cactus flower wrote:

The Republicans were entirely cynical. They were all facing losing their seats and it cost them nothing to vote against. They knew the Democrats would put it through.

If the Republicans were cynical what are the Democrats?

Still don't understand why they didn't try to impeach Bush. I would be overjoyed if Nancy lost her seat to Cindy Sheehan.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kjt3L66_0pk

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The Republicans were entirely cynical. They were all facing losing their seats and it cost them nothing to vote against. They knew the Democrats would put it through.

If the Republicans were cynical what are the Democrats?

Still don't understand why they didn't try to impeach Bush. I would be overjoyed if Nancy lost her seat to Cindy Sheehan.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kjt3L66_0pk

The Democrats are so accustomed to selling out that they don't even know they are doing it any more. Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace.
In the past, most people in America have still been marginally better off under the Democrats and the Republicans desperately need to be put out of office. It would be nice if that would solve it all. What does Nader suggest?

I think it is worse than you suggest. The Democrats and the Republicans receive funds from the same interest groups, companies and individuals. They preside over a political system that is deliberately bent to ensure that competition has little or no chance. They cooperate in this carve up because it suits them both.

I think Nader would suggest voting for people who represent your interests, be they Rep- Dem or others. It is a severe case of the FF: FG syndrome. The voters could easily change that, but they don't understand that they do have that power and that the 'them or us' equation as presented is not necessarily the only equation.