MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Bumped -- Jonathan

Yesterday morning, Wednesday June 20, I had the opportunity to sit down for a few minutes with the Speaker of the United States House, Nancy Pelosi.

During the interview, which immediately followed Speaker Pelosi's speech at the Take Back America conference, we covered some of the questions you raised as well as some that had been in my mind for some time, touching on issues ranging from Iraq to global warming to immigration reform. You can listen to the audio of the conversation below, download it as a very large .mp3 here, or read the rush transcript below:


powered by ODEO

Jonathan Singer: You talked about the real need to have 60 votes in the Senate and perhaps even 67 and 290 in the House to override the President and get things done. Even understanding that, given the fact that the standing of Congress has declined since Iraq has really been on the table in Congress, do you feel like something else should have been done? You could have taken different steps? Or what does it tell you about moving forward?

Nancy Pelosi: I believe that we're right on course. We had the votes to say that there are timelines and the President had to honor them. The President vetoed the bill. There isn't much more you can do after that.

But we have changed the debate in our country. Going into the spring, nobody thought we would ever be able to put a bill on the President's desk. So we did that. He had the veto and we didn't win. So we have at it now, our next appropriations bill, which will be in the fall. But we'll have an array of initiatives in addition to appropriations.

But the fact is I didn't vote for the supplemental. I thought it was very weak. But it did have Republican thresholds that the President is either going to have to respond to or he is going to have to waive. And I think he has a considerable risk in either case.

But, no, I'm very proud of what we've done in the Congress. I know outside people are dissatisfied. And I am too. I would have liked him to sign the bill and bring the troops home. But that's not where he is. And he's not respecting the wish of the American people in that regard.

But we're right on schedule. Nobody thought we would get a bill on the President's desk and we did. And now we're on our path to--


Singer: So on this path, what are the next steps?

Pelosi: We have a number of options, but the timing will relate to when we think it's best to do them. One will be to repeal the authority of the President's ability to conduct the war. Another will be to have appropriations similar to the McGovern resolution that says that our troops come home, except to fight Al Qaeda, protect our diplomats and train the Iraqis. A much, much, much smaller number of troops would be needed for that.

Initiatives that would put timelines, put timelines, once again put timelines. But it's a different bill. So in terms of just keeping sending the same bill, it's a different bill that we would send the President, one that he would have more incentive, I believe, to sign hopefully because the voices of the American people will finally reach him.

Singer: Now thus far in the Congress, Democratic unity has been at an all-time high. A lot of this is because the issues that have been most controversial within the caucus have kind of been held out for later, perhaps. Minimum wage is an issue upon which almost every Democrat agrees. But some other issues, let's say the Farm Bill or global warming initiatives, there is more division within the party. How do you foresee and how do you intend to take these bills up?

Pelosi: These bills are coming up. These bills are coming through the committee process. I requested all the committees of jurisdiction have legislation to me by June for the first phase of our energy independence package. And by September we'll have more of the global warming piece of that. So we're right on schedule. The Farm Bill is going to be marked up maybe next week. The subcommittee marked it up yesterday. It's right on target.

But we passed other bills like the Hate Crimes Bill. Nobody thought that we would get the kind of vote that we got for hate crimes, especially because we have for the first time gays, lesbians, transgender. This was a very progressive hate crimes legislation, which many people said to me, "Pull it, you'll never pass it." And I said, "Well, we're going to fight for it." And we did. And we won.

So it hasn't been... Certainly we have tried to pass things where there was bipartisan support so we could demonstrate that we can work together and that we're relevant to the lives of the American people. Stem cell research, minimum wage, repealing the subsidies to big oil to have the funds to do renewable energy, cutting in half the interest on student loans - those had broad support but they were not done in a Republican Congress.

But again many of the issues that we will bring up will be controversial within our caucus and within the Congress, but we will make the fight.

Singer: So when there is division within the caucus, or controversy or even just differences of opinions, will there be an opportunity of a large minority of the caucus, let's say, or even a majority, let's say on an issue where a committee chairman does not maybe see eye-to-eye with the majority of the caucus, will there be an opportunity for an open rule or a vote on a substitute?

Pelosi: Well, we'll judge them all... I have my criteria on all of the issues.  For example on global warming/energy independence, the criteria that I've asked the chairmen to honor are: Does it reduce energy [dependence]? Does it turn around global warming? Not only stop but reverse global warming? Does it invest in the technologies to make these two things happen? And it of course must all be done in a no new deficit, paygo way.

So they have the standards. So this is to make us less dependent, live in a healthier environment, keeping America number one with the technologies to effect the first two. The bills have to meet those standards. Those are the standards of our caucus.

If you go to anything on the economy, does it make the economy fairer? Again any initiative must be paid for. Does it make the economy fairer? Is it relevant to the lives of the American people? And to that end we did minimum wage, we did card check, that is Employee Free Choice Act. We will have a progressive economic agenda that will precede our votes on trade and possibly immigration - I'm not sure what the timing will be, depends on the Senate on immigration.

So we know why we're Democrats. And again sometime there are regional differences on some issues. But by and large we have a very strong unity in the caucus.

Singer: You brought up the issue of immigration. Is there a feeling that there should be a bill passed through the Senate first? I know that there are some issues with tax that there's a feeling that a bill would need to be passed in the House first.

Pelosi: Yeah, on taxes. That's different. By law, certain bills must begin in the House. The immigration bill has begun in the Senate, and if they can pass a bill then we will take it up. And I'm optimistic now that there's a chance that they will be able to get a bill out. It all depends on the leadership of the President. If he cares enough about it, which I believe he does, then the Senate will pass comprehensive, bipartisan immigration legislation.

We'll watch it very carefully to see what it is and see what we can do to either improve upon it or possibly reject it. But again, it has to meet certain standards. We have our standards. We've put them out there. Secure our borders, workplace enforcement, protect our workers, non-exploitation of the people coming in and a path to legalization for the millions of people in the United States now. Central to all of that is family unification, which has always been one of our principles.

So there's no mystery to what our standards are on all of these different categories. And so when you talk about the caucus, we welcome the debate. Our caucus is very diverse geographically, politically in many ways. But we have been united on everything we have set out to do. And we will continue to be because we agree on these basic principles. Our bills have to meet certain standards. And that consensus has been developed by the caucus.

Singer: Just one final question. If there's one message that you'd like to send to the netroots today, to the progressive blogosphere, what would that message be?

Pelosi: The one message, the biggest issue for me in this Congress is to end the war, to bring the troops home. I'm as disappointed as anyone that that hasn't happened yet. There's 60 votes needed in the Senate, a President's signature that's needed to change what's happening in Iraq. But we cannot let those obstacles be barriers to our changing the course there.

So my message to the netroots at this point would be, let's work together to show that unity with the American people, who want this war to end, to convince the Congress and the President that it has to come to an end.

We cannot wait until November 2008 or January 2009. It's too far away. Too many lives will be lost. Too much reputation for our country will be destroyed. But we have to act soon. It's long overdo. But we have to work now. And I fully appreciate the frustration of the netroots on the war. I share it. And as I say, let's work together to change the thinking of those forty-some people that we have to win ten over in order to end the war.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much for your time.

Pelosi: Thank you Jonathan.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Tags: 110th congress, farm bill, Global Warming, immigration, Interview, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

There she goes again

There's 60 votes needed in the Senate, a President's signature that's needed to change what's happening in Iraq.
That's simply false: the relevant number is 218. If 218 members of the House decided to stop funding after a date certain, the debacle will end.

by andgarden 2007-06-21 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: There she goes again

I'm constantly struck by how weak the Democrats act in comparison to Republicans!

For instance, when Newt Gingrich came up with the "Contract on America" as a marketing tactic it resulted in a turnover in Congress in '84 that was certainly less significant than what happened in 2006!

Most people never knew what was IN the contract and most items in it were never supported by a majority of Americans. But that never stopped Gingrich!

The Republicans immediately started acting like they had a veto-proof majority and started claiming a "mandate" to act in defiance of the President.

The Republican party immediately controlled the agenda and forced President Clinton onto the defensive. It wasn't until Gingrich over-reached by shutting down government if Clinton refused to agree to their budget that their power broke.

In short, ACTING like a governing party instead of like a 98 pound weakling is key!

All it would take would be to pass the same damn bill over and over and over again and let him veto it again and again. Do EXACTLY what Republicans would do in your shoes, ram it down his throat and conduct a constant media campaign about how intransigent Bush is to continually veto "what the people want" and "we won the election, elections have consequences" "the American people expect us to bring the war to a conclusion."

The American people SUPPORT the position taken by Congressional Democrats, to set timelines to bring the troops home, so why is there this assumption that "there's nothing we could do"?

That's WEAKLING thinking! It tells everybody that Democrats are NOT a serious governing party because they won't FIGHT for anything, even when they're right and even when the American people overwhelmingly support them!

I send my Senator Salazar e-mails and he send me back letters bleating about "bi-partisanship" and how "Democrats and Republicans need to work together to find a solution" to the Iraq war.

Would Republicans be whining about "bi-partisanship" in such a weak-kneed manner if they were in the majority? They insisted in only passing bills supported by the "majority of the majority." Republicans are only interested in pretending to do something while actually lining up with Bush in favor of his endless war!

If Democrats want to end the war they can't just roll over and say "Bush is too tough for us and the Republicans won't play fair, so we'll have to do what he wants and fund the war for another 6 months!"

Nothing is going to change in September, except that we'll have a lying ridiculous report from Gen. Petraeus saying "we're making encouraging progress" or some such B.S. and then Bush and the Republicans will all say "See! We're winning! Democrats want to abandon our troops at the very hour of victory! We need another 6 months!"

What will Democrats do then? Give Bush another 6 months and whine about it like the pathetic losers they insist on being?

by Cugel 2007-06-21 08:07AM | 0 recs
so..

we should become what we hate?

Maybe we should also do as the rethugs did and not allow them to say or do anything, no committee meetings, send them to the basement, etc.

We knew about it and screamed about it, the press knew about it and did little.

I think Pelosi is smarter about the tactics needing to be used then most of us.

by kevin22262 2007-06-21 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing but Softballs

Why even bother to do the interview if you were going to serve her softball questions? You had the opportunity to step up to the plate and behaved like a MSMer at his/her best.

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-06-21 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing but Softballs

Agreed and judging by many other comments like this in the diary it seems a sizeable amount of the rest of the community here agrees too. You didn't ask her about trade? When the Rangel/Rahm secret trade agreement is such a huge issue you don't ask a question about it? This interview was very disappointing.

If limits were proscribed in advance and you had to agree in order to get the interview then you should have said "thanks, but no thanks" and written a diary about how the Speaker wasn't willing to talk about trade and what votes there are and aren't to out-right cut off funding. If we want surface level fluff we can get that elsewhere. That's not why people come to mydd, it's not what we expect from you when you're interviewing someone on the communitity's behalf.

by Quinton 2007-06-22 09:03AM | 0 recs
so...

we should become what we hate?

Maybe we should also do as the rethugs did and not allow them to say or do anything, no committee meetings, send them to the basement, etc.

We knew about it and screamed about it, the press knew about it and did little.

I think Pelosi is smarter about the tactics needing to be used then most of us.

by kevin22262 2007-06-21 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: so...

If you think that a committed attachment to cutting taxes is the same as a committed attachment to ending this occupation, then yes, we should become what we hate. If you see just a tiny sliver of difference between those two things, you won't think this is really a problem.

The Republicans have done a fantastic jobs with lavishly-funded partisan think-tanks. Does this mean we should avoid such things? You can admire how someone fights--and even try to learn from them--while decrying their goals. I can't believe that's even the slightest bit controversial.

by BingoL 2007-06-21 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Evidently the American public isn't buying this B.S. on Iraq any more than a lot of us are. Public support of Congress is now 14% and if the Dems continue on their capitulation path, I can see that percentage falling to a single digit.

Really glad that I wasted all that time and money to help get the Dems a majority so that they could squander it by leaving the troops to die in Iraq and lose their majority position because of their cowardly actions.  

by MOBlue 2007-06-21 08:40AM | 0 recs
Interview with Nancy Pelosi
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....
They/she thinks we're stupid.
by dkmich 2007-06-21 08:48AM | 0 recs
Very Dissapointing

Jonathan:

Why such a softball interview? I know you want continued access, but come on. Pelosi doesn't deserve to be let off the hook like this. She's the only Democratic leader with an ounce of integrity -- the least you could do is make her take a real stand and remind us of that fact.

by mermzilla 2007-06-21 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Attention any Pelosi handlers reading comments for reactions:

I stopped reading at "I believe that we're right on course," her first seven words.

Just food for thought.  We're not that stupid.

by corn dog 2007-06-21 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

I have argued consistently that we cannot become what we hate--but we're talking about thousands of lives and billions of dollars. If Democrats have to become sneaky, manipulative assholes in order to bring our people home, then do it. But of course the truth is they don't have to do any of that. You don't need votes to NOT pass a bill. Simply don't pass a bill without timelines.

by torridjoe 2007-06-21 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

FUCK ME!  Congress has the power of the fucking purse.  Technically, all money bills are House initiated.  Unless they were lying to me in my constitutional law class in law school.

Ms. Pelosi, you are insulting and lack a backbone.  And you might have had one until Rahm Emanuel got so influential within the caucus.

I know, and a lot of us in the netroots knows, Rahm Emanuel is one of the chief reasons why we are buckling to Bush and losing the fight to him.  

Are you going to continue listening to him and Hoyer until you're back to minority leader?  Perhaps you'd like that, because it's less pressure.

by jgarcia 2007-06-21 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Jesus Christ you guys.  She is not the enemy.  Her hands are tied.  You all know as well as I that she doesn't have 218 votes to cut off funding.  Period.

Our majority is going to be short-lived if we start cannbilalizing one another this soon.  

by IsThisOverYet 2007-06-21 10:44AM | 0 recs
If that's true

then she should at least be honest. She could start by telling us who the traitors who don't want to set a date certain for ending funding are. One of them, I suspect, is her Majority Leader.

by andgarden 2007-06-21 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

bs, people face difficult obstacles all the time.  

like the other person that replied to you said, she should be honest.  i would amplify on that and say in addition to saying who the sticking points are, she should just flat out say, "the country elected democrats to end the iraq war.  we cannot and will not do that."  

instead she's blowing smoke up our asses.  come on, she quite literally said, it "depends" when it comes to next steps.  that's called following, not leading.  ditch decorum and %$#%$#%$#$%ing fight.  jesus christ, indeed.

by corn dog 2007-06-21 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

But the bill wasn't to cut off funding, it was to provide funding. I have never understood why we didn't tell Bush "take it or leave it" with the original bill (the one with withdrawal deadlines). He's the one asking for money, after all.

I guess that would have been a good question for Nancy Pelosi  :)

by peterh32 2007-06-21 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

I'm really surprised by how down most people on this forum are on Pelosi. Has it occurred to you guys that she does not have the 218 votes to stop the war funding? And that by refusing to bring a funding bill to the floor she would face a rebellion? (And maybe lose the Speakership to a "blue dog.")

I think Pelosi is doing a pretty good job as Speaker. Some of the thing you guys suggest would quickly result in the formation of a "governing coalition" between conservative Democrats and the GOP, which is just the direction that the GOP is hoping to take this.

This talk about "weakness" on the part of the Dems is a misunderstanding of the politics involved. We won big in November, but we really do not have the power to stop the war without the cooperation of conservative Democrats and some of the GOP.

by Mark Wallace 2007-06-21 12:43PM | 0 recs
The Question:

Why do Obama, Pelosi, etc. prattle on about the mythical "veto proof majority" when it is obvious that the people holding us back from ending the war are in the Democratic caucus?

The war can be ended if Democrats actually want to, but it is perfectly obvious that they do not. Pelosi isn't being forthcoming about this, and it is really patronizing.  

by andgarden 2007-06-21 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

A leader who won't take on a minority of troublemakers in her party is no leader at all. Perhaps the pundits were right after all, and her failure to win Murtha the leadership was a sign of things to come. She makes nice speeches and says all the right things, but when push comes to shove she does what nearly all Dems have done since 1968: she backs down. Always, always, always. Her whole generation of Dems (with a few notable exceptions) simply WILL NOT FIGHT.

Dems: LBJ, Nixon, McCarthy, Humphrey, McGovern--they're all long out of power and irrelevant, and with the exception of McGovern are all dead. Fight for what you claim to believe in or be prepared to be taken down by those who will. The backbenchers and silenced veterans are getting very, very antsy, and are primed for open rebellion fairly soon, I believe. And it won't be pretty. What the Repubs did to their moderates 20 years ago, Dems are now set to do to their own moderates soon.

To hell with moderation, if it's unprincipled and cowardly.

by kovie 2007-06-21 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

AMEN!!!

by jgarcia 2007-06-21 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

I agree.  A lot of naivety here.

It's not in Pelosi's interest, or our interest, to disunify our party by blaming moderate/conservative Democrats for not committing to de-fund the war.

by Philosopher 2007-06-22 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Not a single word about an impeachment?

I know, she'd just claim that there's not enough votes in the Senate to impeach Bush, but there weren't enough votes in the Senate to convict Nixon when the House impeachment trial started. Most of the GOP House Judiciary committee members voted against all three of the impeachment articles. They probably would have passed the Democratically-controlled House, but nobody knows for sure if there were enough votes to convict Nixon in the Senate.

Hoping that nothing gets worse over the next two years is one crappy strategy. What if Justice Stevens doesn't make it to 88? What if Bush starts bombing Iran? What if a Republican wins the White House in 2008? Or the GOP manages to take back the Senate?

by darrelplant 2007-06-21 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

When will the Democratic party finally rid itself of its post-'68, deer in the headlights, all talk no action, beaten down and non-combative appeasement wing? Enough already of all these weak-kneed do-nothing Dems who say pretty things but do NOTHING to actually make things happen, if it requires a fight and entails some risks.

As the saying goes, take a shit or get off of the toilet!

by kovie 2007-06-21 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

The problem is, an awful lot of Democratic politicians are pretty much in agreement on foreign policy with the Republicans. Not necessarily on the details, but when it comes to grand strategery, you can't really shove a knife between them.

That was a problem in 1972. The anti-war sentiment was so strong among Democratic voters that the anti-war candidate George McGovern was able to do an end-run around the three presumed front-runners (Muskie, Humphrey, Jackson) who had all been boosters of the Vietnam War. But the Democratic leadership didn't like the dirty hippy and WWII bomber pilot McGovern and they really didn't like the possibility of losing their deathgrip on the party machinery, so a lot of them decided to support Nixon instead and convinced the people who listened to them that a McGovern win would be bad for the party.

So Nixon -- the guy whose original AG was indicted, whose VP was indicted, whose closest advisors went to jail, whose second AG had to resign -- won the election in a landslide. And the Democratic party and the country have been perfect ever since.

by darrelplant 2007-06-21 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Well, it wasn't quite this simple--don't forget Nixon's dirty tricks, which whittled away any potentially serious Democratic contenders until only McGovern was left.

But yes, I agree, ever since Vietnam (and Carter) the party has been so afraid of being labelled as weak on security that it has willingly gone along with the GOP in its militarism. Or worse, some of them actually believe in this militarism, and it's not just for political show. Even during the Iran-Contra hearings you could sense that it was all for show, and little would come of it--which of course little did.

And that's what we're seeing here. Which is why I believe that only an open revolt by the anti-war caucus can accomplish anything at this point. The Dem leadership is clearly useless and needs to be ousted ASAP. Until that happens, nothing can or will happen.

by kovie 2007-06-21 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

I don't really think it was that simple. McGovern's reform movement in 1971 and 1972 pissed a lot of the entrenched Democrats off. His former close friend Humphrey was pissed off with him from 1968 on over the war. McGovern said the Senate "reeks with blood" and blamed every Senator for the war in 1970 when he was arguing for his (and Mark Hatfield's) bill to end the war, and that was at a time the Senate had been in Democratic hands for years (which was true of both houses of Congress throughout the war).

Nixon used dirty tricks against all of the Democrats. I've heard the allegation that he was just trying to get everyone he considered a threat out of the field so he could run against McGovern, but after the Wallace shooting Nixon briefly discussed the possibility of planting McGovern literature in Arthur Bremer's apartment, so he was prepared to use tricks against everyone.

LBJ told McGovern during a meeting in July 1972 that he'd been getting calls from Democratic friends telling him they were supporting Nixon, assuming that LBJ would approve since McGovern had been fighting against the war for seven years. The AFL-CIO leadership was for the war -- it meant defense contract jobs, among other things.

Scoop Jackson was really only a serious contender in his head. He was the Joe Biden of his era, with no real constituency. part of that was because he was a crazy hawk on defense issues; most of his staff is naw a part of the neo-con cabal: Perle, Kristol, Wolfowitz. They all worked for Scoop.

Humphrey had already lost to Nixon. People saw him as tainted by the war, despite his socially-forward views. Just like LBJ.

And Muskie? Muskie had been Humphrey's VP candidate in '68. He was just as complicit in that loss as Humphrey was. Don't forget, Nixon ran that year as the guy who could end the war with his "secret plan".

"Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance." --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

Carter was actually a leader of the Anybody But McGovern contingent at the convention (along with people like Jeanne Kirkpatrick). He wasn't afraid of seeming weak on national security, he was a hawk and a strong supporter of the Vietnam War up to the bitter end, as you might expect of someone who had been in the Navy during the Cold War. And, of course, he was the one who actually began funding the mujahideen in Afghanistan, at the urging of Zbig Brzezhinsky, who wanted to create a "Vietnam" for the Soviets that would drag their economy down.

Personally, I think you're more on track with the "some of them actually believe in this militarism, and it's not just for political show". Emphasis on the "just", because I think it's both.

by darrelplant 2007-06-21 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

great post.  I love your comments.  I have learned a lot by reading them.

by jgarcia 2007-06-21 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Thanks. I've been doing a lot of reading on the '72 campaign over the past year.

If you're interested in the subject yourself, there are, of course, the famous books like Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail", Tim Crouse's "Boys On the Bus", and Ted White's "The Making of the President 1972", but there are a number of titles that don't make the reading lists now, 25 years later, like McGovern's autobiography ("Grassroots"), McGovern campaign manager Gary Hart's "Right From the Start", "Us and Them: How the Press Covered the 1972 Election" by James Perry, and, indeed, TIME Magazine's complete free online archive for real-time looks at what the general public was being told. Plus, I've found a lot of other goodies. I even got my hands on an academic study done from surveys of the delegates at the '72 Democratic convention.

Thanks again for the note.

by darrelplant 2007-06-21 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

Agreed.  I was totally reminded in this moment why I really read myDD.

by Kingstongirl 2007-06-22 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Interview with Nancy Pelosi

I too was disappointed by the soft ball questions.  Nothing on the fossil fuel bill that Dems put is as benchmarks and that give Cheney just what he wanted out of invading Iraq. Nothing on the caging lists and what that might have meant for the Ohio election in 2004 and beyond. Nothing on earmarks and the softening position the Dems are taking on public corruption and lobying.  

I was pleased to hear of her progressive accomplishments, but stem cell and hate crimes is just not on par with Iraq, democratic elections, and the role of big money in the government.

Strike one against the good guys.

by jono 2007-06-21 08:20PM | 0 recs
Feh!

What! No questions about her favorite color or what rock groups she likes?

Given the golden opportunity to question Madame Speaker, I think anyone of us could have come up better questions than this Tiger Beat interview.  

by pascal1947 2007-06-22 08:32AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads