Congress Poll Ratings in Toilet!!

[snapcat]

^It's my thread we'll keep the discussion to the poll I've cited, thank you!

Jack, you crack me up!

 

[JayHawk]

Jack has got ya there sunshine. No bill, no war.

I heard an interesting tidbit today. When Delay was the man he had one son drop it all and become a lobbyist. Yet the party of change took over and they changed things all right. Hary Reid has three sons pandering their wares on the hill. Same thing, politicians not leaders.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is the fault of the dems because they are in the majority. Just as it was the fault of repubs when they were in the majority. I don't recall the GOP having 60 votes in the Senate, so the dems must have been accomplices in all the spending extavaganzas the GOP engaged in by your own reasoning. After all, the dems disn't filibuster all that spending. You got the majority, strap on a a pair and accept responsibility for this dismal performance by this bunch of losers! Quit making excuses!

Absolutely! That's what I kept trying to get across when the Democrat horde on JUB kept ranting and whining about the Republicans having "control" of the government: they only had control because, and insofar as, the Democrats cooperated.
This is a game played by both the donkey and the elephant, and the sensible conclusion is that they're just one party, the platform of which is in reality, "Take home treats for our constituents, and get reelected".

 

[chance1]

Is there any thread where you don't call somone a Nazi Alfie, simply because you disagree with what they are saying?

In a word

NO

 

[Kulindahr]

It's time to throw out the incumbents and start fresh. Have you seen these stupid, senile, rich old men on C-Span recently? Jon Stewart has a good clip on them. Reid was quoting Dr. Seuss on the Senate Floor.

Better that than the old practice, since heavily restricted, of being allowed to insery anything at all into the Congressional Record. As I recall, some congresscritter had the entire Boy Scout handbook inserted -- and that was one of the less frivolous things.

But it is time to throw out the incumbents, who are really all members of the "Re-Elect Us" Party. We could probably get service just as good from random homeless folks as we do from Congress a lot of the time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Is there any thread where you don't call somone a Nazi Alfie, simply because you disagree with what they are saying?

In a word

NO

Alfie's a totalitarian who deflects people from noticing by calling others names, like Nazi and America-hater.
Just like a fair portion of Congress.

 

[Sexual]

They took the risk of being too soft with this "get out of Iraq" thingy...

If I was them, I'd have pulled them all out or cut the funding off and force Bush to retreat them.

They were scared that the public was going to hate them for cutting off funding, but seriously, no results are being seen. Even now, they're fucking around with the immigration thing instead of insisting over and over and over and over against the war.

Bush always does this "cushion controversy" thingy to avoid the big horse. It's like a proxy-excuse. Just like when he ran for re-election, and he brought up the gods-and-gays issue, which totally made the country vote for him and frankly, I saw them so wrapped up into this and all the freaking tele-vangelists on TV.....that the war on Iraq almost became second priority.

And now, with the immigration vibe, and thanks to the Paris jail time, the war is again becoming 2nd in line. It's surreal to think how fast we get dopped with the cushion headlines and all of a sudden we remember.....OH RIGHTTTT, THERE'S A WAR GOING ON!!!

As if we wake up for a wild dream or something. But it's all Bush's fault. He does this on purpose, I've noticed it. Ever since the surge thing came to town, the immigration thing followed...and everyone stopped criticizing the surge and was glued on the fence talk.

Dems need to smarten up to the GOP tactics.

 

[White Eagle]

I just got an email from my Congressman thanking me for my opinion on how he should vote future bills.
(He voted against the funding bill with timetables)
I asked him to not vote no on the next one without timetables. Him being a Vietnam veteran also, says he will not leave the troops without funding. Catch 22 if you ask me. He's right of course, to withhold funds would hurt the troops. But how in hell are we gonna get them out of there without another 1000 or so killed senselessly .

 

[JayHawk]

The Ties That Bind on Capitol Hill

Lawmakers' Family Members Can Lobby Congress Without Bowing to Rules Others Must Follow

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 7, 2003; Page A19

The Los Angeles Times recently chronicled how Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) supported several measures promoted by his son and son-in-law, both lobbyists for Nevada interests. Several times, Reid's relatives appealed to the senator's staff to help facilitate federal land swaps, protect mining interests and steer federal dollars to clients such as the University of Nevada at Reno. Reid did not tell colleagues or the public that the provisions he authored, many of which were obscure, benefited clients that paid his son and son-in-law $2 million in lobbying fees, according to the Times.

 

[JayHawk]

Hey didnt Reid have Abramhoff ties. Weird how quiet it got........

 

[letme]

Damn I woulda thought a lefty would have brought up Denny Hastard has a lobbies t son by now. Hell the kid got Google as a client !!!

 

[letme]

Hey didnt Reid have Abramhoff ties. Weird how quiet it got........

MB what ever happened with Reid's land deal btw. That sure got quiet also ??

 

[letme]

Alfie's a totalitarian who deflects people from noticing by calling others names, like Nazi and America-hater.
Just like a fair portion of Congress.

Maybe Alfie should change his rank to :


Obersturmbannführer Alfie.

Then maybe he and Adolf Eichmann could share plans to march all the decanters off to the chambers.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or gun nut.

No, I keep my gun in its holster; that's a different weapon with my nuts.

 

[Kulindahr]

Where the Democrats lost support is in the same place they found it last year, the Iraqi War. When they opposed the war and talked of bringing our troops home, they won the approval of America. When they caved to Bush and gave him another blank check for his war, they lost that support. The only way to get that support back is to stand up to Bush and tell him no more money for this war.

I just got an email from my Congressman thanking me for my opinion on how he should vote future bills.
(He voted against the funding bill with timetables)
I asked him to not vote no on the next one without timetables. Him being a Vietnam veteran also, says he will not leave the troops without funding. Catch 22 if you ask me. He's right of course, to withhold funds would hurt the troops. But how in hell are we gonna get them out of there without another 1000 or so killed senselessly .

This isn't an all-or-nothing situation unless they insist on it. My reason for getting upset at them -- as with others' I know of -- is that the Democrats aren't showing any creativity, but are just playing politics as usual. I've put forth a few ideas other than "bring them all home" that don't involve cutting funding, but would make it clear that this isn't a game -- my favorite the "Restoration of the National Guard Act", declaring that the National Guard cannot be used overseas except in formally declared war. Really, how could the president NOT sign that?!

 

[lancelva]

Where the Democrats lost support is in the same place they found it last year, the Iraqi War. When they opposed the war and talked of bringing our troops home, they won the approval of America. When they caved to Bush and gave him another blank check for his war, they lost that support. The only way to get that support back is to stand up to Bush and tell him no more money for this war.

Again, the Democrats didn't "cave" on anything. They just ran out of options. You can't do much with a one-seat majority in the Senate and even a 30-seat majority in the House when you have an obstructionist Republican minority and a stubborn President with the power of the veto.

For the first time since that start of this war, the Congress actually sent Bush a bill that included timetables and benchmarks for Iraq. The fact that the Democratic leadership was able to get that through both Houses of Congress was remarkable. But the President has the power of the veto and unless we have the 2/3 majority in both houses needed to override the veto, there is nothing else we can do. If you want to blame anyone on the failure of the timetable legislation, blame Bush and the Republican minority that upheld his veto.

And the Democrats will revisit the issue in the next few months, imposing similar legislation. We can only hope that the Republican minority will actually start listening to their constituents back home instead of Bush. They're not afraid to buck Bush on immigration, but they don't have the balls to do it on Iraq. Until we get a President that will work with us, we need some Republicans to join us.

 

[JayHawk]

So the budget has to include money for war?

Bush can't veto what doesn't exist.

 

[lancelva]

So the budget has to include money for war?

Bush can't veto what doesn't exist.

The war spending bill was a separate peace of legislation--it was an Emergency Supplemental because the Republican Congress failed to finish their work before the Democrats took control.

Even if Congress didn't pass appropiations for the war, the fighting would continue but the Pentagon would have to operate on a much smaller "emergency" budget that would prevent our troops from receiving the proper training and equipment (more so than usual under the past few years) and therefore endanger more lives. Cutting off funds does not mandate the president to withdraw. Creating a law directing the withdrawal is far different, and that's what they have been trying to do.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, the Democrats didn't "cave" on anything. They just ran out of options. You can't do much with a one-seat majority in the Senate and even a 30-seat majority in the House when you have an obstructionist Republican minority and a stubborn President with the power of the veto.

Maybe they didn't "cave", but "ran out of options"? Nonsense -- they ran out of imagination and guts. They're aiming for a grand slam, and aren't willing to settle for getting a man on base. If any of them were bright enough to go with something like the ideas I've suggested, that "obstructionist" Republican minority (who think it's an obstructionist Democrat majority) would crack, or they'd all look like fools. As it is, the Democrats are seen by a lot of people as just playing politics as usual.

For the first time since that start of this war, the Congress actually sent Bush a bill that included timetables and benchmarks for Iraq. The fact that the Democratic leadership was able to get that through both Houses of Congress was remarkable. But the President has the power of the veto and unless we have the 2/3 majority in both houses needed to override the veto, there is nothing else we can do. If you want to blame anyone on the failure of the timetable legislation, blame Bush and the Republican minority that upheld his veto.

Yes, for the first time since the start of the military action in Iraq, ignorant civilians have demonstrated that they didn't learn anything from Vietnam.
I'm not "blaming" anyone for the failure of timetable legislation; I'm cheering it. One of the lessons of Vietnam was not to let armchair amateurs tell the military how to go about their tasks -- and plain common sense says don't hand the enemy an advantage by telling him what you're going to be doing (in any form).

And the Democrats will revisit the issue in the next few months, imposing similar legislation. We can only hope that the Republican minority will actually start listening to their constituents back home instead of Bush. They're not afraid to buck Bush on immigration, but they don't have the balls to do it on Iraq. Until we get a President that will work with us, we need some Republicans to join us.

And the Democrats will look even more like the unimaginative political animals they apparently are, when what the American people wanted was a change, not more of the same games.
It's easy to buck someone when all you have to do is say "no" -- though this is an issue where from where I sit, Democrats need to listen to their constituents, and authorize a serious wall on the border. But when ideas are required... well, I'm not seeing any creativity
I tell everyone I hear complaining, "Go third party -- these bozos are just clowning around; it's time to not just throw out the particular bums, but the whole party." And that applies to Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Kulindahr]

Um, I love baseball and I hate seeing a baseball analogy misused. Hon, to hit a grand slam, one needs to first get three runners on base -- first, second, and third. And most runners get to first by hitting the ball, yet you suggest the Dems aren't "willing to settle" for getting a man on base. Perhaps you mean a home run, and not a grand slam. Whatever the case, the Dems are playing classic baseball -- they are in this for nine scrapping innings.

You know, you call the Democrats "unimaginative" and you say they are timid. But we aren't talking a creative process here, we are talking moving legislation through the United States Congress, a long, hard and technical marathon. The whole effort is guided and paced by rules and laws, by procedure and by consensus. It is not efficient -- it wasn't designed to be, for it is deliberative. And you claim, too, that a third party is the answer, that "thowing the bums out" will somehow redeem this system. Pray, how? It is the process, not the party, and if you object to the process, you better have a new system of government built. If you have a better plan for moving legislation, why don't you tell us? Otherwise, I wonder if we shouldn't call a WAAAAAAAMBULANCE for you...

On another note, what part of "two thirds of the vote" is it that some people on this forum struggle with? The Dems need Republicans to vote with them to overturn a veto, plain and simple. And when Republicans fail to do so in the matter of this war, then it is the Republicans who are responsible for the continued carnage, not the Democrats. Why this is unclear to the extreme is baffling.

I didn't misuse the analogy; I know what a grand slam is. The current Democrat "strategy" is trying to attain a grand slam without getting any men on base first.
And it has nothing to do with the process, it has to do with what they're trying to get through the process. When the Republicans had their slim majority, you always whined about them :controlling" Congress -- well, your Democrats are in "control" now, and they can get whatever legislation they want down to the floor as fast as they want.
I don't object to the process -- anything that hobbles government is a good idea -- I object to the demonstrated Democrat proclivity to use it only in a same-o same-o, politics as usual, fashion. Trying the legislation they tried, and planning to just keep reintroducing the same thing, isn't strategy, it's delusional. There's this thing called reality, and this batch of Democrats is demonstrating that they aren't any more in tune with it than the Republicans they just squeezed ahead of.

Sun Tzu's Art of War was all the rage not so long ago; the current excuse for leadership in Congress could do with a read. The only time you can succeed by using the same plan of attack against the same position is when you have an overwhelming numerical advantage -- the Democrats don't. The sensible thing to do is try a new plan of attack. And when a massive frontal assault hasn't succeeded, doing what is more effective anyway is in order: bite off pieces you can, one by one, until the enemy has no place left to stand.

One no-brainer would be "The National Guard Restoration Act of 2007", providing funding for new equipment, better equipment, recruiting incentives, and the absolute prohibition of the use of the Guard overseas except in cases of formally declared war. That's so common-sense that opposing it would make any politician look the fool, an issue that even people uncertain about the Iraq situation could agree is the right thing to do. I don't think it would be hard to get a veto-proof majority, but if Bush vetoed such a thing, he would be handing D.C. to the opposition for the foreseeable future.

Then go with legislation pre-emptive use of military force except with unequivocal, overwhelming evidence (fully disclosed to Congress) of not only the possession of weapons of mass destruction but of clear intent to use them against the United States.

And add others. There are "line items" such as these that the American public would support overwhelmingly, not just with the narrow edge handed the Democrats in the last election. Chip away at the president's adventurism, until he has to give in.