and would not notice. I think that is what happened here.

    Responding favorably to a request from the Speaker, on an issue important to her, goes beyond mere legislative courtesy and beyond party discipline. It goes to advancing one's own political and personal agenda. In some cases, depending upon how ruthless and unforgiving the Speaker, it may go to political survival.

    This was not a "far-left" issue. On most issues the Orange County Armenians are quite conservative. It was not even a Democratic issue. A Republican Speaker from California (at least one with a Democratic President) would have done the same thing and carried his caucus. Ms Pelosi did this because she is from California, not because she is "far left" or because she is a Democrat. Of course, the opportunity to put a President from the opposing party against historical justice for "an oppressed minority" was icing on the cake.
    I agree with all that you wrote
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Please see post #124.
    You well know that that post does not address, in any realistic sense outside of an internet forum, what criminal actions were undertaken by Pelosi. Furthermore, no legal precedent has been established to support the allegations made here, no validation of any documented case law or legal precedent via the Appeals process. Where's the beef? If it exists, I'd genuinely like to read up.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #157  
    I seem to recall someone saying that the actions of Nixon during the '68 campaign were "treasonous", which is not only a legal charge - but a serious one to boot..

    I, too, would like to see the "beef" behind this allegation as well.
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    This was not a "far-left" issue. On most issues the Orange County Armenians are quite conservative.
    Are you saying that Orange County Armenians are responsible for the inclusion of this non-binding resolution? If not, why bring them up since Pelosi's 8th Congressional District is far to the north?

  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    You well know that that post does not address, in any realistic sense outside of an internet forum, what criminal actions were undertaken by Pelosi. Furthermore, no legal precedent has been established to support the allegations made here, no validation of any documented case law or legal precedent via the Appeals process. Where's the beef? If it exists, I'd genuinely like to read up.
    I've not read anything either -- but I'm dubious of how the 3rd ranked constitutional officer, head of an independent co-equal part of the government, and a member of an opposition party, could be seen as breaking any law
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I seem to recall someone saying that the actions of Nixon during the '68 campaign were "treasonous", which is not only a legal charge - but a serious one to boot..

    I, too, would like to see the "beef" behind this allegation as well.
    how would you describe the acts of private citizens who sabotaged the potential for a negotiated peace for their own material benefit ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions