Not so fast Sen. Reid

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by CaptainObvious, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. WASHINGTON - Ethics reform, a higher minimum wage and more money for stem cell research are the top items on the Senate agenda next year, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

    BULLSHIT! Those are not top priorities. The Iraq war, Terrorism, Immigration, are what you dickwads were elected to take care of. No free pass for you Harry and the Dems. Get on the f'n job, or suffer the consequences in 08.
     
  2. I think Madam Speaker Elect had outlined the Democratic agenda priorities before the elections and she and the other Democrats should keep their promises made on that. If ethics reforms was priority number one on her agenda, then the Democrats should act accordingly. When we the US population voted in the Democrats, we knew what the priorities are and want the leaders to implement those.
     
  3. You're easily pleased! I'm not! Ethics reform has been preached for decades. It's a bullshit, feel good item. They'll do nothing but have one f'n committee meeting after another. Not a damn thing of substance will change in the end. Meanwhile, the country goes to hell.
     
  4. Nancy Pelosi's first 100 Hours.

    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.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/06/ap/politics/mainD8KJ92800.shtml

    Sen. Reid: Ethics, stem cells top agenda

    WASHINGTON - Ethics reform, a higher minimum wage and more money for stem cell research are the top items on the Senate agenda next year, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

    Reid said he will tackle those priorities after cleaning up the "financial mess" that the outgoing Republican leadership has left.

    Reid also said he's doing away with the "do-nothing Congress" that Democrats campaigned against this year as they ousted the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress.

    "We're going to put in some hours here that haven't been put in in a long time," Reid said. That means "being here more days in the week and we start off this year with seven weeks without a break. That hasn't been done in many, many years here."
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_go_co/reid_interview
     
  5. Pretty tough to fix the war when the Commander in Chief still says that he will not leave Iraq "no matter what".

    The fixing of many years of a ridiculous war will have to wait until the Country is given control of it's foreigh policy back from the boys.

    c
     
  6. Helpless, Pitiful Democrats
    Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
    Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006


    For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that - now that it is upon us - it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

    There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

    In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies.

    The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

    In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority - 218 - to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

    Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army - disciplined, unified and determined - the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail -- caucus by caucus.

    First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus -- hat in hand -- to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats -- the out and out conservatives.

    If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

    The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

    This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

    Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself."

    Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.


    So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.

    What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only - to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation. Eileen McGann co-authored this column.
    ______________________________________________


    Mandate?
     
  7. WoW! Seven whole weeks without a break. Impressive! NOT! So, you're OK with letting them pick the low hanging fruit while people die needlessly. Guess those thousands of illegals sucking our system dry is cool too. Maybe those stem cells can be used to grow new arms and legs for our wounded. Hell, maybe when some poor sap gets his fuckin' head blown off we'll just grow him a new one. And our Vets can look forward to a better paying janitors job when they come home. Old crooks out, new ones in. The Merry-Go-Round continues.
     
  8. ______________________________________________

    That seven weeks may be just one filibuster.
     
  9. pattersb

    pattersb Guest


    The democrats have no unified stance on the Iraq war. They never pretended to, Iraq is what it is. We'll be there for years.

    Immigration? You mean their Amnesty program?

    Terrorism? Repel the patriot act, and continue fighting against profiling?


    The Democrats have nothing. These past elections were about throwing the bums out, regardless of what bums would replace them. The Democrats are a fractured group of special interests, and always will be.

    The minimum wage is a sham, in terms of dollars, it will probably cost as many people their jobs as it increases the wages of others. Stem cell research? Fetal stem cell research has produced squat, and most of what I've read suggests it has little potential, (aside from being used for political demogogaury, of course).

    My only suprise is they didn't include gay-marriage in their list. (I did loosely predict that they would). Good Luck in '08.
     
  10. They can stop the funding. Easy enough to say, 06.01.07 no more money. Have the troops home by then Mr. President, period! That is what real leaders would do.
     
    #10     Nov 28, 2006