Just one? OK, how about returning oversight? How about finally giving Bush a reason to Veto ANYTHING, even if it was money for troops and medical research? Let’s not forget that a lot of the legislation requires a supermajority (60+) in the Senate, and while the house has met its goals (minimum wage, for example), the Senate’s still tightly in the hands of partisan hacks who do nothing more than pay lip service to conservative values.
Could they be doing more? Absolutely! They could impeach the AG, they could hold the VP in contempt of Congress(or is that magical fourth branch of government protected by some as of yet discovered portion of the constitution?), they could impeach Bush for lying to Congress — OVER AND OVER AND OVER. They could reverse the USPATRIOT Act.
So am I happy with them? No. But they’ve hardly done “nothing.” The mere presence of an opposing hand is in itself an accomplishment. One party rule is NEVER good for a country.
Remember: when the pendulum swings too far one way it will inevitably swing to the other. If it doesn’t it means the clock’s broken. Hope you get my meaning there.
I would hardly call their “presence” by election as a means to “balance” Congress an accomplishment. Their existence and control is nothing more than a “lets try the other guy” reaction to the irresponsible Republican majority of years past.
The rest of your comment, while valid, really doesn’t equal an “accomplishment” by congress as what they COULD do doesn’t compare to what they “ARE” doing which is… not a hell of a lot as they promised when running. (surprise?)
Actually, if you look at the House, you see that they have indeed met all their benchmarks. What’s been stifling them is the Senate, where nowadays a Supermajority is needed for things. This, of couse, wasn’t a problem for them, seeing as the Republicans HAD a supermajority, and seeing as they, like lemmings, have done nothing but follow the administration off the cliff of reality for the past 6 years with made up, feel-good legislation like “faith based initiatives”, which never really saw a dime, and dangeriously un-American legislation like the USPATRIOT Act, and other legislation rejected immediately after 9/11, but then slowly snuck into bills (ex: the RealID act, which was snuck into a troop funding bill, IIRC).
The Dems in the Senate haven’t had a Supermajority, and so long as the Republians put party over country — the environment setup by GW and gang — legislation WON’T move past the Senate, no matter how good. And, of course, that which does will be Vetoed by the President anyway (see Stem Cell Funding and Troop Funding with — SHOCK — a mission end date), and the Senate Dems DEFINITELLY don’t have the numbers to over turn a veto. (Again, party over country. More importantly, the Dems have yet to — YET TO, I hold them only in slighly higher regard than I do the current batch of “conservative” scum there — try to pull anything off like the extended vote for denying the US the right to use its barganing power with big pharma companies, so they can make BILLIONS on the backs of Medicare and Medicaid.)
On the bright side, they are finally helping shed light on all the criminal activities and blatant cornyism of Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, and of course, Papa Dubbya. (Did you notice Monica Goodling had absolutely NO IDEA what immunity meant until someone explained it to her? Not a good sign from the lawyers’ lawyer.) Again, I really, really, really hope impeachment follows — of the AG, vp, and Prez, more than anything. If that and nothing else gets done (and they are subsequently arrested and sent to the Hague), I’ll be satisfied enough with the Dems (and those Repubs with a backbone and at least SOME common sense, like — dare I steep into cliche — Ron Paul.)
Casey
20 Jul, 2007
Wow, I just felt a really hot breeze.
Casey
20 Jul, 2007
I’ll tell you what they have accomplished.
1) Unparalleled pork barrel spending (which is hard to believe possible, considering how out of control the Republicans were the past 6 years)
Must be all that global warming. Or desert living, I don’t know.
I’ll tell you what they have accomplished.
1) Unparalleled pork barrel spending (which is hard to believe possible, considering how out of control the Republicans were the past 6 years)
2) Senate rule manipulations
3) Lots of whining and pandering
1) Complete bull. Pull comparison numbers AND purposes. The only reason you’re hearing about it now is because suddenly, the magical fiscal conservatism fairy sprinkled dust on Bush and made him realize that “1500 pieces of attached spending legislation are probably not a good thing. (*Drags out infamous “bridge to nowhere”*.) Pork barrel spending is simply a way to slander supplemental funding legislation for states, and while a fair amount of the time it is not needed (*points at bridge*) sometimes it really is (like helping spinach farmers after that whole poisoned food outbreak. E. coli, wasn’t it?)
2) Oh, you mean like actually restoring the rules that had been in place BEFORE the Republicans took over in 1994? Sorry, bub: that’s a good thing. If they REALLY wanted to do some damage they’d make it so that bills passing the Senate would require a simple majority, not a supermajorty. Then all the Dems would have to worry about is Holy Joe Lieberman, and then only on war issues (a side quickly, and thankfully losing popularity.)
3) Whining, yes: by definition they whine way too much. It’s why they’ve DESERVED to lose for the past 14 years. By pandering… to who, the people? I’m shocked! I’m awed! That politicians would look to placate their constituents. No. Flipping. Way. I’m dismayed. Really, I am. Not like the Republicans know anything about that, eh? Nope, nothing at all. (*sweeps conservative Christians under the rug*)
You just hate to admit that having the Dems in power of some government branches is a good thing. Personally, I prefer a Democratic president and a Republican congress (even if they get into little petty issues like, oh, extramarital affairs which, while wrong and despicable, don’t endanger a country like, say, weak borders, guest worker programs (aka. second class sub-citizens) and wars with no definite goals sold to us on a pack of lies. (Explain to me why where in Iraq again and why Al Qaeda is now just as powerful as it was in 2001? Oh, right: We’re there for the oil, not for, you know, actually fighting terrorism.)
By the way, didn’t explain my reasoning: Historically, the economy does much better with a Democratic president, ESPECIALLY when he’s got a Republican congress.
Pork barrel spending is simply a way to slander supplemental funding legislation for states, and while a fair amount of the time it is not needed (*points at bridge*) sometimes it really is (like helping spinach farmers after that whole poisoned food outbreak. E. coli, wasn’t it?)
Sending aid to spinach farmers as a supplement to a WAR APPROPRIATIONS BILL is inappropriate. If you have billions that NEED to go to disaster relief… introduce a bill for DISASTER RELIEF.
Gnorb
19 Jul, 2007
Just one? OK, how about returning oversight? How about finally giving Bush a reason to Veto ANYTHING, even if it was money for troops and medical research? Let’s not forget that a lot of the legislation requires a supermajority (60+) in the Senate, and while the house has met its goals (minimum wage, for example), the Senate’s still tightly in the hands of partisan hacks who do nothing more than pay lip service to conservative values.
Could they be doing more? Absolutely! They could impeach the AG, they could hold the VP in contempt of Congress(or is that magical fourth branch of government protected by some as of yet discovered portion of the constitution?), they could impeach Bush for lying to Congress — OVER AND OVER AND OVER. They could reverse the USPATRIOT Act.
So am I happy with them? No. But they’ve hardly done “nothing.” The mere presence of an opposing hand is in itself an accomplishment. One party rule is NEVER good for a country.
Remember: when the pendulum swings too far one way it will inevitably swing to the other. If it doesn’t it means the clock’s broken. Hope you get my meaning there.
James
19 Jul, 2007
I would hardly call their “presence” by election as a means to “balance” Congress an accomplishment. Their existence and control is nothing more than a “lets try the other guy” reaction to the irresponsible Republican majority of years past.
The rest of your comment, while valid, really doesn’t equal an “accomplishment” by congress as what they COULD do doesn’t compare to what they “ARE” doing which is… not a hell of a lot as they promised when running. (surprise?)
Gnorb
20 Jul, 2007
Actually, if you look at the House, you see that they have indeed met all their benchmarks. What’s been stifling them is the Senate, where nowadays a Supermajority is needed for things. This, of couse, wasn’t a problem for them, seeing as the Republicans HAD a supermajority, and seeing as they, like lemmings, have done nothing but follow the administration off the cliff of reality for the past 6 years with made up, feel-good legislation like “faith based initiatives”, which never really saw a dime, and dangeriously un-American legislation like the USPATRIOT Act, and other legislation rejected immediately after 9/11, but then slowly snuck into bills (ex: the RealID act, which was snuck into a troop funding bill, IIRC).
The Dems in the Senate haven’t had a Supermajority, and so long as the Republians put party over country — the environment setup by GW and gang — legislation WON’T move past the Senate, no matter how good. And, of course, that which does will be Vetoed by the President anyway (see Stem Cell Funding and Troop Funding with — SHOCK — a mission end date), and the Senate Dems DEFINITELLY don’t have the numbers to over turn a veto. (Again, party over country. More importantly, the Dems have yet to — YET TO, I hold them only in slighly higher regard than I do the current batch of “conservative” scum there — try to pull anything off like the extended vote for denying the US the right to use its barganing power with big pharma companies, so they can make BILLIONS on the backs of Medicare and Medicaid.)
On the bright side, they are finally helping shed light on all the criminal activities and blatant cornyism of Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, and of course, Papa Dubbya. (Did you notice Monica Goodling had absolutely NO IDEA what immunity meant until someone explained it to her? Not a good sign from the lawyers’ lawyer.) Again, I really, really, really hope impeachment follows — of the AG, vp, and Prez, more than anything. If that and nothing else gets done (and they are subsequently arrested and sent to the Hague), I’ll be satisfied enough with the Dems (and those Repubs with a backbone and at least SOME common sense, like — dare I steep into cliche — Ron Paul.)
Casey
20 Jul, 2007
Wow, I just felt a really hot breeze.
Casey
20 Jul, 2007
I’ll tell you what they have accomplished.
1) Unparalleled pork barrel spending (which is hard to believe possible, considering how out of control the Republicans were the past 6 years)
2) Senate rule manipulations
3) Lots of whining and pandering
Gnorb
20 Jul, 2007
Must be all that global warming. Or desert living, I don’t know.
1) Complete bull. Pull comparison numbers AND purposes. The only reason you’re hearing about it now is because suddenly, the magical fiscal conservatism fairy sprinkled dust on Bush and made him realize that “1500 pieces of attached spending legislation are probably not a good thing. (*Drags out infamous “bridge to nowhere”*.) Pork barrel spending is simply a way to slander supplemental funding legislation for states, and while a fair amount of the time it is not needed (*points at bridge*) sometimes it really is (like helping spinach farmers after that whole poisoned food outbreak. E. coli, wasn’t it?)
2) Oh, you mean like actually restoring the rules that had been in place BEFORE the Republicans took over in 1994? Sorry, bub: that’s a good thing. If they REALLY wanted to do some damage they’d make it so that bills passing the Senate would require a simple majority, not a supermajorty. Then all the Dems would have to worry about is Holy Joe Lieberman, and then only on war issues (a side quickly, and thankfully losing popularity.)
3) Whining, yes: by definition they whine way too much. It’s why they’ve DESERVED to lose for the past 14 years. By pandering… to who, the people? I’m shocked! I’m awed! That politicians would look to placate their constituents. No. Flipping. Way. I’m dismayed. Really, I am. Not like the Republicans know anything about that, eh? Nope, nothing at all. (*sweeps conservative Christians under the rug*)
You just hate to admit that having the Dems in power of some government branches is a good thing. Personally, I prefer a Democratic president and a Republican congress (even if they get into little petty issues like, oh, extramarital affairs which, while wrong and despicable, don’t endanger a country like, say, weak borders, guest worker programs (aka. second class sub-citizens) and wars with no definite goals sold to us on a pack of lies. (Explain to me why where in Iraq again and why Al Qaeda is now just as powerful as it was in 2001? Oh, right: We’re there for the oil, not for, you know, actually fighting terrorism.)
Gnorb
20 Jul, 2007
By the way, didn’t explain my reasoning: Historically, the economy does much better with a Democratic president, ESPECIALLY when he’s got a Republican congress.
James
23 Jul, 2007
Pork barrel spending is simply a way to slander supplemental funding legislation for states, and while a fair amount of the time it is not needed (*points at bridge*) sometimes it really is (like helping spinach farmers after that whole poisoned food outbreak. E. coli, wasn’t it?)
Sending aid to spinach farmers as a supplement to a WAR APPROPRIATIONS BILL is inappropriate. If you have billions that NEED to go to disaster relief… introduce a bill for DISASTER RELIEF.