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 1001 Views

And a personal comment Roland00 - 01/02/2010 11:39:28 PM 741 Views

Re: And a personal comment everynametaken - 02/02/2010 01:16:53 AM 700 Views

Who's to say YOU really know what's happening in Washington, though? Aemon - 02/02/2010 01:41:20 AM 769 Views

*thumbs up* *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:50:45 AM 304 Views

Or should I say...

? *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:51:03 AM 296 Views

I Don't watch tv

Roland00 - 02/02/2010 02:29:53 AM 739 Views

not to mention those who mistake knowledge for understanding random thoughts - 02/02/2010 10:41:14 PM 594 Views

Even so. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:45:54 AM 630 Views

Like the NYT? random thoughts - 05/02/2010 02:12:36 PM 629 Views

I don't believe the Times has ever conceded bias. Joel - 05/02/2010 06:03:02 PM 656 Views

and neither does Fox so I am not sure that matters random thoughts - 05/02/2010 06:40:15 PM 715 Views

Note that I didn't mention Fox (or anyone, for that matter. ) Joel - 05/02/2010 07:13:31 PM 633 Views

PBS is biased random thoughts - 05/02/2010 07:21:14 PM 608 Views

You're entitled to believe that. Joel - 05/02/2010 07:31:07 PM 755 Views

PBS has an obvious yet undeclared bias so does NPR random thoughts - 09/02/2010 04:47:53 AM 580 Views

Even were that true (which I dispute) my statement stands. Joel - 09/02/2010 09:50:36 AM 709 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 662 Views

Sometimes the truth hurts, though it doesn't hurt PBS. Joel - 10/02/2010 10:15:13 AM 732 Views

We have been for some time. Joel - 02/02/2010 03:31:10 AM 668 Views

I don't think that's the case Isaac - 03/02/2010 02:59:50 PM 615 Views

Universal healthcare was the primary plank in Clintons '92 platform. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:02:18 AM 604 Views

That does not mean his bare plurality was an endorsement of National Healthcare Isaac - 04/02/2010 02:09:32 PM 715 Views

I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. Joel - 05/02/2010 08:09:50 AM 770 Views

Re: I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. Isaac - 05/02/2010 03:52:23 PM 717 Views

[insert witty subject line here] Joel - 06/02/2010 02:15:21 AM 723 Views

Let me break this into multiple replies here Isaac - 06/02/2010 07:45:36 PM 713 Views

'K Joel - 08/02/2010 01:22:12 PM 723 Views

Probably time to go into 'summary mode' Isaac - 08/02/2010 07:34:55 PM 741 Views

Again, we're back to "how would you prefer to do it?" Joel - 09/02/2010 09:42:51 AM 737 Views

Any way that works, which currently probably is none Isaac - 09/02/2010 06:12:41 PM 694 Views

I think HDI is more accurate than nothing, though it certainly needs some fine tuning. Joel - 10/02/2010 11:03:08 AM 765 Views

Sorry for the delay... Isaac - 12/02/2010 11:40:21 PM 830 Views

NP, life happens.

Joel - 15/02/2010 02:06:55 PM 841 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 605 Views

Let's put it another way: Why did Dems nominate him instead of, say, Gephardt? Joel - 06/02/2010 02:22:04 AM 693 Views

you don't get mandates from primaries random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:12:29 PM 594 Views

No, but end of the day more people wanted healthcare than didn't. Joel - 08/02/2010 03:09:31 PM 608 Views

everyone want health care they just don't want congress runnig it random thoughts - 09/02/2010 04:56:44 AM 646 Views

Whom do you prefer? Joel - 09/02/2010 10:07:39 AM 684 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 576 Views

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

Joel - 10/02/2010 10:05:38 AM 636 Views

I prefer Thomas Woods Jr's description of bipartisanship Cannoli - 02/02/2010 02:49:06 AM 651 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 782 Views

you're making a good job taking things out of context, Joel AgentOrange - 03/02/2010 12:47:57 PM 614 Views

Don't speak in absolutes and I won't read absolutes. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:08:43 AM 610 Views

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

AgentOrange - 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM 611 Views

Qualifiers are clarifying by nature. Joel - 04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM 725 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 589 Views

Perhaps, but it's hardly the greatest weight, or even in the top three, IMHO. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:44:49 AM 718 Views

Pearl Harbor would never have happened to a classically liberal nation Cannoli - 05/02/2010 01:33:56 AM 631 Views

Maybe; Billy Mitchell might debate that were he alive. Joel - 05/02/2010 05:34:54 AM 746 Views

Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you! SilverWarder - 05/02/2010 04:22:59 PM 779 Views

I do generally agree, but I think the Washington Naval Conference is too often overlooked. Joel - 06/02/2010 02:33:51 AM 764 Views

Some information and a question JasonD - 02/03/2010 05:49:20 AM 1185 Views

Politicians and pundits should stop calling things that happened in the last decade "unprecedented" Joel - 02/02/2010 03:23:27 AM 837 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 589 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 599 Views

I there was plenty of whining going on random thoughts - 02/02/2010 10:36:56 PM 550 Views

Is this you conceding that the GOP is being obstructionist? Joel - 08/02/2010 01:43:04 PM 583 Views

I agree they are obstructing the libs from doing whatever they want random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:19:13 PM 493 Views

They've tried including Republicans in drafting bills. Joel - 08/02/2010 03:08:17 PM 690 Views

tyring to pcik off one republican is not including republicans random thoughts - 09/02/2010 05:03:44 AM 601 Views

So we've gone from "stop being secretive" to "no public meetings" eh? Joel - 09/02/2010 11:59:50 AM 650 Views

well it was your guy who was up in arms about private meetings random thoughts - 09/02/2010 02:29:34 PM 609 Views

Was it? I don't recall any Dem complaining about private meeting on healthcare. Joel - 10/02/2010 09:44:56 AM 763 Views

most liberals seem to foretting the "rhetoric" that Obama used to get elected random thoughts - 13/02/2010 06:54:34 AM 581 Views

Um... sorry, man....

Joel - 10/02/2010 11:06:22 AM 823 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