| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Uh, about that "Culture of Reform" thing...; we was just funnin'.... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2007, 06:12 AM (137 Views) | |
| Jolly | May 12 2007, 06:12 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3165636 |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 12 2007, 06:24 AM Post #2 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Amazing, eh? Earmarking, lobbying reform, not pulling finding for the war... all that stuff down the tubes within four short months. Lesson? It was about getting elected, not fulfilling any promises made to get there. The Clintonization of the Democratic party. Text below. The bold type is mine. House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress. Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls. The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices. "The longer we wait, the weaker the bill seems to get," said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, which has pushed for the changes. "The sense of urgency is fading," he said, in part because scandals such as those involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., have given way to other news. The situation concerns some Democrats, who note their party campaigned against a "culture of corruption" in 2006, when voters ended a long run of Republican control of Congress. Several high-profile issues remained in doubt Friday, five days before the House Judiciary Committee is to take up the legislation. They include proposals to: Require lobbyists to disclose details about large donations they arrange for politicians. Make former lawmakers wait two years, instead of one, before lobbying Congress. Bar lobbyists from throwing large parties for lawmakers at national political conventions. All appeared headed for adoption in January when the Senate, with much fanfare, included them in a lobby-reform bill that passed easily. But the provisions, plus many others in the bill, cannot become law unless the House concurs and that's where feet are dragging. The issues are in danger of being dropped from the House version, a Democratic member close to the negotiations said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because sensitive discussions were continuing. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 12 2007, 06:29 AM Post #3 |
|
Finally
|
From the Democrats Web Site: 100 Hours with a Democratic Congress: If Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives, the first 100 hours under would-be Speaker Pelosi would look like this: Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday. All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 12 2007, 06:32 AM Post #4 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Hmm.. now which one of those things actually happened? Oh yes, none of them. Not one. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 12 2007, 06:50 AM Post #5 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Some, because they were blocked by Republicans. But shhh! We wouldn't want to mention that. It's all the Dems' fault. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 12 2007, 07:04 AM Post #6 |
|
Finally
|
And did the Democrats really think that wasn't going to happen, or were they just blowin' smoke. Blocked by Republicans? How's that? I thought they controlled the committes and were in the majority, at least that's what they said in November. "We're going to end the culture of corruption that has infected Congress during Republican rule!" Google DiFi's Military Committee Google Pelosi's rental properties Google Private Jets and Lobbyists Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Got fooled again. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 12 2007, 07:23 AM Post #7 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Seems to me you forgot the Senate filibuster rules. It's not really possible to know in advance when the minority will decide that it won't let the majority have an up-or-down vote. You fellas were very, very against the filibuster just a few short months ago. Blocks the will of the majority, and all that sort of fol-de-rol. So why aren't you screaming now about how things like the minimum wage should just get an up-or-down vote? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 12 2007, 07:38 AM Post #8 |
|
Finally
|
So, as I asked, what's been filibustered? Seriously, not being snarky. What proposal have the Democrats put up that the Republicans filibustered?
For the record, Quirt, I was never "very, very against the filibuster" a few short months ago. I remember starting a thread about it, asking what people thought etc, but I never did. In fact, Rick Zimmer said: "Frustrating as the filibuster is for whichever party is in the majority, it is a potent and necessary check on the majority." And you wrote: "Every two years, the Senate readopts its rules. And I think this is by simple majority vote. So, in January 2007, there would be a once-every-two-years chance to rewrite the Senate rules to eliminate filibusters entirely." If the Democratic majority saw this coming, and you can't convince me that they're so stupid they didn't, why not change the rules, by a simple majority vote? Couldn't be because they were just posturing, could it? In fact, I said this: "Do you really think that filibuster is a legitimate way of passing, or rejecting legislation? Put aside the romantic Jimmy Stewart images and look at the process. It is a way of the minority party to obstruct the wishes of the majority, no? Not taking sides on Dems vs. Reps or Conservatives vs. Liberals. Just wondering, out loud, how "democratic" the process of filibuster really is. I remember Republicans doing it and I thought it was a cheap way of getting their voices heard in a Democratic congress. I feel the same way now." You may want to consider my post as being "very very against it," but read the second paragraph, and you'll see my intent. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 12 2007, 08:17 AM Post #9 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
T'aint the way the Senate works, these days. Unless they are looking to make a show of it, they don't bring to the floor anything that doesn't have 60 votes, if someone has threatened a filibuster. It used to be that you actually had to filibuster in order to sustain a filibuster. You had to keep talking, and hold the floor, for days. It doesn't work that way any more. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. As for your views on the filibuster, I'm willing to believe that I've amplified them somewhat, because I don't keep either a mental or a written list of every single person's nuanced position on every issue. But you are against the filibuster, right? Just to be clear, I'm not. Even when it's Republicans doing it. I'm against over-use of the filibuster ... it should be for critical issues, not day-to-day crap, and it's devolved into a tool to block anything you don't like, which imho is just plain wrong. But, as a concept, I believe the filibuster serves an important purpose in protecting minority rights. The problem is that, faced with a choice of rampant over-use or elimination of the filibuster, I might think that elimination is the better course. Maybe. But I'd rather everybody went back to the days when it was only used very rarely, and only on very important issues. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 12 2007, 08:47 AM Post #10 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I have never been against the filibuster. I only thought it inappropriate in advise and consent. That being said, there are two houses of Congress. What are they doing in the House to further this Democrat cause of cleanup? Nada zippo. There has been no serious discussion in the Senate either of legislation by either side. This filibuster thing is a red herring. If senate Democrats were really interested in reform they would bring up legislation and force Republicans to filibuster it. It would give them a dynamite campaign issue. Might they be in doubt as to whether Senate Republicans actually would filibuster it? Could it be that they really are not so interested in reform? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 12 2007, 09:12 AM Post #11 |
|
Finally
|
"These days" being the last 120 or so, or are you willing to exend that into last year, and the year before?
Just like Strom Thurmond (D-SC) who set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
Amplified indeed. No, I'm not against it, but I will agree with you that it is overused.
Such as what, Supreme Court Justices? Minimum wage? Pelosi's rental properties? Who's to decide, other than the minority? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 13 2007, 04:50 AM Post #12 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Yeah, the minority has to decide. But if the minority overuses it, the majority always has the option to get rid of the filibuster. It's not like it's part of the Constitution. It's just Senate rules, and Senate rules can be changed every two years, when a new Congress takes office. I thought that the Republicans' hypocritical efforts to say that filibuster rules don't apply to advise-and-consent appointments was outrageous, given that Republicans have used the filibuster on judicial nominees. However, if they wanted to change the rules, they have the ability to do so, every two years ... assuming they are in the majority. :rolleyes: And, if they want to change the rules to say that the filibuster doesn't apply in advise-and-consent situations, that's fine too. Just don't do it the chickensh!t way, through a parliamentary procedure ruling. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









6:41 AM Jul 11