Community Messageboard: So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh? by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh? Joel Send a noteboard - 09/02/2010 11:59:50 AM

I did look at the Shelby thing. Not really that much different then when Reid did the same thing to Bush to get some appointments he wanted. I still it bad form but lets not blow things to far out of proportion. Reid kept the senate in session under Bush because he didn't want Bush to an end run on the senate and do recess appointments but he is all for Obama doing it. Lets not slip to far down the road to hypocrisy.

Pork is pork, whoever does it. If there's real need for an expenditure there's no reason it can't be in your state/district if you have people who can do the work; that's part of representing them. However, if it's just a contrivance for no other purpose than to give them work, that's no good. Even deficit spending to prime the pump during a recession should have a payoff, as when the WPA hired a bunch of people, but also brought electricity to parts of Appalachia and Texas that continue benefiting from it 60 years later. Dems DO abuse it more than Republicans, I believe, and it needs to stop.

That said, filibustering appointments to get pork is NOTHING like holding the Senate open to continue a filibuster against judicial activists. Though I'm not sure the latter was really necessary rather than grandstanding, because recess appointments are a self correcting problem:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Art. II, Sec. 2

In practice this just means they get a confirmation vote when the Senate comes back, and if the Senate doesn't want them they'll be unappointed nearly as fast as they were appointed (which is exactly what happened with many Clinton judicial appointees when Bill Frist was aiding filibusters he called "unprecedented" when Dems tried them on Bush. )

Having a public meeting or trying to pick off one or two moderate republicans is not the same thing as being bipartisan and they have failed even there. If they stopped letting Pelosi set the agenda they might have little more luck drafting bills that can gain wide support instead of drafting narrow bills and simply demanding it.

Sounds like the Republicans want the Dems to go on the record without having to do so themselves. Of course, saying that the first step to a bipartisan deal is to dump what remains of the original healthcare bill doesn't sound to compromise oriented either. I happen to think it needs to be dumped, and that public discussion with both sides would increase the chances of good ideas like the Snowe amendment becoming reality, but there's such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (and, once again, Republican Congressmen apparently don't want to publicly discuss the issue, they just want the Dems to do it and then snipe at them. )

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

Reply to message

Why bipartisanship can't work: the expert view Roland00 - 01/02/2010 11:34:58 PM 910 Views

And a personal comment Roland00 - 01/02/2010 11:39:28 PM 649 Views

Re: And a personal comment everynametaken - 02/02/2010 01:16:53 AM 604 Views

Who's to say YOU really know what's happening in Washington, though? Aemon - 02/02/2010 01:41:20 AM 680 Views

*thumbs up* *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:50:45 AM 248 Views

Or should I say...

? *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:51:03 AM 260 Views

I Don't watch tv

Roland00 - 02/02/2010 02:29:53 AM 638 Views

not to mention those who mistake knowledge for understanding random thoughts - 02/02/2010 10:41:14 PM 489 Views

Even so. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:45:54 AM 521 Views

Like the NYT? random thoughts - 05/02/2010 02:12:36 PM 547 Views

I don't believe the Times has ever conceded bias. Joel - 05/02/2010 06:03:02 PM 580 Views

and neither does Fox so I am not sure that matters random thoughts - 05/02/2010 06:40:15 PM 609 Views

Note that I didn't mention Fox (or anyone, for that matter. ) Joel - 05/02/2010 07:13:31 PM 541 Views

PBS is biased random thoughts - 05/02/2010 07:21:14 PM 520 Views

You're entitled to believe that. Joel - 05/02/2010 07:31:07 PM 660 Views

PBS has an obvious yet undeclared bias so does NPR random thoughts - 09/02/2010 04:47:53 AM 478 Views

Even were that true (which I dispute) my statement stands. Joel - 09/02/2010 09:50:36 AM 604 Views

so they wouldn't be biased becuas it could hurt them but you still argue republicans attack them random thoughts - 09/02/2010 02:19:53 PM 555 Views

Sometimes the truth hurts, though it doesn't hurt PBS. Joel - 10/02/2010 10:15:13 AM 645 Views

We have been for some time. Joel - 02/02/2010 03:31:10 AM 552 Views

I don't think that's the case Isaac - 03/02/2010 02:59:50 PM 525 Views

Universal healthcare was the primary plank in Clintons '92 platform. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:02:18 AM 514 Views

That does not mean his bare plurality was an endorsement of National Healthcare Isaac - 04/02/2010 02:09:32 PM 638 Views

I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. Joel - 05/02/2010 08:09:50 AM 656 Views

Re: I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. Isaac - 05/02/2010 03:52:23 PM 604 Views

[insert witty subject line here] Joel - 06/02/2010 02:15:21 AM 636 Views

Let me break this into multiple replies here Isaac - 06/02/2010 07:45:36 PM 617 Views

'K Joel - 08/02/2010 01:22:12 PM 609 Views

Probably time to go into 'summary mode' Isaac - 08/02/2010 07:34:55 PM 638 Views

Again, we're back to "how would you prefer to do it?" Joel - 09/02/2010 09:42:51 AM 660 Views

Any way that works, which currently probably is none Isaac - 09/02/2010 06:12:41 PM 594 Views

I think HDI is more accurate than nothing, though it certainly needs some fine tuning. Joel - 10/02/2010 11:03:08 AM 657 Views

Sorry for the delay... Isaac - 12/02/2010 11:40:21 PM 742 Views

NP, life happens.

Joel - 15/02/2010 02:06:55 PM 743 Views

I'll play a bigger age card since it was my third election to vote in and he won because of Perot random thoughts - 05/02/2010 05:57:04 PM 530 Views

Let's put it another way: Why did Dems nominate him instead of, say, Gephardt? Joel - 06/02/2010 02:22:04 AM 598 Views

you don't get mandates from primaries random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:12:29 PM 500 Views

No, but end of the day more people wanted healthcare than didn't. Joel - 08/02/2010 03:09:31 PM 512 Views

everyone want health care they just don't want congress runnig it random thoughts - 09/02/2010 04:56:44 AM 548 Views

Whom do you prefer? Joel - 09/02/2010 10:07:39 AM 582 Views

Sorry not a big fan of socialism I hear it big over in Europe though random thoughts - 09/02/2010 02:23:55 PM 479 Views

In other words you prefer the system we have; thanks for admitting it.

Joel - 10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM 529 Views

I prefer Thomas Woods Jr's description of bipartisanship Cannoli - 02/02/2010 02:49:06 AM 537 Views

If only someone had stood up on 8 December, 1941 and said, "hey, you're not supposed to do stuff!" Joel - 02/02/2010 03:28:38 AM 681 Views

you're making a good job taking things out of context, Joel AgentOrange - 03/02/2010 12:47:57 PM 498 Views

Don't speak in absolutes and I won't read absolutes. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:08:43 AM 513 Views

Some qualifiers can be left unsaid for a clearer message. Or better delivery

AgentOrange - 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM 502 Views

Qualifiers are clarifying by nature. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM 636 Views

huh. That does make sense. I know malpractice is a big weight on the the system in the US. AgentOrange - 04/02/2010 11:58:37 AM 475 Views

Perhaps, but it's hardly the greatest weight, or even in the top three, IMHO. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:44:49 AM 621 Views

Pearl Harbor would never have happened to a classically liberal nation Cannoli - 05/02/2010 01:33:56 AM 524 Views

Maybe; Billy Mitchell might debate that were he alive. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:34:54 AM 646 Views

Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you! SilverWarder - 05/02/2010 04:22:59 PM 702 Views

I do generally agree, but I think the Washington Naval Conference is too often overlooked. Joel - 06/02/2010 02:33:51 AM 652 Views

Some information and a question JasonD - 02/03/2010 05:49:20 AM 1060 Views

Politicians and pundits should stop calling things that happened in the last decade "unprecedented" Joel - 02/02/2010 03:23:27 AM 725 Views

Or the democratic party has shifted so far to to the left they can't even get all of the dems random thoughts - 02/02/2010 02:39:14 PM 501 Views

You didn't hear all the whining when Bush was in charge with a Republican Congress? Dannymac - 02/02/2010 08:50:05 PM 516 Views

I there was plenty of whining going on random thoughts - 02/02/2010 10:36:56 PM 445 Views

Is this you conceding that the GOP is being obstructionist? Joel - 08/02/2010 01:43:04 PM 490 Views

I agree they are obstructing the libs from doing whatever they want random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:19:13 PM 412 Views

They've tried including Republicans in drafting bills. Joel - 08/02/2010 03:08:17 PM 577 Views

tyring to pcik off one republican is not including republicans random thoughts - 09/02/2010 05:03:44 AM 516 Views

So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh? Joel - 09/02/2010 11:59:50 AM 529 Views

well it was your guy who was up in arms about private meetings random thoughts - 09/02/2010 02:29:34 PM 499 Views

Was it? I don't recall any Dem complaining about private meeting on healthcare. Joel - 10/02/2010 09:44:56 AM 667 Views

most liberals seem to foretting the "rhetoric" that Obama used to get elected random thoughts - 13/02/2010 06:54:34 AM 498 Views

Um... sorry, man....

Joel - 10/02/2010 11:06:22 AM 687 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="79610">
<quote id="79558">I did look at the Shelby thing. Not really that much different then when Reid did the same thing to Bush to get some appointments he wanted.  I still it bad form but lets not blow things to far out of proportion.  Reid kept the senate in session under Bush because he didn't want Bush to an end run on the senate and do recess appointments but he is all for Obama doing it.  Lets not slip to far down the road to hypocrisy.</quote>
Pork is pork, whoever does it.  If there's real need for an expenditure there's no reason it can't be in your state/district if you have people who can do the work; that's part of representing them.  However, if it's just a contrivance for no other purpose than to give them work, that's no good.  Even deficit spending to prime the pump during a recession should have a payoff, as when the WPA hired a bunch of people, but also brought electricity to parts of Appalachia and Texas that continue benefiting from it 60 years later.  Dems DO abuse it more than Republicans, I believe, and it needs to stop.

That said, filibustering appointments to get pork is NOTHING like holding the Senate open to continue a filibuster against judicial activists.  Though I'm not sure the latter was really necessary rather than grandstanding, because recess appointments are a self correcting problem:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Art. II, Sec. 2

In practice this just means they get a confirmation vote when the Senate comes back, and if the Senate doesn't want them they'll be unappointed nearly as fast as they were appointed (which is exactly what happened with many Clinton judicial appointees when Bill Frist was aiding filibusters he called "unprecedented" when Dems tried them on Bush. )
<quote id="79558">Having a public meeting or trying to pick off one or two moderate republicans is not the same thing as being bipartisan and they have failed even there.  If they stopped letting Pelosi set the agenda they might have little more luck drafting bills that can gain wide support instead of drafting narrow bills and simply demanding it.  </quote>
Sounds like the Republicans want the Dems to go on the record without having to do so themselves.  Of course, saying that the first step to a bipartisan deal is to dump what remains of the original healthcare bill doesn't sound to compromise oriented either.  I happen to think it needs to be dumped, and that public discussion with both sides would increase the chances of good ideas like the Snowe amendment becoming reality, but there's such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (and, once again, Republican Congressmen apparently don't want to publicly discuss the issue, they just want the Dems to do it and then snipe at them. )
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password