<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The people understand. Look at the approval rating.</div> And? It's due to various things.
Here's why there's filibusters: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...294361366471828 Congress: On the heels of a rules change that iced the Colombia free trade treaty, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is scrapping the appropriations process in a new war funding bill. Something new and anti-democratic is afoot. Read More: General Politics Whatever is driving her, Pelosi seems to be moving Congress toward a one-woman dictatorship, showing little or no concern for holding actual votes or building consensus on key issues as she manipulates Congress. She's altering and contorting long-standing congressional rules to get her agenda through instead of trusting the voting process. This gives clout to special interests and makes her powerful as a political boss, but it undermines Congress as an institution, making voters the losers. Pelosi's latest move is to link a $108 billion supplemental bill for U.S. troops in Iraq to an extra $70 billion in pork spending in a tacked-on economic stimulus package. It's a bad idea, one that wouldn't make it through a congressional vote. So she's getting around that by changing the rules. Instead of submitting the package to a subcommittee vote, moving it to a full committee, and allowing debate until consensus is reached, Pelosi's skipping the appropriations process altogether. This has been done only a few times in the last 20 years — mostly in times of national emergency, like 9/11 and Katrina. Now, it's just business as usual with Pelosi in power. Pelosi seems to have been emboldened by her success in halting Colombia's free-trade agreement this month — again, not through votes, but by changing house rules to end the 90-day requirement to schedule a vote. This damages our alliance with Colombia. For what price? Like the Iraq bill, she's tying passage of Colombia free trade to the new pork spending she seeks. Winner: Big Labor. Loser: the private sector, which must pay $1 billion in tariffs. This follows Pelosi's moves to halt development of new energy resources through drilling oil in Alaska and the outer continental shelf. She's engineered this through 13 obscuring maneuvers since 2005, which keep America's energy resources in the ground, while handing out subsidies to favored "alternative energy" programs, which she has cleverly packaged as resolving the energy shortage. Winners: environmental and alternative-energy lobbies. Losers: all of us, who must now pay more for energy and food.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here's why there's filibusters: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...294361366471828 Congress: On the heels of a rules change that iced the Colombia free trade treaty, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is scrapping the appropriations process in a new war funding bill. Something new and anti-democratic is afoot. Read More: General Politics Whatever is driving her, Pelosi seems to be moving Congress toward a one-woman dictatorship, showing little or no concern for holding actual votes or building consensus on key issues as she manipulates Congress. She's altering and contorting long-standing congressional rules to get her agenda through instead of trusting the voting process. This gives clout to special interests and makes her powerful as a political boss, but it undermines Congress as an institution, making voters the losers. Pelosi's latest move is to link a $108 billion supplemental bill for U.S. troops in Iraq to an extra $70 billion in pork spending in a tacked-on economic stimulus package. It's a bad idea, one that wouldn't make it through a congressional vote. So she's getting around that by changing the rules. Instead of submitting the package to a subcommittee vote, moving it to a full committee, and allowing debate until consensus is reached, Pelosi's skipping the appropriations process altogether. This has been done only a few times in the last 20 years — mostly in times of national emergency, like 9/11 and Katrina. Now, it's just business as usual with Pelosi in power. Pelosi seems to have been emboldened by her success in halting Colombia's free-trade agreement this month — again, not through votes, but by changing house rules to end the 90-day requirement to schedule a vote. This damages our alliance with Colombia. For what price? Like the Iraq bill, she's tying passage of Colombia free trade to the new pork spending she seeks. Winner: Big Labor. Loser: the private sector, which must pay $1 billion in tariffs. This follows Pelosi's moves to halt development of new energy resources through drilling oil in Alaska and the outer continental shelf. She's engineered this through 13 obscuring maneuvers since 2005, which keep America's energy resources in the ground, while handing out subsidies to favored "alternative energy" programs, which she has cleverly packaged as resolving the energy shortage. Winners: environmental and alternative-energy lobbies. Losers: all of us, who must now pay more for energy and food.</div> So stop trying to link the approval ratings to the entire Democratic body.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The "Democratic body" selected her as speaker.</div> And yet they're not radical enough to cut funding. It's a complex issue to me, reflecting on both parties.
Actually, it speaks to Real's point. They lie through their teeth to get elected and when it comes to governing, reality is reality. But you realize they weren't about ending the war right? They were about getting the pork barrel spending they want.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, it speaks to Real's point. They lie through their teeth to get elected and when it comes to governing, reality is reality. But you realize they weren't about ending the war right? They were about getting the pork barrel spending they want.</div> They're both overzealous.
You don't see me here defending republicans, do you? I have no pretense of believing in any of these politicians. Like I said, out with the old culture of corruption and in with the new.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The "Democratic body" selected her as speaker.</div> And yet they're not radical enough to cut funding. It's a complex issue to me, reflecting on both parties. </div> That's right. They don't have the balls to cut funding. Not only would they sabotoge our country they'd sabotoge their political futures and the future of their party. But that's the only way they could fufill their campiagn process now. This is the Democratic party in a nutshell:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You don't see me here defending republicans, do you? I have no pretense of believing in any of these politicians. Like I said, out with the old culture of corruption and in with the new.</div> And I'm still young and not as cynical. Though I really do have reason to be. I live in New Jersey, where the political machine here is not as big as a small business, but rather as big as Wal-Mart.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The "Democratic body" selected her as speaker.</div> And yet they're not radical enough to cut funding. It's a complex issue to me, reflecting on both parties. </div> That's right. They don't have the balls to cut funding. Not only would they sabotoge our country they'd sabotoge their political futures and the future of their party. But that's the only way they could fufill their campiagn process now. This is the Democratic party in a nutshell: </div> Well actually, that seems harsh. The funding issue is a tight rope to walk and complicated in it's own sense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>"First I voted against the funding before I voted for it." LOL</div> They weren't in harm's way before the war.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The "Democratic body" selected her as speaker.</div> And yet they're not radical enough to cut funding. It's a complex issue to me, reflecting on both parties. </div> That's right. They don't have the balls to cut funding. Not only would they sabotoge our country they'd sabotoge their political futures and the future of their party. But that's the only way they could fufill their campiagn process now. This is the Democratic party in a nutshell: </div> Well actually, that seems harsh. The funding issue is a tight rope to walk and complicated in it's own sense. </div> I'll say it in a nicer way. We cut the funding without a plan to pullout, our soliders are put into even greater danger than they already are. I'm sure some of those younger Democrats with bright futures in Politics don't want their opponents bringing up the fact they voted to cut funding for our bravest men and women. The Democrats do that, they look worse than the Republicans do right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The "Democratic body" selected her as speaker.</div> And yet they're not radical enough to cut funding. It's a complex issue to me, reflecting on both parties. </div> That's right. They don't have the balls to cut funding. Not only would they sabotoge our country they'd sabotoge their political futures and the future of their party. But that's the only way they could fufill their campiagn process now. This is the Democratic party in a nutshell: </div> Well actually, that seems harsh. The funding issue is a tight rope to walk and complicated in it's own sense. </div> I'll say it in a nicer way. We cut the funding, our soliders are put into even greater danger than they already are. I'm sure some of those younger Democrats with bright futures in Politics don't want their opponents bringing up the fact they voted to cut funding for our bravest men and women. The Democrats do that, they look worse than the Republicans do right now. </div> I wouldn't cut the funding either, and I'm against the war.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The "Democratic body" selected her as speaker.</div> And yet they're not radical enough to cut funding. It's a complex issue to me, reflecting on both parties. </div> That's right. They don't have the balls to cut funding. Not only would they sabotoge our country they'd sabotoge their political futures and the future of their party. But that's the only way they could fufill their campiagn process now. This is the Democratic party in a nutshell: </div> Well actually, that seems harsh. The funding issue is a tight rope to walk and complicated in it's own sense. </div> I'll say it in a nicer way. We cut the funding, our soliders are put into even greater danger than they already are. I'm sure some of those younger Democrats with bright futures in Politics don't want their opponents bringing up the fact they voted to cut funding for our bravest men and women. The Democrats do that, they look worse than the Republicans do right now. </div> I wouldn't cut the funding either, and I'm against the war. </div> But see, they ran on this campaign promise to end the war! That's why they are there in the first place! Don't they have an obligation to the people that elected them to this office to fufill their campiagn promise?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The "Democratic body" selected her as speaker.</div> And yet they're not radical enough to cut funding. It's a complex issue to me, reflecting on both parties. </div> That's right. They don't have the balls to cut funding. Not only would they sabotoge our country they'd sabotoge their political futures and the future of their party. But that's the only way they could fufill their campiagn process now. This is the Democratic party in a nutshell: </div> Well actually, that seems harsh. The funding issue is a tight rope to walk and complicated in it's own sense. </div> I'll say it in a nicer way. We cut the funding, our soliders are put into even greater danger than they already are. I'm sure some of those younger Democrats with bright futures in Politics don't want their opponents bringing up the fact they voted to cut funding for our bravest men and women. The Democrats do that, they look worse than the Republicans do right now. </div> I wouldn't cut the funding either, and I'm against the war. </div> But see, they ran on this campaign promise to end the war! That's why they are there in the first place! Don't they have an obligation to the people that elected them to this office to fufill their campiagn promise? </div> They will only be able to do it in the long term.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How long is "long term?" 100 years? I bet!</div> Once they can stop the veto.
