Perfect crystallization of what's wrong with the Democrats

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ramo 1 - Ogie 0

Sory, Ogie, it's a crap editorial.

And wrong as well.

Yes, they defeated the Clinton health-care bill. But they also offered a highly detailed series of proposals for reform in Washington that offered voters a sense that Republicans weren't just reacting against Clintonism but were ready to supplant it with something better.

So the stupid editorial is saying that dem's aren't doing this?

http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=236871

Democrats Moving Forward With Promise Of America Agenda
Monday, April 25, 2005


WASHINGTON, DC – As Senate Republicans move closer to a partisan power grab that deals less with substance and more with right wing politics, Democrats are ready to move forward with an agenda that addresses the concerns of regular Americans throughout the nation.

Invoking a little-known Senate procedure called Rule XIV, the Democrats put nine bills on the Senate calendar that seek to help America fulfill its promise.

“Across the country, people are worried about things that matter to their families – the health of their loved ones, their child’s performance in schools, and those sky high gas prices,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. “But what is the number one priority for Senate Republicans? Doing away with the last check on one-party rule in Washington to allow President Bush, Senator Frist and Tom Delay to stack the courts with radical judges. If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America.”

Democrats have introduced bills that address America’s real challenges.

Women’s Health Care. “The Prevention First Act of 2005” will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women.
Veterans’ Benefits. “The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005” will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation.
Fiscal Responsibility. Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.
Relief at the Pump. Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump.
Education. Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students .
Jobs. Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage.
Energy Markets. Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity.
Corporate Taxation. Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.
Standing with our troops. Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families.
“Abusing power is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do. We need to address real priorities instead -- fight for relief at the gas pump, stronger schools and lower health care costs for America’s families,” said Senator Reid.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

With the exception of the fiscal responsibility item nestled in the midst of that sh1t sandwitch there isn't much to brag about.

[chequita guevara]

The Dems suck, the GOP blows, and America gets nothing but air.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
With the exception of the fiscal responsibility item nestled in the midst of that sh1t sandwitch there isn't much to brag about.

So?
I wasn't saying otherwise, I was just rebutting a false claim in the editorial.

[Dinner]

Since we've been talking about the filibuster it is interesting to see what prominent anti-filibuster groups have said about the filibuster in the past. The ultra conservative Family Research Council (FRC) today screams almost daily about how the filibuster is unconstitutional but MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has uncovered films from the late 1990's when the FRC was gushing on and on about how American and how fair it was to use the filibuster.

Of course back in those days the Democrats had a plurality in the Senate and the FRC was strong arming right wingers into filibustering James C. Hormel (Clinton's nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg) on the grounds that Mr. Hormel was gay.

Olbermann uncovers Family Research Council filibuster flip-flop

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted that the Family Research Council (FRC), which is currently campaigning to stop filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees by Senate Democrats, was quite vocal in the late 1990s in defending the right to filibuster another presidential nominee, James C. Hormel, who was nominated by President Clinton as ambassador to Luxembourg.

On the April 25 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, host Olbermann recounted a statement made July 2, 1998, on National Public Radio by FRC senior writer Steven Schwalm:

OLBERMANN: As mentioned, the filibuster stretches back not merely to Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but to the presidential administration of Franklin Pierce 152 years ago. And, as a last measure of the defense of the minority, it has had many supporters over the years, like the very people of faith who sponsored yesterday's "Justice Sunday," the group Family Research Council.

Yesterday, it was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. That's when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam-and-other-meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormel's nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.

They did that for a year and a half. The Family Research Council's senior writer, Steven Schwalm, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.

"The Senate," he said, "is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it's got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That's why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly."

It's been said many times, many ways, that was then, and this is now.

Just more lies and spin from Republican hypocrits.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504260005

[Drake Tungsten]

Oerdin (and others) agreeing with the Family Research Council

[Dinner]

I guess I do agree with their 1990's stance though I enjoy highlighting their flip flops more.

[chequita guevara]

As I was coming home from an interview, there was a "Save Our Courts" demonstration in front of the Federal Court House in downtown FtL.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Regarding Senate rule changes and the effect in the past 30 years.

1975 - Change from 2/3 to 3/5 supermajority to end fillibuster completed via majority senate vote - responsible party Dems

1977 - Change to eliminate post cloture fillibusters via Senate majority - responsible praty Dems (Byrd)

1979 - Limitation of Amendments to Appropriations bills via Senate majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

1980 - Precedent for consideration of nominations (order of executive calendar) via Sente majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

1987 - Change in voting procedures (essentially elimination of delay tactics) via Senate majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

Wow, so many changes that have helped speed up the process while allowing the minority, of either the party in power, OR the opposition, to still have some say.

Why can't republicans learn from this legacy of vast democratic majorities allowing some power to the weak?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sure a change 1975 to move the super majority from 67% to 60% is SOOOOO much different than a move in procedure to change it from 60% to 51%.

A whole 2% different!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Sure a change 1975 to move the super majority from 67% to 60% is SOOOOO much different than a move in procedure to change it from 60% to 51%.

A whole 2% different!

Technically, no. It's a 50% difference. 60 is 90% of 67. 51 is 85% of 60. 15 is 50% more than 10.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Sure a change 1975 to move the super majority from 67% to 60% is SOOOOO much different than a move in procedure to change it from 60% to 51%.

A whole 2% different!

When is the last time any party had a 68-32 advantage in the Senate?

Or even a 60-40 advantage?

But a 51-49 advantage, that's easy.

The difference is profound.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Implications aside the precedent has been set numerous time by the Dems. Had they not wanted the nuclear/constitutional/byrd option to be used against them they should have been cognizant of the implications back when they were in power.

I find it a stroke of poetic justice that Byrd is reaping exactly what he sowed. Couple that with his impotent raging and it makes it that much more sweet. May the racist bastard choke on his own bile.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Implications aside the precedent has been set numerous time by the Dems. Had they not wanted the nuclear/constitutional/byrd option to be used against them they should have been cognizant of the implications back when they were in power.

Except the democrats have never moved to remove the ability TO FILLIBUSTER-they changed its effectiveness and use. NO precedent was set for the "nuclear option". This is why you continue to be wrong.

I find it a stroke of poetic justice that Byrd is reaping exactly what he sowed. Couple that with his impotent raging and it makes it that much more sweet. May the racist bastard choke on his own bile.

Remind me, did you castigate Sava for his behavior when Strum died?