co jest grane? wyborcy i wybrani w usa

[you-know-who]

opinia publiczna w usa ma zdecydowanie zle zdanie o buszu (24% poparcia) ale
jeszcze duzo gorsze o kongresie (11% poparcia).

udam glupiego i zapytam: jak mozliwe jest tak szybkie i gruntowne zniechecenie
do wybranych przez siebie samego elementow wladzy?

no coz, jestem ostatnim czlowiekiem ktomu trzeba by tlumaczyc liczne wady
busza, i ja tez mam niska opinie o kongresie. ale JA ICH NIE WYBIERALEM. nagle
olsnienie czy brak w demokracji trzeciej mozliwosci (pt. "none of the above")
w zwykle oferowanym 2-torowym dylemacie
mniejszego zla sposrod dwoch.

Wydaje sie, ze elementem

[gosc88]

wplywajacym na niskie poparcie dla kongresu jest zachowanie Pelosi.
Ta kobieta wykazywala przed wyborami zdecydowana postawe w kwestii
np. wojny w Iraku. Obecnie wyraznie 'zmiekla' (dlaczego ??) i
dlatego stracila zaufanie wyborcow.

[splitme]

Oszukala durnych wyborcow - Oszukala powinno byc w cudzyslowie bo
kto widzial jej poddancze "yes sir" na zjezdzie AIPAC nie powinien
miec watpliwosci kto jest blizszy jej sercu ,...

Heheh , Cindy Sheehan za swoim bractwem widzac ze nic nie wskora
okupujac farme w Taxas'sie przeprowadzila sie pod jej posesje i
zakloca spokoj sasiadowm ,... Wplywowym sasiadom ,...
===================================================================
wplywajacym na niskie poparcie dla kongresu jest zachowanie Pelosi.
Ta kobieta wykazywala przed wyborami zdecydowana postawe w kwestii
np. wojny w Iraku. Obecnie wyraznie 'zmiekla' (dlaczego ??) i
dlatego stracila zaufanie wyborcow ,...

===================================================================

House Speaker Pelosi lashes out at antiwar protesters
=====================================================
By Patrick Martin - 15 October 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in Washington
normally maintains a public display of sympathy towards the mass
opposition to the war in Iraq—an opposition which propelled the
Democrats into control of the House and Senate in the congressional
elections last November.

But in the course of a press interview October 9, reported the
following morning in the Christian Science Monitor and the
Washington Post, Pelosi gave vent to the resentment and hostility
that leading Democrats actually feel towards the antiwar protest
movement.

The Monitor’s news account of the interview was relatively
restrained, focusing on Pelosi’s complaint that antiwar protesters
should target the Republican congressional delegation, not the
Democratic, because it was the Republicans who through filibusters
in the Senate were sustaining Bush’s war policy.

Asked about criticism of the failure (or more accurately, refusal)
of the congressional Democratic majority to take action to put an
end to the war in Iraq, despite the overwhelming antiwar opinion
among Democratic voters, Pelosi said, “I am well aware of the
unhappiness of the base.”

She told reporters that antiwar demonstrators had established
seemingly permanent protest encampments outside her home in San
Francisco several months, and more recently outside her Washington
home as well.

The real venom in Pelosi’s comments was reported by Washington Post
Capitol Hill columnist Dana Milbank, one of those in attendance at
the press interview. While Pelosi invariably maintains a publicly
smiling posture, he wrote, “her spirits soured instantly when
somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic ‘base’ over her
failure to end the war in Iraq.”

“Look,” she said, “I had, for five months, people sitting outside my
home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors,
hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things—
Buddhas? I don’t know what they were—couches, sofas, chairs,
permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.”

Pelosi continued: “If they were poor and they were sleeping on my
sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they
have ‘Impeach Bush’ across their chest, it’s the First Amendment.”

Pelosi is married to a multimillionaire investor, and her comments
were charged with social resentment as well as political hostility.
The antiwar protesters are not only unwelcome because they expose
her hypocritical pretense to opposing the Iraq bloodbath—they are
dirty, ragged and disreputable, and irritate the neighbors.

Pelosi’s remark—imagine that riffraff “sleeping on my sidewalk”—is
reveals the enormous social distance between the masses of working
people, housewives, students who oppose the war, and the privileged
ruling elite. And her disparaging reference to the First Amendment
demonstrates the hostility of a big business politician towards the
democratic rights of the working class.

In elaborating on this comment, Pelosi tried to backtrack from her
spontaneous display of her real attitude towards antiwar
activists. “They are advocates,” she said. “We are leaders.”

And “leaders,” of course, have to be practical. “We have to make
responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the
dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow,”
Pelosi continued. “The war has eclipsed everything,” said. “And
while I am very proud of the ratings that Democrats have on every
issue you can name, I don’t disagree with the public evaluation that
we have not done well in ending this war.”

The Democratic leader rebuked those antiwar activists who have begun
to recognize that congressional Democrats, not merely the
Republicans, are opposed to ending the war.

“I think it is a waste of time for them to go after Democratic
members,” Pelosi argued. “They ought to just persuade Republican
members who are representing areas that are opposed to the war.”

Pelosi herself faces such a challenge. Antiwar activist Cindy
Sheehan has announced that she would run as an independent candidate
for Congress against Pelosi next year, because of the decision by
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last May to push
through an emergency funding bill to finance the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

The Democrats could not be fairly accused of failing to carry out
their electoral mandate, Pelosi claimed: “We said we would change
the debate; we would fight to end the war. We never said we had the
veto pen or the signature pen.”

She concluded with the claim, incessantly repeated by the
congressional Democratic leadership, that it is White House veto
power and filibusters by Senate Republicans which have blocked any
change in Iraq war policy.

“It is clear now that the Senate is not going to be able to do much
to overcome the 60- vote barrier that would send a bill to the
president’s desk,” Pelosi said. “But that does not mean the House
will not move to ... responsible, safe redeployment of our troops,
hopefully to end by next year.”

This is the “big lie” that the Democratic leadership—with the full
support of the media—has sought to use to excuse its own complicity
with the war and cover up the fundamental agreement of both parties
to continue the military occupation of Iraq indefinitely.

Pelosi, Reid & Co. have deliberately refused to take the action that
they have within their power, cutting off funds for the war, which
does not requires a filibuster-proof or veto-proof majority.

A simple majority in either house of Congress could have blocked war
funding last May. But with the Bush administration threatening that
critical military operations would have to be curtailed by mid-June
if the funding was not approved, Pelosi and Reid caved in and agreed
to push through the emergency appropriations bill.

[warmi2]

Szybkie i gruntowne ? Czy 3-4 lata to szybko ?

Co do kongresu to z zalozenia kongres czy BUsh nie ma az takiego
wplywu na zycie przecietnego Amerykanina , jak np ma sejm w Polsce
na zycie przecietnego Polaka.

Niestety to sie zmienia, ale ciagle wiekszosc decyzji zapada na
szczeblu lokalnym.