Daschle the obstructionist at it again

[JackC]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Wow, look what I started.

Bufford, if those issues are of such importance to you please feel free to start a discussion on them. I bring up the issues that I see as important. Feel free to ignore those if you dont think they are worthy of your input.

What would the Dems have said if the GOP had refused to turn over any power after Jeffords switched?

This is obstructionist and political at it's core.

The Dems lost, the GOP won. It's time for the Dems to stop crying like little ****es and get on with the business of Govt.

Jack, what's petty is the Dems pulling a stunt like this. It's like the little punk in grade school who would threaten to leave and take the football with him if he didn't get to be the quarterback. It's not petty to demand the Dems to respect the voteres and the Constitution.

The rules are the rules Kilmer. Don't like them than change them. It's more like the team crying about the other team running up the score. If it's within the rules too bad.

[Art]

Jack and Gbear,

Obviously you don't know how Senate appropriations work. The deal worked out by the Republicans was worked out for the entire election cycle. It was in place until the next Senate took place. That's how it works. When Jeffords switched parties, they couldn't alter the sharing of power because that's how those resolutions work.

When Jeffords switched to the Independent party, the Dems simply took over committee chairmanships and the budget was able to be tweaked, as per the agreement to share power outlined. When the new Senate took power it was supposed to go back to how it was and the Dems knew it because at the time they fully expected to take control.

And, yeah, Bufford, if my side lost, I'd be yelling loudly at them for this type of petty thing.

But, Gbear, you need to understand, the Dems didn't yield anything at all. When the initial power sharing was worked out, it was worked out such that if either party gained the majority during the term, precisely how it would happen, in terms of committee membership and the like. That was part of the Republican concession, knowing we were likely to lose a body -- Helms or Thurmond -- and not predicting Jeffords.

[Kilmer17]

Jack, I cut and pasted that quote for future use.

As I pointed out, the GOP could keep Dems completely out of every committee and not allow any floor debate if they want to. Will that be okay?

The Dems are asking for ridiculous appeasements and funding as well as committee apportionment. Whats the point of having control if the other side simply refuses to relinquish power? How long do we allow them to obstruct our rightfully elected leaders before we arrest them for treason? Then we can throw them in a jail and not allow them a lawyer by calling them an enemy combatant. That would be legal you know, but I would bet many of you would be screaming about it.

[@DCGoldPants]

And, yeah, Bufford, if my side lost, I'd be yelling loudly at them for this type of petty thing.

granted I won't remember this conversation in 04 if your boys lose. However, I'm going to call bull**** on you still. I don't think you would. I think some people would call it within the law and just let it go without a peep while Jack and Gbear are freaking like you guys are.

[fansince62]

kilmer17....it memory serves.......gingrich attempted to hold legislation up at one point and paid dearly at the voting booth....let the dems play this out..........they will be held accountable at a certain point if things aren't getting done. this is another PR game that they are surprisingly fighting the wrong side of....they will lose.....especially if there is another terrorist attack or even if social legislation is held up for a prolonged period of time.......just watch!!!

the real politics is that post-election analysis suggests that the dems were too pliant in acquiescing to the President's agenda and must therefore stake an opposing "voice of conscience"...this is a double-edged sword, however.....when does principled opposition become obstructionism? in this day and age of 30 second sound bites it's a high stakes game to play!!!!

[Art]

Bufford,

You are flatly unaware of how I am then. I believe in process and tradition and rules. While it's true a filabuster is allowed during the Senate organizational process, the fact is, if MY party was holding this very simple process up, I'd be screaming at the top of my lungs.

What's worse is when the last Senate took place, in a 50-50 tie, the Republicans were able to negotiate a power-sharing deal for the duration of that Senate by Jan. 5. The Dems aren't even in charge and are b!tching. You can rest assured, I would not be in favor of these tactics if my party was in the minority.

You can rest assured I call a spade a spade. When my party screws up, I have no issue with calling them on it. Obviously Jack and Gbear do based on a false belief in how things work and were worked out.

[redman]

Originally posted by gbear

Redman,

Check out Kilmers article to start the thread. Funding was changed after jefford switch. It is not unchangable for two years.

Again, that's incorrect. Jeffords switched, I believe, in June 2001, around six months after the funding based upon the 50-50 Senate split had been agreed-upon. As a result, the agreement was already in place, the funding already disbursed, and the arrangement couldn't be changed.

[JackC]

Kilmer,

Yes it would be OK if it's in the rules. I really have no major bone to pick with you. I've decided that you actually think about your positions before you take them and are not just a partisan. You're wrong a lot but you seem honestly based.

Art,

You kill me man! Anyone who doesn't agree with your position just doesn't understand the issue! LOL! You would never take a postion opposing anything a Republican would do. You are what they call a blind politcal hack! You are a Bushie yes man!

[NavyDave]

The Dems strategy will fail since the truth will be viewed on Fox news instead of hearing the stupid 51 to 49 majority lie on CNN.

The people voted the GOP into the majority to fix the turncoat of Vermin err Vermont's jump to the independant party.

I really do hope the House of Reps follows Rush's idea of ignoring Daschole's lobbyist wife requests making her useless to the parties she represents to put a dent in the Daschole's finances.

[JackC]

Originally posted by NavyDave

The Dems strategy will fail since the truth will be viewed on Fox news instead of hearing the stupid 51 to 49 majority lie on CNN.

The people voted the GOP into the majority to fix the turncoat of Vermin err Vermont's jump to the independant party.

I really do hope the House of Reps follows Rush's idea of ignoring Daschole's lobbyist wife requests making her useless to the parties she represents to put a dent in the Daschole's finances.

Fox News and truth in the same sentence? You guys are really a hoot!

[Art]

Jack,

Do you find it compelling to do the rubber and glue thing when debating? I'm the furthest thing from a party hack. I'm far more conservative on most things and I frequently take issue with specific items put forth by Republicans in general.

Conversely, you have no position other than what you've been fed. If a liberal Dem says something, you believe it. You don't fight against it. That's the problem with too much of the left. You are too mindless to actually view each topic on its merits and instead rely on a party affliation to guide you. I rely upon a belief system far greater than the Republican party.

But, specifically, Jack, you don't understand the issue. You and Gbear have mistakenly stated the Dems made some grand offer to the Republicans when they were in charge. They didn't. The details of that Senate organizational structure were worked out on Jan. 5 and the switch of Jeffords didn't alter the agreement that was to take the duration of that Senate's service. Obviously that you have said the Dems made a concession proves you aren't following the situation in an intelligent fashion, but, rather, hoping your guys once played square and fair with the rules.

[JackC]

Art,

I simply don't recall you ever taking issue with what a republican has said or done. Never. You even attempted to defend Trent Lott! If that's rubber and glue than so be it, bounces off me and sticks to you.

You might be the most politically pompus person I've ever read. One day I hope you open your eyes.

[Art]

Jack,

I defended Trent Lott on grounds that the content of what he said was expanded beyond what he said. I would support a Democrat for a poorly stated, inoffensive comment as well. I strongly believe Lott should have more cautiously explained that the rest of the country would have been better off voting for Thurmond on the basis of his strong beliefs on limited federal government, lower taxes, etc. That would have been appropriate, and is what he meant, and clarified after the initial statement.

But, when Wellstone died and Lott spoke glowingly of him on the floor of the Senate, you didn't see a firestorm of protest that Lott believes everything Wellstone ever believed. In order to make Lott's words offensive the media had to connect 40-year-old dots and say, "This is what he said." That's fine. Lott then said that's not what he had meant to say, and what he meant to say was how strongly he believed in the principle of limited government, lower taxes and the like, which is a view I also share with Thurmond.

I do not like hypersensitive people feigning offense over something that can ONLY be offensive if you add your own context to it. While Lott spoke less clearly than he should have, leading to the problem, what he actually said was not in any way offensive. He was praising a 100-year-old man for his career. If you and I knew each other for a couple of decades, even despite our political differences, you can be sure, if we got along personally and even professionally, I would say kind things about you at the end.

I'm not a politically correct person though. Others are. I've never liked Lott and don't mind seeing him leave. But, the reasons bother me because you can never cater to false charges of racism less you set a precedent that all one has to do is scream and you have to react to it. But, that's me. That you haven't seen me disagree with positions of the party is something I can't speak to. I have disagreed. I disagree, for example, with the party's position on abortion. I disagree, for example, with tariffs, though, they seem to have worked. I disagree, for example, with mass amnesty of illegals. There are any number specific issues I have a problem with. There are others I agree completely with.

Your lack of awareness of some of these, just as your ignorance on the issue here that required correction, is a reflection of your inattention to fact, and does not reflect the reality of what I've said.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Jack,

I defended Trent Lott on grounds that the content of what he said was expanded beyond what he said. I would support a Democrat for a poorly stated, inoffensive comment as well. I strongly believe Lott should have more cautiously explained that the rest of the country would have been better off voting for Thurmond on the basis of his strong beliefs on limited federal government, lower taxes, etc. That would have been appropriate, and is what he meant, and clarified after the initial statement.

But, when Wellstone died and Lott spoke glowingly of him on the floor of the Senate, you didn't see a firestorm of protest that Lott believes everything Wellstone ever believed. In order to make Lott's words offensive the media had to connect 40-year-old dots and say, "This is what he said." That's fine. Lott then said that's not what he had meant to say, and what he meant to say was how strongly he believed in the principle of limited government, lower taxes and the like, which is a view I also share with Thurmond.

I do not like hypersensitive people feigning offense over something that can ONLY be offensive if you add your own context to it. While Lott spoke less clearly than he should have, leading to the problem, what he actually said was not in any way offensive. He was praising a 100-year-old man for his career. If you and I knew each other for a couple of decades, even despite our political differences, you can be sure, if we got along personally and even professionally, I would say kind things about you at the end.

I'm not a politically correct person though. Others are. I've never liked Lott and don't mind seeing him leave. But, the reasons bother me because you can never cater to false charges of racism less you set a precedent that all one has to do is scream and you have to react to it. But, that's me. That you haven't seen me disagree with positions of the party is something I can't speak to. I have disagreed. I disagree, for example, with the party's position on abortion. I disagree, for example, with tariffs, though, they seem to have worked. I disagree, for example, with mass amnesty of illegals. There are any number specific issues I have a problem with. There are others I agree completely with.

Your lack of awareness of some of these, just as your ignorance on the issue here that required correction, is a reflection of your inattention to fact, and does not reflect the reality of what I've said.

Geez Art you sure used a lot of words to try to explain, that when you recently had the chance to prove you weren't a partisan you didn't do it. After you poor attempt (although you did use a lot of words) you degraded yourself by using your typical name calling.

You do make me laugh because I think you actually believe the stuff you spin! If only you had a better understanding than you would always agree with me!

[Art]

Jack,

I realize that as is frequently the case when a person is arguing an intellectually weak point they spurt out childish statements. This has been something you do frequently. That there was no namecalling at all contained makes me concerned for your mental health. I did speak to the reality of the fact that you don't understand the issue. Factually. That's not calling you a name. That's asking you to be smarter. You have shown that capacity and I hope you return to it.

One thing I'll generally grant TEG is while his thrust is generally the same mindless liberal tripe that infects the planet, at least he's thoughtful about defending that mindlessness . You have ceased sharing that quality. You will need to get back to that very soon.

[Golgo-13]

The tailgate is pretty much nothing more than the knockdown drag out fight between Kilmer and Art vs. JackC and gbear. I'm sure there will be much more fun to be had in the offseason.