It’s the time of year that Santa is "gonna find out who's been naughty or nice," and we want to give him a little help. So we want you to nominate members of Congress currently in office who should be on Santa's "Naughty" list – the most hyper-partisan, special-interest-pandering and money-grubbing. Offer your suggestions in the comments section to this blog. But we can’t just put coal in stockings – we also need to give candy. Take a moment to also suggest members of Congress who have been the "Nicest" – the most willing to reach across the aisle and cast votes based on what his or her constituents want, not what the special interests buy. We need your suggestions now.
Not sure who to suggest? Here are a few resources to help:
- See the Center for Responsive Politics’ overview of money spent in the ’06 midterm elections.
- The Center for Public Integrity website provides non-partisan investigative reports on the money behind state and federal elections.
- Project Vote Smart juxtaposes campaign contributions for more than 13,000 candidates and elected officials nationwide with voting records and evaluations by special interest groups.
Wherever you look, don’t forget to come back here and submit your suggestions!
A few simple guidelines for suggestions:
- Make your "Naughty or Nice" suggestions in the blog comments below. You must be a registered member of Unity08 to post comments to our blog. Go here to login or register if you're not currently logged in.
- Please limit your suggestions to members of Congress currently in office – not the newly elected members. That includes both U.S. Representatives and Senators.
- Please list the nominee's name, whether they are naughty or nice, and a brief explanation of why you’re nominating him or her.
- Feel free to suggest multiple politicians. Goodness knows plenty have been both naughty and nice!
- The deadline for suggestions is 5pm MT, Sunday, December 17.
Next Monday, we’ll open a poll for you to choose among the top five “Naughty” finalists and the top five “Nice” finalists suggested by you. The ultimate “Nice” member of Congress will receive a stocking full of candy. The ultimate “Naughty” one will receive a stocking full of coal. And of course, we’ll send our recommendations along to the North Pole on your behalf.
Santa needs all the help he can get – tell your friends to share their naughty or nice lists as well!
"He’s making his list. He’s checking it twice…”
Subscribe
Naughty -- the dingdong who authored the amendment to Code Section 412 in the Pension Protection Act which passed in August. Bankrupts plans, if that legislation goes into effect in 2024. Don't hire him/her for Unity2008, he/she can't think his/her way out of a paper bag.
Nice -- probably Mark Kirk, who likes to find consensus yet remains independent, can think for himself. The others I'd vote as (that definition of) "nice" aren't in office anymore (wish they were).
The principal sponsor of this Bill is John Boehner in the House, so that means that Brainout's "Naughty" vote gets assigned to John Boehner, right?
Hello, Rules Committee? You're all reading this, right, because you're devoted parts of the "grassroots movement," right? So let's have a ruling here, with reference to the well-defined rules set out in advance, like is going to happen for sure next year with the nation's first online secure presidential nomination.
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
I could sit here all day listing who is Naughty, Naughty is pervasive in our system.
Those I put in the Nice list would start with the gang of 14.
John McCain
Joseph Lieberman
Naughty; Senator Bill Nelson of Florida for his recent trip to Syria. Since when was he appointed a diplomat? Many of America's problems in the world stem from the lack of a cohesive, non-partisan voice from the water's edge. Let's debate it out within our borders then present more of a united front to the world. Lincoln said it best; "United we stand, divided we fall." No representative of our elected legislature should go to any foreign country to discuss foreign policy issues without the express approval of the President or the Secretary of State.
Very good point, one of our problems is the arrogance of the US Senate. Many of them try to act like mini-presidents.
A Sooner Independent
His visit to Syria puts him on my nice list.We have never been weaker as a nation promoting the good we have to offer the world at the end of a gun.I commend the Senator for Florida for this.
Nice list:
Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama
Naughty:
Hillary Cliton John McCain and Bob Menendez of NJ
I thought Unity08 would be a forum for moving forward, not yelling "My Side - Yeah; Your Side - Boo".
Nice: Tom Coburn...standing up against both sides to fight wasteful pork barrel spending
Naughty: Ted Stevens...the man behind the bridge to nowhere. The earmark was removed, but the funds were still sent to Alaska for "whatever". How stupid do you think we are Ted? You didn't fool anybody.
These would be my first choices, too (not that they are alone).
Ted Stevens is an embarrassment to the concept of representative democracy; Tom Coburn a voice in the wilderness.
I think I agree with Mike, there are hundreds of websites that are picking on and pointing out the negatives. Very few sites actually look for ways to create change. I would say keep this site based on the positives of unity. Just my humble opinion...
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
I would pick John&Elizabeth Edwards for the nice list.He has championed so many American causes.He and his wife have been open about the death of their son.Her battle with breast cancer has been used as a toolfor them to help other as well.He has established a fund to fight poverty.It would be hard to find a couple to whom much is given much responsibilty has been accepted.
The Naughty list for me hands down is the religous right.Way beyond the dirty headlines some of their leaders have have generated, they have perpetrated a far worst sin.They have manipulated a religon into a poltical party.I find this particularly offensive being a Christian.Whenever you read the last instructions by the person they claim to embrace and see the hatred that they have introduced on his behalf you have to face the facts that they are truly not religous. In fact they are anti-christian.The saviour they embrace last instructions are to" love one another as I have loved you."How these pure words have been manipulated to become a banner for hate is way beyond logic.The word conservative has been highjacked as well.Social conservatives really have no place in religon anymore but I do concede they are a very hard hitting political party.The work they have done in his name has been used to split a nation.They are at the top of my naughty list.
Did you say you are a Christian? The Word of God says "Judge not, lest YOU be judged". Sounds like you might be setting your self up for judgement!
Jesus' last instruction was not His ONLY instruction! "Give Caesar what's Caesar's", in other words don't break the law. That was another one of His instructions!
Christians are upset with President Bush with good cause. He is encouraging the breaking of our laws by supporting Amnesty for illegals. He is going against God's instruction.
There may be Christians that are upset with the president because of the Iraq War, but I don't know any. Most true Christians know that he is only trying to free a nation. Most do fault him because he doesn't seem to see where the danger for American citizens really is, THE OPEN BORDERS!!!
It's been reported that over 9,000 American citizens are killed each and every year by illegal aliens, far more than in the war and 911 combined. That's where our real danger is!!!
Our government was set up by Christian men on Christian beliefs. For Christians to not be involved in politics with be a dereliction of duty!
There are some in this country that would love to see the TRUE Christians sit back and let the far left Anti-Christ group take over.
IT WON'T HAPPEN!!!
YOU, HAVE A BLESSED DAY!
http://www.acaiplus.com/retta
You my friend are exactly what I am talking about.I singled no individuals or single organization to put on the naughty list.I also am a Christian active in politics so obviously I have no problem with that either.I am not a judge .Yet your response from the mountain of judgement from where you view my words from sadly did not the same.You listed illegal aliens ,the ACLU ,Pres.Bush and far left anti-christians.It is so predictable to post a broadbased comment like I did and wait for the religous right like you to come back and do what you do best"slap the other cheek"
I also would like to ask two things if you would be so kind as the enlighten me.Who are the far left Anti-Christians?The second is what is a TRUE christian by your definition?
What I d not need is a blast of bible verses as I have done bible study for many many years.In your words please answer my two questions.
I am a bit confused as to who you were responding to. I was simply stating that I agree that we should not be too negative. I wouldn’t want the public opinion of Unity08 to be associated with cut throat politics. Apologies if my response offended any of you, because I certainly am not concerned with the direction this group is going and believe it to be beneficial to seeing change.
Respectfully,
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
On second look I realize it was not me you were replying to... sorry about the confusion.
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
No, you didn't single out any individual or single organization. You just came against millions of God's people, the religious right!
Your comment is typical of those that want to criticize the Christian right. You always use the "turn the other cheek" statement or "your the one judging!" when someone defends themselves from your attacks. Turning the other cheek means to walk in forgiveness. It does not mean to stand still and allow attacks on fellow christians to go unanswered. Jesus didn't stand still at the temple when the "money changers" were out of line. He ran them out! He is our example in EVERY part of His word.
The TRUE Christians are those that try to continually PLEASE God with what they think, say, and do! Of course, I'm sure you know that we learn how to please God from knowing and DOING His Word. Do you think it pleases God when his Christian right (his children) are attacked?? Are you pleased when someone attacks your children, if you have children? If your children are attacked, do you think they have a God given right to defend themselves or do you have a right to defend them?
Far left Anti-Christ or Anti-Christians are those groups or individuals that try to take God from our society. The ACLU is one well known group! The same ones that try to take Christ out of Christmas. They are definitely Anti-Christ!!
I apologize for blasting the word of God, but like yourself I have studied the word of God for many, many years and trust and love it so much that I find it hard to separate myself from it in conversation. I have been a teacher of the word of God for 40 plus years.I have found studying the word is the easy part, living it is the DIFFICULT part. After all these years, I find I still have a lot to learn.
As a lover of God I am also a lover of His word and His people. His word is such a part of me, that I tend to forget that we don't all have that same passionate love for the TRUTH that is found in His word. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just speaking what I believe is truth!
Have a Merry Christmas!
http://www.acaiplus.com/retta
Why would you think you could use his words to blast a fellow Christian?Your truth is my truth and I most certainly hope you never feel the need to use his words as weapons against another beleiver.I have not used any typical arguments.To follow only part of his words which are the part you like and use the rest as a sword is almost laughable from one who proclaims to love him and wishes to emulate his love so others would want to follow.Your truth is what you beleive so I guess there would be no point in mentioning that he does not wish us to give him a box that we call politics or as he stated Rome.He told us to obey and be good citizens and give to him what is his.If you can sincerely state here that the hatred and division the religous right has spread in our nation has expanded his following than I guess you have to beleive you are right.But if you beleive as I do that his words have been highjacked by the Saul's of the world prior to his walk towards becoming Paul you would be thinking as I do.I stand by my statements and know that I have tried to be a Paul.I see many Sauls and I know because I beleive they do not serve his calling.These are the ones i put on the naughty list.If you are one I place you there as well.Just like you I am willing to stand for my Saviour.We could not both be right here so I as a Christian ask you to pray on this and see if you are following truth that he spoke or following the rites of a church that man has deteremined the laws .They are not one in the same.
Have you been hurt by someone in the Church?
I don't necessarily follow Church teaching. I follow the Word of God!
The Scripture that I live by I got from the Bible, God's instruction book, not from any particular Church. I don't consider myself a religious person, but I am a Christian.
I only use the Word of God as a DEFENSIVE weapon when I or fellow Christians are under attack. I only use the Word of God as an OFFENSIVE weapon when I am going after the enemy (the devil!), not fellow Christians.
Saul was a person who judged and persecuted the Christians. Probably not millions, but he did persecute quite a number.
After he had a real encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, he was changed and stopped the persecution!
I guess I just don't understand why a true Christian that had a real encounter with Jesus would persecute the Christian right, unless that person had been wounded by a fellow Christian. We've all been wounded by fellow Christians. That's where forgivness comes in.
I learned many years ago to forgive. I wouldn't have survived if I hadn't. But, I learned you don't forgive by the way you feel, if you did you would never be able to forgive (too much pain!). I have learned the way to forgive is by FAITH through obedience to God's word, not by FEELING. Forgiveness is by FAITH just like everything else that God ask us to do is by FAITH. Receiving forgiveness for our own sins is also through FAITH!
I guess I don't see the hatred and division that you see, so I don't understand what you mean about the Christian right! I only see that they are trying to do what is right for this nation. Of course they are only human beings and we all make mistakes.
http://www.acaiplus.com/retta
For starters I said the religous right.I also stated they took a religon and held it hostage fr use as a poltical party.You speak of faith and I too have great faith that America will see through the division that has been created in Jesus' name and rail against it.Christians are not dividers we are united in faith and love for our brethern.If the shoe fits wear it.If it does not than take no posture against what I say.The way of the Christian is not easy in fact it is promised to be hard.Verily I say unto you the world will give you tribulation but be of good cheer I have overcome the world.We can not be lead by those who do not offer the faith of overcoming the world via a political use of these words.They are meant for choices that are hard and to be made in faith even when we do not understand why.Why should we turn our cheeks when one slaps at us?That is a tough one because everything in our nature is made to want to strike back yet we are instructed to the what is hard anyway.Lashing out in his name is easy.Teaching by example is hard.Look at the Quakers who went and sought out the family of the man that brutually mudered their innocent children.That was hard but it was right.we must speak but more important as christian we must lead by example.The great Billy Graham wisely stepped away when he sensed a politician was using him as a politically.Did he lessen himself?Did he stop being one of theworld's greatest teachers of Christianity?No he did not.Did he offer harsh words for the politician ?No he did not.He simply did the hard thing and walked away in faith that the Lord would take care of the politician.Do you know who the politician was?BIlly Graham was right and that man resigned as the president in disgrace.We do not have to be quiet we have to be like Christ and pray for all and not damn anyone.I have listening for the last 6 years to so called christians who have damned other Americans and we simply do not nor should we want to make those judgements.We all fall short but we can not accept falling short as a battle cry to point at those who we deem to be even "shorter" than we are .We have to use our grace to build them up.Is that a forum that we can use in choosing our politicians?Of course it is because the politics that succeed also offer hope.Not just harsh judgements no matter how bibically correct they may be in bare words. The best plan laid out in bare words has already been laid out for Christians and that is grace filled with hope for all.Offering that as a message tempered with anger and division is what the religosu right has done.Those are the peope on my naughty list.I as I stated earlier I will stand on my words as a politically involved Christian.
Naughty - John McCain of Arizona for trying to sell out this country by agreeing with President Bush and Ted Kennedy on giving illegal aliens Amnesty. If we lose our Sovereignty in this country, we can thank people like John McCain!
Nice - Tom Tancredo for his outstanding stand for the American citizens instead of Amnesty for people that break our laws!
http://www.acaiplus.com/retta
I agree with those who have voiced there disappointment in Unity08 for this campaign. I too thought that Unity08 was about moving forward. Is this really what we want to be about???
With all due respect, with this campaign, we are:
1) attempting to illuminate the kind of leadership style and spirit of bipartisan consensus building that Unity08 believes is essential to making progress, and, therefore, reward those who stand for such principles, and
2) reach people who are not inside the Washington beltway and who don't read the Washington Post and perhaps most importantly,
3) have a little fun in the spirit of the holidays
We are sorry you don't see Naughty and Nice that way.
Happy holidays!
So why not just leave it at Nice and leave out the Naughty?
OBAMA - nuff' said.
Nice (short list):
- John McCain
- Joe Lieberman
- Condi Rice (I know she's not in congress, but she's always classy and worth listing anyway)
Naughty list (just the worst, too many to list):
- William Jefferson (the guy who hid $$ in his freezer)
- Cynthia McKinney (the woman who assaulted a guard and is pushing to impeach Bush)
- Al Sharpton (pulls the race card too much)
- ...I could go on, but lunch calls
Naughty - Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer
Nice - Lieberman, Tancredo, McCain
I too do not mind a little fun in life,but also will not put down individual names, as I am sure I would miss some on both lists.
However, I would put on my "naughty" list two groups:
The Main Stream Media and The ACLU
My "nice" list would be but one: OUR TROOPS
.
Merry Christmas
John Kerry(For degrading our troops)
Byron Dorgan (Deep links to Abramoff, yet hasn't been exposed like others associated with him)
Naughty, all those in Congress who care more about the next re-election at the expense of their own character. And who mask that, by telling us what they think, we want to hear.
Nice, those few, whose true concern is for the good of our nation as a whole, and who are statesmen, more then politicians.
Joe Lieberman comes to mind.
nice
Ron Paul, Tom Trancredo
naughty
Just abour every one else
naughty:
fox news
white house correspondants
putin
nice:
the american political "center"
jon stewart
muhammad yunus (micro loans)
I hope the great members of our online community will understand the motivation behind our Naughty or Nice Campaign. Unity08 makes no commitment to always speak in the positive tone. In fact, we've had it up to HERE with the state of Washington, in which all our elected officials do is take extreme positions, fight about them, and refuse to give ground!
We believe we've got a brilliant plan to fix that mess of a problem -- put a bipartisan team in the White House.
In the meantime, we're going to call out the worst offenders -- those people who take extreme positions on emotionally charged issues for political advantage, all at the expense of actually solving the nation's problems. Why? We need to attract more Americans who feel the same, so we've got the capacity to fix the broken state of our politics.
For the handful of you who have expressed disappointment, don't be disappointed! Be encouraged that we are not going to waver from our commitment to shine a bright light on hyper-partisanship, lobbyist-pandering, and money-grubbing, on our pathway to fixing it.
Unity08 Communications Director
Boo-yeah
But Shane, this standard:
"those people who take extreme positions on emotionally charged issues for political advantage, all at the expense of actually solving the nation's problems."
is not the same as the three-fold standard you articulated at the top of this thread.
When people become confused and fail to follow the Unity08 line, it may be because the Unity08 line is itself confused.
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
Unfortunately Jim Cook is right : We only have a short time between now and Nov 2024 - WE MUST FOCUS ON ISSUES AND REMEDIES THAT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL RELATE TO AND FIGHT FOR !!
If You Don't Know What These Are : Click On www.popopete.com
AMERICA - THE 21st CENTURY : "Overhaul Of Government & Private Sector"
The Core Problems Are Identified In Plain Language !!
The Evidence Presented Is Irrefutable !!
The Remedies Suggested Are Constitutionally Legal And Commercially & Socially Sound !!
By using selected Key Postings from My Blog - Unity08 Can Eliminate Confusion & Save Valuable Time !!
The Postings are the result of 60+ Years In The Trenches - And 16 Months of Development/Refinement & Presentation.
My only stipulation - Postings Selected For Use & Publication MUST BE PRESENTED IN IT'S ENTIRETY - and Carry My Byline : Citizen Evans of Boynton Beach, Florida.
God Bless & Save America
Email popopete@hotmail.com
Reverend Emmanuel Cleaver of 5th district in Missouri should be on the nice list.
he is responsive, knowledgeable about issues, takes his duties seriously, does not try to snow his constituents, does not trade on the fact that he has a family [doesn't parade them out at voting time like so many show dogs] and most importantly, of course, votes on important issues as I would if given the chance :) .
Nice:
John McCain - sensible moderate who doesn't just follow the party line
Joe Lieberman - sensible moderate who doesn't just follow the party line
George Voinovich - my senator who never forgets about his constituents
Tom Coburn - pork fighter
Jim DeMint - pork fighter
Bill Thomas - for making health care more affordable
Charlie Rangel - for helping the poor by opening up trade with poor nations
Naughty:
John Kerry - degrading the troops
Cynthia McKinney - trying to impeach the President during a war
William Jefferson - the guy with bribe money in his fridge
Al Sharpton - for playing the race card every chance he gets
Ted Stevens - bridge to nowhere
To your "Naughty" list I'd like to add:
Tom Delay (R-TX for being a corrupt hypocrite)
Tom Foley (R-FL for bringing shame to the instituion of Congress)
Denny Hastert (R-IL for enabling Foley)
John Murtha (D-PA for being the pork king of PA and for the ABSCAM scandal)
James Webb (D-VA Senator-elect for dissing the Prez.)
Nice:
Naughty:
http://us-policy.blogspot.com/
I will refrain from the naughty list but I will add one name to the nice list for now. Even though we might not see eye to eye on all issues, I was impressed with Jim Demint for standing up to his party leadership about earmarks and I sent him a Email stating that. There are a lot more out there that do good and I will strive to let them know from time to time in the same way. I just started with Sen Demint but here will be more. As far as the naughty list ... well I'll pass for now. Hopefully the media will do that for us, they seem to enjoy it a lot anyway.
I could post a response to this question but my lists on both sides would be much too long. I would agree with most names presented in previous posts. Vitriol from each party is nauseating. I voted for George McGovern because of his stand on Viet Nam. I voted for Ross Perot because he stood for honesty and integrity. To overcome the current two-party system in this country is a very daunting task, if not impossible. The money interests that run this country is overwhelming. But I, alas am like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.
We stand all together tilting at windmills....
Your comments inspired me. As one of the key folks involved in moving this movement forward, allow me to inspire you to evangelize this movement. We need PEOPLE POWER and we need it now.
To be taken seriously, we need serious numbers.
So enlist your friends and family and colleagues and like-minded thinkers to join with us. If we stand together with locked arms, we WILL draw attention, create a power souce like never before, and demand real, accountable, honest leadership for a change. Can we count on your help?
Since I have only recently discovered this website I have forwarded the link to page to over 10 people in my address book. If only one of those ten do the same our membership will explode. I would also wish that we stay clear of divisive, radical policies and platforms that have label us negatively by the same people that we are trying to attract.
Naughty would be Rep. Dennis Hastart, who apparently knew and yet did nothing about the Mark Foley page scandal. Naughty also to the bipartisan Congressional group that whitewashed the whole affair.
Naughty would be ANY member of Congress who used misleading or attack ads against opponents instead of explaining and defending the positions they have taken while in office.
Nice would be Rep. Dennis Kucinich for his courageous vote against war and his proposals for making international relations more peaceful.
My first vote on naughty is Dennis Kucinich. His views are so far from mainstream America as to border on foreign. I look for views on an American principle.
My next naughty is Chris Dodd. He torpedoed Joh Bolton only because he doesn't like him and refused to recognize his successful efforts at the UN.
Next is Hillary. If she had some feeling for humanity, she would probably be a fine President, but so far, she is only interested in herself. With her husband and his contacts, she may win, but she doesn't deserve it. I was expecially angry that she chose the weekend that Obama spent in New Hampshire, to request top NH Democrats to meet her in another state. That was plain vindictive, a basic instinct that she has to the max.
McCain is on my list. I just don't trust him to do anything that is beyond his efforts to win the Presidency. His attacks on interrogation are dangerous to the success of the war against terrorism.
Finally, Brownback brings problems of the American Spirit to his campaign. His successful efforts to derail Neff as a Federal Judge were mean-spirited and had no basis other than his suspicions. To infer that her attendance at her neighbor's civil ceromony made her a gay or a gay rights supporter were just that, suspicions.
My nice is shorter. Joe Lieberman was the only honest person in the last election.
Sen. Mark Pryor was one of the few honest Democrats, when he spoke out on his support of Joe.
Gov. Huckabee brings proof of success and an honest concern for the people and principles of America.
Obama is a possibility, but unknown. His smile and graciousness are not contrived, but I have a doubt about his ability to take the pounding that the President takes (see GWBush articles and comments occurring every single day).
> "My first vote on naughty is Dennis Kucinich. His views are so far from mainstream America as to border on foreign. I look for views on an American principle."
After Bush's speech, he flat out stated that it was Stay the Quagmire for the rest of his term. That leaves us with only three possible options for the war in Iraq (or as Jon Stewart put it, the catastrof**k):
- Stay the Quagmire indefinitely
- Impeach both Bush and Cheney (impractical, won't happen)
- Defund the war to bring troops home (only Kucinich has the guts to propose this)
Dennis Kucinich is not electable, but he is the only man in the entire United States government that has offered a plan to get our troops home in 2024. Only 21% of Americans support the war, Kucinich's plan is only unpopular because that's how our corporate owned media is portraying it. Look at what the voters said this November with the war being the main issue, and then ask yourself if Kucinich is really out of the mainstream of public thought.
> "My next naughty is Chris Dodd. He torpedoed Joh Bolton only because he doesn't like him and refused to recognize his successful efforts at the UN."
The Republican controlled congress twice failed to get John Bolton approved, and not even that worthless rubber stamp organization could approve him either time. It wasn't Dodd that torpedoed Bolton, it was other Republicans. Yes, Bolton is that bad. What did he do at the UN that could even be mildly considered a success?
> "Next is Hillary."
No objection from me here!
Ed: The reason Mr. Bolton (I could care less either way) was not confirmed is because of the way the Senate operates. If one Senator objects to a nomination he or she can hold up a nomination indefinitely. It would take 60 votes, not a simple majority to get him confirmed in this scenario. The republicans did not have 60 senators. By the way only the senate confirms nominations the House has no say.
A Sooner Independent
Boomer, please remember that hundreds of nominees, from federal district courts on up have been confirmed by the past and previous Senates. Bolton was presented by Bush for two reasons:
1) He supports the war in Iraq unconditionally
2) He hates the U.N.
The fact that he couldn't get through the GOP controlled Senate doesn't speak to the partisanship of the Democrats, but to the man's total unsuitability for his position. I know this is an old saw by now, but work with me here: Bush is not the Nation - he's just the President; Ambassadors don't represent the President - they represent the Nation (that's us.) Now, if 60%+ of the American People support this war or hate the U.N., then he was an appropriate selection and should have been approved.
Life is only as complicated as we let others make it...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
Instead of looking back at what has happened in the last year, I intend to keep a careful eye on the 110th Congress to see who is working for the good of the country in a bipartisan manner and who is merely grandstanding for their own or their party's gain. Regular reports on those who are working for the country (the "nice" ones) would be an asset for us here, I think, in determining who we should court and select for the Unity08 ticket.