Democrats Plan Series of Votes on Ethics Reforms

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
You can joke about this all you want, but it has to hurt you that the democrats have put this forth as one of their first focuses after getting some control over the legislative process. It takes some real guts to address these issues individually as they have done. If these people were so concerned about protecting whatever it is you are alluding to, then why would this be their initial foray into legislation that matters?

It should be NO SURPRISE that the republicans didn't have the guts to do it, we've seen what they have done with their power. You ridicule and laugh, I commend them for breaking the mold and doing what the voters wanted done. Typical crap from you, Freeze. Hit and run ridicule, that has no basis in common sense.

Great!!

I am just not sure what it is...

Are the crooked democrats going to make it illegal to do something that is already illegal and unethical?

Or are they going to make it unethical to do something unethical and illegal?

Typical democratic garbage, lets make new laws that are the same as the old unenforced ones so that it will now take 500 instead of 100 lawyers paid by the federal government to figure out.
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

:nono: :nono: :nono:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
The Giant, Helpless, Pitiful Democratic Majority
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

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 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 d?j? 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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dick Morris served as Bill Clinton's political consultant for twenty years, guiding him to a successful reelection in 1996. He is the author of New York Times bestsellers Because He Could, Rewriting History (both with Eileen McGann), Off with Their Heads, and Behind the Oval Office, and the Washington Post bestseller Power Plays.
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
Google or Yahoo. Current and former military will testify at the war crimes trials of Rumsfeld and Bush ordering torture of people under the Laws of the Geneva Convention which he considers himself immune. Folks in 1946 thought the same thing.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Yep Dan You somehow left out "which" military personnel were testifying--typical liberal blog reporting-- your tactics are childs play


wouldn't be the Karpinski bitch again would it--and she certainly wouldn't have any motive would she ;)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Karpinski was withdrawn from Iraq in early 2004, shortly after photographs showing American troops abusing detainees at the prison were flashed around the world. She was subsequently removed from active duty and then demoted to the rank of colonel on unrelated charges.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
We hit the first point which was to vote the Dems in to slow down Bush and the Neocon controlled Republican Party.
Now, we have to keep our eye on all of them and rid anyone who shows any Neocon leanings or is a crook. That goes for both parties. And we would be wise to look for a third party guy. But I don't see any stepping up right now.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Stevie--Would hiding $200,000 in bribes in your freezer constitue being"crooked"--oops forgot not a conservative--but considering who voted him back in- guess it wouldn't really be a crime-believe when its a liberal doing it they refer to it as-- income redistribution :)

---and maybe we should start cleaning out the convicted child molestors also--ya think ;)

---and speaking of convicted child molestors--whats this---

"Rep. Barney Frank, set to lead the House Financial Services Committee, said issues such as raising the minimum wage will be popular, even thought the idea has been identified with liberals."

Shes draining the swamp all right--do they have "anyone" that doesn't have record to lead a committee. Sheez!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Dogs, I stand by what I said. I know that you don't agree with me because in your mind only Liberals can be bad. Let us throw out ANYONE who appears to be a crook. But, the most important thing that had to be done, and the country recognized it, was to stop the Neocons.
We at least slowed them down.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Wrong Stevie I've said numerous times most politicians are crooked.

--but what I fail to comprehend is how one party gets rid of those caught--and the other not only lets them serve lifetime but puts them at heads of committees--in effort to drain swamp of those less offensive than those in charge of committees.

I say I can't comprehend but actually its pretty obvious-when you look at the voting demographics--and to try to allow felons to vote would be the clincher.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Funny thing Dogs, you only seem to highlite the crooked Democrats, even going back as far as 32 years, but somehow you never point out the crooked conservatives who are serving today. Just an observation.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Great!!

I am just not sure what it is...

Are the crooked democrats going to make it illegal to do something that is already illegal and unethical?

Or are they going to make it unethical to do something unethical and illegal?

Typical democratic garbage, lets make new laws that are the same as the old unenforced ones so that it will now take 500 instead of 100 lawyers paid by the federal government to figure out.
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

:nono: :nono: :nono:

It makes me wonder how you made it through medical school if you can't comprehend simple English and a description of what is happening. I don't anticipate, however, that you are capable of embracing change or admitting that the democrats took note of public opinion and dissatisfaction of the status quo with the behavior of members of both parties, and acted to initiate reforms.

Let me cut to the paragraph that spells it out for you, maybe that will help you comprehend. I realize you won't admit anything - you always just disappear after being pinned down on virtually every issue in this forum. At any rate, here it is:

>>Under that plan, freshmen would offer, over as many as five days in January, separate amendments to ban gifts, meals and travel financed by lobbyists, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), incoming chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. New rules mandating the disclosure of all contacts with lobbyists would be another vote, as would a rule requiring that the sponsors of funding for home-state pet projects be identified. The House would also vote on whether to reinstate budget rules, known as pay-as-you-go, or "paygo," requiring that any new spending or tax cuts be offset by equal spending cuts or tax increases.<<

See, these are new rules and a new way of making things either illegal or forcing people to go on record in pork-related projects. It's refreshing, it's important in the eyes of most Americans (unless you are posturing or spinning to avoid looking bad politically), and it is the very first thing they have chosen to pursue.

It's new, it's good representation, and it's commendable. It works for both sides, and faces the American people, despite making things tougher for DEMOCRATS, as well.

I know the whole responsibility thing is a tough one for conservatives these days, but to minimize this is weak and dismissive with no good reason.

As for Wayne's eternal change the subject rhetoric about blaming democrats for doing illegal or bad things, I think this new legislation pertains to them, too. And if the people you mention did bad things, they should be dealt with accordingly. I have never once said that if people are convicted of crimes, they should get off with no repercussions. And I don't think many liberals here are advocating that.

I just think you guys are reeling from your recent setbacks and are lashing out. The sad thing is, the people you put in place that were supposed to be so honest, ethical and highly "moral" just didn't prove to be that way, and that makes it doubly wrong in the eyes of the objective. The election bore that out, and the Democrats are taking positive action to meet the unhappiness of Americans.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chad I would not keep bringing it up if others did not keep insisting on the contrary.

I can't fathom anyone remotely considering Pelosi credible when she makes public statements like this is worst economy since great depression--and vowing to drain swamp but endorsing the every criminal element to date for committees.

Frankly I am glad to see it--hopefully it will lead to moderate dems back in charge--and I have no prob with moderate dems whatsoever.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I appreciate the last part of your post, Wayne, but the other part is just more of the same. What the heck does Pelosi's "credibility" have to do with this legislation other than she probably has a large hand in whether is is put forth or not? This legislation is a direct response to the problem, no matter who puts it forth.

To hang on to the partisanship side of it really has no bearing on the legislation itself when all is said and done. Good legislation is good legislation. To criticize someone because of a comment about the economy in particular has no place in this discussion at all, and the legislation is being enacted to attack the people who do wrong, no matter what party they are in.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Finally got a spare minute to study the "dirty democrat" allegation against Hastings that you posted, Wayne. I note in that post four interesting features about the story. First, the man was legally acquitted of the charge. Second, I see there was a subsequent scandal regarding the FBI lab that was handling some of the evidence used in the trial - that he was acquitted of anyway. Third, when Congress was taking it upon themselves - despite the man being acquitted - to remove him from the bench, the top Rep and Dem on the oversight committee voted against removing him from his position. Fourth, the article uses a democrat being critical of Hastings which shows credibility in the democrats.

Nice work. That's the best you can come up with? Shall I list the republicans that have NOT been acquitted of crimes over the past few years, to show the difference?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Good Lord, I just read the drivel you posted from Dick Morris, Wayne. Nothing like an impartial fantasy report like that, is there? Dick Morris?!? Wow, there's a expert known for his objectivity...:rolleyes:

I like the first part of that piece of fiction, where he tells all of us how things are in the democratically controlled Senate. Maybe someone should remind him that the new Senate has not taken office yet, it's a little early to tell us how things ARE there.

In Morris' case, the fiction is stranger than, well, the fiction.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
I can't fathom anyone remotely considering Pelosi credible when she makes public statements like this is worst economy since great depression--and vowing to drain swamp but endorsing the every criminal element to date for committees..

I assume you take the same opinion of Bush when he says Rumsfeld will be his defense secretary through 2008 and then lets him go 2 days later. Yes, everything he says is very credible.

Why don't you stop repeating what Fox News feeds you and give the new congress a chance. Everything they talk about doing so far looks moderate and, as Chadman says, seems to be respoonding to what the voters have wanted.

Only a partisan jackass can have a problem with Congress wanting to clean up the lobbying crap. Interesting to watch Fox and the neocons already shltting all over the congress that hasn't even taken office yet.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Don't believe I mentioned being against lobbying issues.

My bitch was Pelosi ranting about draining the swamp then backing the bottom feeders to lead committees.

Is that an unfair/erroneous statement:shrug:
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
The Sean Hannitys of the world

The Sean Hannitys of the world

Cheney may not be a crook but he is a blood sucking vampire.

Lining his pockets with dead Ally Soldiers.

What a total bumbling mess IRAQ is.

And the Sean Hannitys of this world continue to applaud a complete bumbling failures of the Prince of Darkness Cheney.

If the Sean Hannitys of this world could just get Cheneys Mule out of their mouths then the balls would stop slapping them in the eyes and maybe they could see.

Catchers mask ? any of you Sean Hannitys ?
or is it mmmmmmmmmm in the bunker?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Don't believe I mentioned being against lobbying issues.

My bitch was Pelosi ranting about draining the swamp then backing the bottom feeders to lead committees.

Is that an unfair/erroneous statement:shrug:

It's unfair when you never scrutinize the other side. You suddenly find excuses for Bush when he contradicts himself day after day, yet are apalled at a statement from years ago or any misquote from the Dems. Your double standard gets old.

You are clearly unhappy with the newly elected congress and are bitching like a little girl, crapping all over the new leadership before they even have a chance to make some of these proposed positive changes.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Don't know where you been with my not critizing other side Smurph.

If I remember correctly I came down with both feet on George SR and Swarzkoff for their lying to Shites and getting them slaughtered--as well and George Jr for his social program/enhancement of Medicare--same with Foley-same with Delay-same with former Attorney General Ashcroft ect ect.
I call em as I see them from both sides.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top