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 864 Views

And a personal comment Roland00 - 01/02/2010 11:39:28 PM 599 Views

Re: And a personal comment everynametaken - 02/02/2010 01:16:53 AM 555 Views

Who's to say YOU really know what's happening in Washington, though? Aemon - 02/02/2010 01:41:20 AM 631 Views

*thumbs up* *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:50:45 AM 222 Views

Or should I say...

? *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:51:03 AM 245 Views

I Don't watch tv

Roland00 - 02/02/2010 02:29:53 AM 592 Views

not to mention those who mistake knowledge for understanding random thoughts - 02/02/2010 10:41:14 PM 444 Views

Even so. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:45:54 AM 469 Views

Like the NYT? random thoughts - 05/02/2010 02:12:36 PM 502 Views

I don't believe the Times has ever conceded bias. Joel - 05/02/2010 06:03:02 PM 524 Views

and neither does Fox so I am not sure that matters random thoughts - 05/02/2010 06:40:15 PM 566 Views

Note that I didn't mention Fox (or anyone, for that matter. ) Joel - 05/02/2010 07:13:31 PM 498 Views

PBS is biased random thoughts - 05/02/2010 07:21:14 PM 470 Views

You're entitled to believe that. Joel - 05/02/2010 07:31:07 PM 600 Views

PBS has an obvious yet undeclared bias so does NPR random thoughts - 09/02/2010 04:47:53 AM 433 Views

Even were that true (which I dispute) my statement stands. Joel - 09/02/2010 09:50:36 AM 545 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 507 Views

Sometimes the truth hurts, though it doesn't hurt PBS. Joel - 10/02/2010 10:15:13 AM 592 Views

We have been for some time. Joel - 02/02/2010 03:31:10 AM 497 Views

I don't think that's the case Isaac - 03/02/2010 02:59:50 PM 476 Views

Universal healthcare was the primary plank in Clintons '92 platform. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:02:18 AM 460 Views

That does not mean his bare plurality was an endorsement of National Healthcare Isaac - 04/02/2010 02:09:32 PM 589 Views

I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. Joel - 05/02/2010 08:09:50 AM 602 Views

Re: I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. Isaac - 05/02/2010 03:52:23 PM 558 Views

[insert witty subject line here] Joel - 06/02/2010 02:15:21 AM 588 Views

Let me break this into multiple replies here Isaac - 06/02/2010 07:45:36 PM 568 Views

'K Joel - 08/02/2010 01:22:12 PM 551 Views

Probably time to go into 'summary mode' Isaac - 08/02/2010 07:34:55 PM 581 Views

Again, we're back to "how would you prefer to do it?" Joel - 09/02/2010 09:42:51 AM 605 Views

Any way that works, which currently probably is none Isaac - 09/02/2010 06:12:41 PM 544 Views

I think HDI is more accurate than nothing, though it certainly needs some fine tuning. Joel - 10/02/2010 11:03:08 AM 595 Views

Sorry for the delay... Isaac - 12/02/2010 11:40:21 PM 685 Views

NP, life happens.

Joel - 15/02/2010 02:06:55 PM 680 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 482 Views

Let's put it another way: Why did Dems nominate him instead of, say, Gephardt? Joel - 06/02/2010 02:22:04 AM 553 Views

you don't get mandates from primaries random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:12:29 PM 452 Views

No, but end of the day more people wanted healthcare than didn't. Joel - 08/02/2010 03:09:31 PM 464 Views

everyone want health care they just don't want congress runnig it random thoughts - 09/02/2010 04:56:44 AM 502 Views

Whom do you prefer? Joel - 09/02/2010 10:07:39 AM 524 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 425 Views

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

Joel - 10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM 484 Views

I prefer Thomas Woods Jr's description of bipartisanship Cannoli - 02/02/2010 02:49:06 AM 485 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 634 Views

you're making a good job taking things out of context, Joel AgentOrange - 03/02/2010 12:47:57 PM 453 Views

Don't speak in absolutes and I won't read absolutes. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:08:43 AM 470 Views

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

AgentOrange - 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM 453 Views

Qualifiers are clarifying by nature. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM 586 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 422 Views

Perhaps, but it's hardly the greatest weight, or even in the top three, IMHO. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:44:49 AM 573 Views

Pearl Harbor would never have happened to a classically liberal nation Cannoli - 05/02/2010 01:33:56 AM 477 Views

Maybe; Billy Mitchell might debate that were he alive. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:34:54 AM 590 Views

Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you! SilverWarder - 05/02/2010 04:22:59 PM 657 Views

I do generally agree, but I think the Washington Naval Conference is too often overlooked. Joel - 06/02/2010 02:33:51 AM 594 Views

Some information and a question JasonD - 02/03/2010 05:49:20 AM 994 Views

Politicians and pundits should stop calling things that happened in the last decade "unprecedented" Joel - 02/02/2010 03:23:27 AM 647 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 455 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 473 Views

I there was plenty of whining going on random thoughts - 02/02/2010 10:36:56 PM 399 Views

Is this you conceding that the GOP is being obstructionist? Joel - 08/02/2010 01:43:04 PM 430 Views

I agree they are obstructing the libs from doing whatever they want random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:19:13 PM 359 Views

They've tried including Republicans in drafting bills. Joel - 08/02/2010 03:08:17 PM 516 Views

tyring to pcik off one republican is not including republicans random thoughts - 09/02/2010 05:03:44 AM 465 Views

So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh? Joel - 09/02/2010 11:59:50 AM 474 Views

well it was your guy who was up in arms about private meetings random thoughts - 09/02/2010 02:29:34 PM 452 Views

Was it? I don't recall any Dem complaining about private meeting on healthcare. Joel - 10/02/2010 09:44:56 AM 605 Views

most liberals seem to foretting the "rhetoric" that Obama used to get elected random thoughts - 13/02/2010 06:54:34 AM 444 Views

Um... sorry, man....

Joel - 10/02/2010 11:06:22 AM 638 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