"Democrats Are Ready To Lead"

[SDW2001]

I assume you all have seen the video clip of this statement. Since Pelosi made it, I knew something about it bothered me. And no, I didn't think it had anything to do with my political stripe and disdain for the Democratic leadership per se.

I couldn't put my finger on it. At first I thought maybe it was Pelosi herself. I don't like her personaity or speaking voice, quite frankly. But no...that wasn't it either. Then last night I realized what it was:

It's the last 4 words, not the first, that bother me. I realized it bugged me because the House of Representatives is just that, representative of the people's will, or it should be. Now clearly the people have spoken for change. But I don't think they elected the house to "lead them." They elected them to represent their will. Presidents and Governors....executives....they are supposed to lead. Represenatives aren't sent to lead, no matter which party they're from. They get put in office to push through an agenda that the people want. The Administration is the "leaderhship"...setting an agenda using the bully pulpit and so forth.

I might be splitting hairs here, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on this topic, even if its not specific to Democrats. It seems to me that this misconception of who is a "leader" is taking place nationwide. One could argue that people like Santorum were done in by this attitude, or so it seems. People don't want too much leadership out of their elected representatives, they want they're will expressed. So when, for example, Rick Santorum starts lecturing on the legality of polygamy and incest based on the Texas sodomy case, people get turned off...no pun intended (and I'm not even taking issue with what he said at the moment...let's put that aside). It is certainly happening at the State and local level. In my time on the local school board, I saw plenty of school board membes that thought they were put there to lead. I used to argue with them about that all the time. The people put them there to do their will.

Your thoughts...

[Chris Cuilla]

I don't think you are splitting hairs here.

The HoR is supposed to be just that. The senate was designed to be a branch that operated differently (though it has turned intself into a representative body in some ways), less "representatively"...really more representative of a state as a whole (they were originally selected by the state legislatures...not direct popular vote in their respective states). The HoR was to be the people's "voice" in government. It is the most "democratic" looking part of our government and also (as such) generally hamstrung in many regards (the Fathers were quite cautious about democracy).

Arguably, even the POTUS was not be so much a "leader" as an executor/enforcer of the legislative branch's laws.

Legislative makes/passes laws (with checks/balances by Executive and Judicial)
Executive enforces laws (with oversight by Judicial and Legislative)
Judicial interprets (not creates) laws...striking them down as required

[SDW2001]

I don't think the different branches are distinguishable along those lines.

Care to elaborate?

[SDW2001]

I don't think you are splitting hairs here.

The HoR is supposed to be just that. The senate was designed to be a branch that operated differently (though it has turned intself into a representative body in some ways), less "representatively"...really more representative of a state as a whole (they were originally selected by the state legislatures...not direct popular vote in their respective states). The HoR was to be the people's "voice" in government. It is the most "democratic" looking part of our government and also (as such) generally hamstrung in many regards (the Fathers were quite cautious about democracy).

Arguably, even the POTUS was not be so much a "leader" as an executor/enforcer of the legislative branch's laws.

Legislative makes/passes laws (with checks/balances by executive)
Executive enforces laws (with oversight by Judicial and Legislative)
Judicial interprets (not creates) laws...striking them down as required

Well my thought is that the Senate represents the States themselves. They are sort of a mixture of executives and representatives, not really either one in total.

I disagree about the President. The POTUS has some pretty serious power under our Constitution, including veto power, pardons, being the CIC, head of state, head of the executive branch, etc.

[franksargent]

Well my thought is that the Senate represents the States themselves. They are sort of a mixture of executives and representatives, not really either one in total.

I disagree about the President. The POTUS has some pretty serious power under our Constitution, including veto power, pardons, being the CIC, head of state, head of the executive branch, etc.

:smokey:

Yes, with the POTUS veto power, everyone must work together to get anything done over the next two years.

:smokey:

[Chris Cuilla]

Well my thought is that the Senate represents the States themselves. They are sort of a mixture of executives and representatives, not really either one in total.

Agreed.

I disagree about the President. The POTUS has some pretty serious power under our Constitution, including veto power, pardons, being the CIC, head of state, head of the executive branch, etc.

Well, yes and no. Stuff like veto was a check/balance against legislative. Pardons are simply part of his enforcement powers, "head of state"...well that's kind of...well...what does that really mean? What additional power does it confer. As to CiC...yes...but this power was to be (isn't any longer) checked/balanced by the legislative (power to declare war). War Powers Acts is perhaps one of the worst, most blatant and egregious abdication of constitutional authority and power in our history...mostly because it unleashes other powers...not the least of which is the power to spend $ (another power given to the legislative...specifically HoR I believe). Yes, they still technically have this authority...but when you (legislature) have equipped the CiC with a (massive) standing army and then abdicated power to wage ware (War Powers Act), then you (legislature) have put yourself into the uneviable position of having to essentially rubberstamp spending increases to pay for the war that the POTUS has engaged the country in.

In my view the Executive has too much power. It is not the fault of this administration (anyone who thinks so is a fool). It has been a slow and gradual progression over generations that concerns me. And it should concern anyone who understands what the Fathers were concerned about (imperial presidency, etc.)

[Harald]

Not involved but it sounds like you're right. Democracy is utterly buggered by the looks of it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Not involved but it sounds like you're right. Democracy is utterly buggered by the looks of it.

What do you mean?

[SDW2001]

Chris:

head of state"...well that's kind of...well...what does that really mean? What additional power does it confer.

The POTUS has the power to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign governments, subject (in the case of the former) to ratification. HoS meant alot back when Reagan was meeting with Gorby, didn't it?

I don't know that the President has too much power in our system. I think, if anything, Congress has too much power, particularly in terms of oversight. I mean really...hearings on steriod use in baseball? WTF is that? Overseeing the Admin is one thing, but they seem to feel they can oversee....the world.

Another area where Congress has abused its power, in my opinion, is that of judicial appointments. The whole filibustering judges to stop a vote thing really needs to stop. The system needs to be changed. In fact, I think the filibuster needs to be done away with completely. It has no purpose in our system. It makes things inefficient. The majority should be allowed to exercise its rights, whomever that is...Reps or Dems. There are enough checks and balances in the rest of the system so that we don't need to listen to Harry Byrd read hillbilly poetry for 17 hours.

[Chris Cuilla]

The POTUS has the power to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign governments, subject (in the case of the former) to ratification.

OK. Yes...but this power is clearly checked/balanced by the legislature.

The whole point here was that no one was supposed to have "tons o' power"

HoS meant alot back when Reagan was meeting with Gorby, didn't it?

I think, if anything, Congress has too much power, particularly in terms of oversight.

This is a power they often abuse, I agree.

I mean really...hearings on steriod use in baseball? WTF is that?

Agreed. Fairly stupif waste of time. But...if it distracts them from doing any other harm...well...then it is a good thing.

Another area where Congress has abused its power, in my opinion, is that of judicial appointments.

Agreed. But I wasn't saying they any particular branch doesn't (from time-to-time) abuse its given powers. Clearly this happens. The checks/balances were designed to guard against these abuses being too dangerous before being reigned in.

In fact, I think the filibuster needs to be done away with completely. It has no purpose in our system.

Maybe.

It makes things inefficient.

Good!

The majority should be allowed to exercise its rights, whomever that is...Reps or Dems.

Yes and no. These things were put in place for a reason. Generally they are good.

There are enough checks and balances in the rest of the system so that we don't need to listen to Harry Byrd read hillbilly poetry for 17 hours.

No...but it is probably cheaper still than most reality TV programs today!

[BRussell]

I think most historians would agree that the President has much more power today than was envisioned, and the Congress less. But it's also true that many things have changed from how things were originally envisioned, and just because there's been a change doesn't mean that change is bad.

I disagree SDW that filibusters/supermajorities lead to "inefficiency," or perhaps I disagree that inefficiency is a bad thing. If it means that to get something done, there needs to be broad agreement, that's great. I'd rather they not do anything unless there's broad agreement. But I guess I'm just more conservative than you. :p

[Chris Cuilla]

I think most historians would agree that the President has much more power today than was envisioned, and the Congress less. But it's also true that many things have changed from how things were originally envisioned, and just because there's been a change doesn't mean that change is bad.

Agreed...until you get the sense of what they were trying to guard against (the human tendancy to accumulate and abuse power...in a variety of ways..."tyranny of the majority"..."imperial heads of state"...etc.). Those things don't really change...as I think we can see today.

I disagree SDW that filibusters/supermajorities lead to "inefficiency,"

Well, they probably do, but...

or perhaps I disagree that inefficiency is a bad thing.

Right.


If it means that to get something done, there needs to be broad agreement, that's great. I'd rather they not do anything unless there's broad agreement. But I guess I'm just more conservative than you. :p

You talking to me? Because I have been saying all along that I'd love them to not get things done (or at least I don't want it to be easy).

[SDW2001]

Chris:

OK. Yes...but this power is clearly checked/balanced by the legislature.

The whole point here was that no one was supposed to have "tons o' power"


Well, it is checked and it isn't. The President still does the negotiating. I don't disagree with part two.

Agreed. Fairly stupif waste of time. But...if it distracts them from doing any other harm...well...then it is a good thing.

Like keeping a dog from chewing the sofa by buying him a bone, eh? ;) I don't know as I agree. We have a lot of problems to be fixed and fixed fast.

Yes and no. These things were put in place for a reason. Generally they are good.

If you're talking about filibusters, and I think you are, then I disagree. They weren't "put in place" per se...they're not part of the Constitution. They're merely an obtructionist tactic[i] that is used by whatever party is not in power. In the case of judges, it actually [i]counteracts the President's authority as specifically detailed in the Constitution. There are what...5 other circumstances mentioned that a supermajority is needed? Clearly then, if our founding fathers wanted judges to be subject to a supermajority in the Senate, they would have said so, right? This procedural rule needs to go, particularly for nominees requiring simple majority confirmation votes.

[SDW2001]

I think most historians would agree that the President has much more power today than was envisioned, and the Congress less. But it's also true that many things have changed from how things were originally envisioned, and just because there's been a change doesn't mean that change is bad.

I disagree SDW that filibusters/supermajorities lead to "inefficiency," or perhaps I disagree that inefficiency is a bad thing. If it means that to get something done, there needs to be broad agreement, that's great. I'd rather they not do anything unless there's broad agreement. But I guess I'm just more conservative than you. :p


hahaha. Good one, BRussell. My, we're all really getting along today! :)

Regardless of what historians might think (we should check that assumption of yours, actually), I think the opposite. The President might have more power, but I also think Congress has MUCH more power and is far more active than ever intended. See my above example about hearings for steroid use in baseball. What? I also think the Federal government is much bigger and more powerful than it was ever intended to be.

I see your point on filibusters, but I disagree. Again, see my last post re: supermajorities.
The founding fathers made use of them where they felt it was needed. Otherwise, an up or down vote should be held.

[Chris Cuilla]

The President still does the negotiating.

Yes...he does the negotiating like I do the negotiating for, say a new car, while my wife has the power to veto whatever I negotiated. ;)

We have a lot of problems to be fixed and fixed fast.

I agree. And we should keep the politicians out of them so we can solve them.

They weren't "put in place" per se...they're not part of the Constitution.

Correct.

They're merely an obtructionist [i]tactic[i] that is used by whatever party is not in power.

Yep.

Clearly then, if our founding fathers wanted judges to be subject to a supermajority in the Senate, they would have said so, right? This procedural rule needs to go, particularly for nominees requiring simple majority confirmation votes.

Possibly. I did say maybe. Why do you hate Jimmy Stewart (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/) so much?!?! ;)

[Placebo]

Your thoughts...
Our form of government is a representative democracy, how is this strange.

[Chris Cuilla]

Our form of government is a representative democracy, how is this strange.

Ummm...technically...not true. We are a constitutional republic. Representative democracy is only a component...1/2 of 1/3 of it if you will.

[Placebo]

I still don't see why SDW is making a fuss over wording then, especially if that wording makes sense in the context of our government.

[Chris Cuilla]

I still don't see why SDW is making a fuss over wording then, especially if that wording makes sense in the context of our government.

I think his point is that the HoR are supposed to be representatives of the people's will (i.e., following) not leaders. On this I believe he is pretty much correct.

[Flounder]

I mostly agree with the principle, SDW, but I do think you're splitting hairs a bit. I think the any incoming speaker that arrived in a decent sized wave that this election was would use similar language.

I mean, "we are ready to represent" just doesn't sound that impressive, and I'm sure impressive is how she wanted to sound.

Does someone want to do the research to see the lines Gingerich went with in '94? I'd be curious as to how they are similar/different from Pelosi's.

Edit: As I was walking home from work, I also realized how comical the line "we are ready to represent" sounds. There'd be nothing like outdated urban slang from an old white woman :) John Stewart would have a field day!

[s.metcalf]

I find the US system of government perculiar in that your political leaders are elected separately to the representatives and this creates the situation you have now, a President who basically has no real political power (influence yes but power no)!! Compare this to most Westminster style systems where the party chooses their own leaders and the majority ruling party's leader is the political leader (ie Prime Minister). Bush now looks pretty useless and has gotta feel like a pretty lame duck for the last two years of his presidency (Believe me I'm happy that this is the case :lol:) and the US is stuck with a President that appears weak because he is not supported by either house of parliament.



I mostly agree with the principle, SDW, but I do think you're splitting hairs a bit. I think the any incoming speaker that arrived in a decent sized wave that this election was would use similar language.

I mean, "we are ready to represent" just doesn't sound that impressive, and I'm sure impressive is how she wanted to sound.

Does someone want to do the research to see the lines Gingerich went with in '94? I'd be curious as to how they are similar/different from Pelosi's.

[SDW2001]

I mostly agree with the principle, SDW, but I do think you're splitting hairs a bit. I think the any incoming speaker that arrived in a decent sized wave that this election was would use similar language.

I mean, "we are ready to represent" just doesn't sound that impressive, and I'm sure impressive is how she wanted to sound.

Does someone want to do the research to see the lines Gingerich went with in '94? I'd be curious as to how they are similar/different from Pelosi's.

Edit: As I was walking home from work, I also realized how comical the line "we are ready to represent" sounds. There'd be nothing like outdated urban slang from an old white woman :) John Stewart would have a field day!

:lol: Yeah I see your point. But I'm coupling my Pelosi observation with others at the state and local levels, and also injecting some of my personal political experiences as a representative. I can tell you that from my experience, there was a very large difference between people that felt they were elected to represent the people's will, and people that felt they were put their to "lead' based, inexplicably, on who they "were", as if they had some sort of special birthright or experience. I saw this first hand. Hell, I was even told first hand by at least one rep, "we were put here to make decisions...people are entitled to their opinion, but we are the ones making the decision." Now I don't know if that's Pelosi's attitude or not, but it's clearly a phenomenon that is 1) present and 2) concerns me, a lot.

[SDW2001]

I find the US system of government perculiar in that your political leaders are elected separately to the representatives and this creates the situation you have now, a President who basically has no real political power (influence yes but power no)!! Compare this to most Westminster style systems where the party chooses their own leaders and the majority ruling party's leader is the political leader (ie Prime Minister). Bush now looks pretty useless and has gotta feel like a pretty lame duck for the last two years of his presidency (Believe me I'm happy that this is the case :lol:) and the US is stuck with a President that appears weak because he is not supported by either house of parliament.

He's not really a lame duck techically. He just doesn't have a majority in Congress. A lame duck is usuaally a President that is not returning to office, but is finishing his term from election day to inaguration day.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that this is a phenomenon more likely to affect Democrats, this desire to 'lead', because it strikes me that Bush's desire to push through his surveillance bill and Bolton's nomination for the UN before the new year somewhat smacks of 'leading'.

If you want examples of 'leading' rhetoric and action you'll find them everywhere.

[hardeeharhar]

I find the US system of government perculiar in that your political leaders are elected separately to the representatives and this creates the situation you have now, a President who basically has no real political power (influence yes but power no)!! Compare this to most Westminster style systems where the party chooses their own leaders and the majority ruling party's leader is the political leader (ie Prime Minister). Bush now looks pretty useless and has gotta feel like a pretty lame duck for the last two years of his presidency (Believe me I'm happy that this is the case :lol:) and the US is stuck with a President that appears weak because he is not supported by either house of parliament.
We're a lot older than most of those Westminster style democracies. Think of our situation as if the coalition government just failed...

[SpcMs]

Two cents:
1. maybe she should have said 'govern'. Or maybe she meant 'lead the country in the direction the people want'.
2. Even if she meant lead in the most activist way, 'representing' the people is exactly that: making decisions for the people, by your best judgement and in the same philosophy as the platform you got elected on. Otherwise, we might as well put a voting button in every house around the country and abolish the house of representatives.

[jimmac]

:lol: Yeah I see your point. But I'm coupling my Pelosi observation with others at the state and local levels, and also injecting some of my personal political experiences as a representative. I can tell you that from my experience, there was a very large difference between people that felt they were elected to represent the people's will, and people that felt they were put their to "lead' based, inexplicably, on who they "were", as if they had some sort of special birthright or experience. I saw this first hand. Hell, I was even told first hand by at least one rep, "we were put here to make decisions...people are entitled to their opinion, but we are the ones making the decision." Now I don't know if that's Pelosi's attitude or not, but it's clearly a phenomenon that is 1) present and 2) concerns me, a lot.


That's really funny coming from a Bush fan!:lol:

What's the matter SDW? Trying to make nothing into something again?;)

[MacRR]

My .02- Our country has bigger problems than Nancy Pelosi's choice of words in a statement.

As far as leadership- I found this Gingrich quote apt to this conversation-

I'm not a natural leader. I'm too intellectual; I'm too abstract; I think too much.
- Newt Gingrich

Food for thought :).

[SDW2001]

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that this is a phenomenon more likely to affect Democrats, this desire to 'lead', because it strikes me that Bush's desire to push through his surveillance bill and Bolton's nomination for the UN before the new year somewhat smacks of 'leading'.

If you want examples of 'leading' rhetoric and action you'll find them everywhere.

Respectfully, you're missing the point. Bush is the Chief Executive. He's supposed to lead. Representatives are not supposed to lead.

[SDW2001]

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that this is a phenomenon more likely to affect Democrats, this desire to 'lead', because it strikes me that Bush's desire to push through his surveillance bill and Bolton's nomination for the UN before the new year somewhat smacks of 'leading'.

If you want examples of 'leading' rhetoric and action you'll find them everywhere.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that it was more of a Democratic phenomenon.

[SDW2001]

That's really funny coming from a Bush fan!:lol:

What's the matter SDW? Trying to make nothing into something again?;)


jimmac, I'm not being partisan at all here.

Shit though, you're LOOKING for it, aren't you? I mean, you really spend time trolling the board looking for anything you can sieze onto. I at no time made this a partisan issue. I've seen it from both parties, and [b]I even pointed out an example involving the way Santorum did this all the time[/i]. Moreover, the people at the local level I noticed this with were generally Republicans.

So go beat that with a stick.

[midwinter]

I think his point is that the HoR are supposed to be representatives of the people's will (i.e., following) not leaders. On this I believe he is pretty much correct.

Well, it does follow the people's will. We elect people to do the things we want them to do. If they don't, we vote them out and get a new bunch in.

[BRussell]

Respectfully, you're missing the point. Bush is the Chief Executive. He's supposed to lead. Representatives are not supposed to lead. This is where I don't get you. If you want to make a general point that elected officials are supposed to do what the people who elected them want them to do, that's one thing. (Actually I disagree about representatives "following" - I think elected officials should do what THEY think is best, and then we should, as midwinter says, vote them out if we disagree with what they do.) But I don't see how Congress is supposed to follow and the president is supposed to lead. I see no basis for that. The president is only supposed to go to war if Congress says so. The president can't write legislation, he can only approve it or not. The constitution seems to me to be designed so that the Congress is dominant, and I think virtually all political historians would agree with that.

[rageous]

That's really funny coming from a Bush fan!:lol:

What's the matter SDW? Trying to make nothing into something again?;)

Please try addressing the topic and not just attempt to start a catfight.

[jimmac]

jimmac, I'm not being partisan at all here.

Shit though, you're LOOKING for it, aren't you? I mean, you really spend time trolling the board looking for anything you can sieze onto. I at no time made this a partisan issue. I've seen it from both parties, and [b]I even pointed out an example involving the way Santorum did this all the time[/i]. Moreover, the people at the local level I noticed this with were generally Republicans.

So go beat that with a stick.

That seems extemely partisan. I didn't see anything wrong with her statement. Since Bush has been leading us into nothing but trouble someone has to lead in the right direction.

Or did you miss what the voting results we just experienced were all about?

[jimmac]

Well, it does follow the people's will. We elect people to do the things we want them to do. If they don't, we vote them out and get a new bunch in.

That's it exactly! They are in effect " hired " to do a job. And when any employee doesn't perform to expectations they're " fired ". The only difference is that in this case we " elect " them to work for us. If they don't perfom they don't come back next time. That's why they have " terms ". Just because they are elected doesn't mean they don't work for the people or are above conseqences if they don't do their job.

It amazes me how some persons don't get this.

[SDW2001]

This is where I don't get you. If you want to make a general point that elected officials are supposed to do what the people who elected them want them to do, that's one thing. (Actually I disagree about representatives "following" - I think elected officials should do what THEY think is best, and then we should, as midwinter says, vote them out if we disagree with what they do.) But I don't see how Congress is supposed to follow and the president is supposed to lead. I see no basis for that. The president is only supposed to go to war if Congress says so. The president can't write legislation, he can only approve it or not. The constitution seems to me to be designed so that the Congress is dominant, and I think virtually all political historians would agree with that.

No, respectfully you misunderstood the point. Or, I wasn't clear ennough:

I'm not talking about one branch of government being more important than another.

The President sets the agenda, pushes for legislation and takes administrative actions based on what he campaigned on...a set of beliefs of principles that people voted for. He, and other executives, should generally not worry about public opinion...at least not usually.

Represenatives must respond to the people's will. I disagree that they should do what they think is best. That is entirely the wrong philosophy, and that comes from someone that's held office as a representative. I've seen both philosophies and I can say that representing the will of the people works better...and it's what the people want (that's first hand knowledge too, from speaking to my constituents).

[SDW2001]

That seems extemely partisan. I didn't see anything wrong with her statement. Since Bush has been leading us into nothing but trouble someone has to lead in the right direction.

Or did you miss what the voting results we just experienced were all about?

Why is it partisan? I was using her statement as an example of something I see happening [i]in both parties, maybe even moreso in the Republican party![/] I said as much almost immediately!

Your second statement is just a platitude. It's even worth getting into since it's not the point of this thread.

[jimmac]

Why is it partisan? I was using her statement as an example of something I see happening [i]in both parties, maybe even moreso in the Republican party![/] I said as much almost immediately!

Your second statement is just a platitude. It's even worth getting into since it's not the point of this thread.

If that's true then why even bother saying this :

" Since Pelosi made it, I knew something about it bothered me. ";)

Also : " It's the last 4 words, not the first, that bother me. I realized it bugged me because the House of Representatives is just that, representative of the people's will, or it should be. Now clearly the people have spoken for change. But I don't think they elected the house to "lead them." They elected them to represent their will. "

Sometimes to represent you have to lead. Especially when the supposed leader isn't leading in a direction that clearly the people want.

[Bergermeister]

Why is it partisan? I was using her statement as an example of something I see happening [i]in both parties, maybe even moreso in the Republican party![/] I said as much almost immediately!

Your second statement is just a platitude. It's even worth getting into since it's not the point of this thread.

Is it worth getting into because it is not the point of this thread? Do you mean not getting into? Or is it actually part of the whole shebang going on right now that led to the statement in question, and therefore related to the point?

[Chris Cuilla]

they do what they think is best for the country based on their understanding of the issues, the available remedies, etc.

Ummm...that was really the role of the Senate. The role of the HoR was to represent...the will...of the people.

[BRussell]

The President sets the agenda, pushes for legislation and takes administrative actions based on what he campaigned on...a set of beliefs of principles that people voted for. He, and other executives, should generally not worry about public opinion...at least not usually.

Represenatives must respond to the people's will. I just honestly don't get this. Why should the president ignore public opinion but the members of Congress respond to people's will? Members of Congress campaign on beliefs/principles too. What's the difference? I disagree that they should do what they think is best. That is entirely the wrong philosophy, and that comes from someone that's held office as a representative. I've seen both philosophies and I can say that representing the will of the people works better...and it's what the people want (that's first hand knowledge too, from speaking to my constituents). Well I can see your point, but at the same time, often the public has mixed feelings about matters. What is the public's opinion about abortion? Immigration? Stem cell research? Do you just take a survey and whichever response option gets the most 'yes' answers you vote that way? At some point, as an elected representative (president or in congress) you're going to have to make your own decision about what's best and do it. And you're likely to have many people agree with your decision and many people disagree.

[tonton]

Actually, we do elect our representatives to lead. We elect those we deem best at making similar decisions to the ones we would make, if we had all the time to read all of the bills and deal with all of the politics (yes, that is a necessary evil) to get the right things done.

When a bill is about tax cuts, for instance, we don't have the time to study the bill and determine whether those are the best tax cuts in our or in the nation's intrerest, or whether there's some rider hiding inside that gives an unfair advantage to people who really don't need it. I trust my representative to make the right decision.

There are people out there who look at a tax cut bill and scream "Tax cuts, good!" without knowing (or even caring about) the particulars of the bill. I expect my representatives to be smarter than that, and, in fact, to lead in that regard, by making the best decisions.

There are people out there who say "I got $5000 from the Bush tax cuts" and blindly think that's a good thing, without realizing that Bill Gates got 5 million and his janitor got $5, and that that's simply not fair, and not the best way forward in the interest of this country.

I trust that my represebntatives will be smarter than that. And that they will lead in that regard.

[SDW2001]

If that's true then why even bother saying this :

" Since Pelosi made it, I knew something about it bothered me. ";)

Also : " It's the last 4 words, not the first, that bother me. I realized it bugged me because the House of Representatives is just that, representative of the people's will, or it should be. Now clearly the people have spoken for change. But I don't think they elected the house to "lead them." They elected them to represent their will. "

Sometimes to represent you have to lead. Especially when the supposed leader isn't leading in a direction that clearly the people want.

Well, uh...she was the one who said it and it got me thinking about this issue. I guess I could pretend someone else said it. That way it would make you feel better.I even explained that it was WHAT she said, not who she WAS that bothered me. I really don't see the problem here.

I disagree with your final point.

[SDW2001]

Is it worth getting into because it is not the point of this thread? Do you mean not getting into? Or is it actually part of the whole shebang going on right now that led to the statement in question, and therefore related to the point?

typo. sorry.

[SDW2001]

Actually, we do elect our representatives to lead. We elect those we deem best at making similar decisions to the ones we would make, if we had all the time to read all of the bills and deal with all of the politics (yes, that is a necessary evil) to get the right things done.

When a bill is about tax cuts, for instance, we don't have the time to study the bill and determine whether those are the best tax cuts in our or in the nation's intrerest, or whether there's some rider hiding inside that gives an unfair advantage to people who really don't need it. I trust my representative to make the right decision.

There are people out there who look at a tax cut bill and scream "Tax cuts, good!" without knowing (or even caring about) the particulars of the bill. I expect my representatives to be smarter than that, and, in fact, to lead in that regard, by making the best decisions.

There are people out there who say "I got $5000 from the Bush tax cuts" and blindly think that's a good thing, without realizing that Bill Gates got 5 million and his janitor got $5, and that that's simply not fair, and not the best way forward in the interest of this country.

I trust that my represebntatives will be smarter than that. And that they will lead in that regard.

Clearly we can't have a direct participatory democracy. I agree with that implication of yours. Indeed, there are some issues where reps must use their best judgement as to what is right and what is not. But reps must primarily do the people's will, even if it is against what he/she personally believes. Otherwise, they betray their constituients. As I said, the exec. branch is a different animal.

[jimmac]

Well, uh...she was the one who said it and it got me thinking about this issue. I guess I could pretend someone else said it. That way it would make you feel better.I even explained that it was WHAT she said, not who she WAS that bothered me. I really don't see the problem here.

I disagree with your final point.

This statement :

" I guess I could pretend someone else said it. That way it would make you feel better. "

Effectively counters this one :

" I even explained that it was WHAT she said, not who she WAS that bothered me. I really don't see the problem here. "

Geez!:no:

[SDW2001]

This statement :

" I guess I could pretend someone else said it. That way it would make you feel better. "

Effectively counters this one :

" I even explained that it was WHAT she said, not who she WAS that bothered me. I really don't see the problem here. "

Geez!:no:

What the fuck are you talking about? How does that counter anything? I was making a joke about pretending someone else said it so you wouldn't get all bent out of shape.

I'm going to say it again: I did NOT start this thread to be partisan. I am talking about phenomena, most recently demonstrated by Pelosi in my opinion, but occuring in BOTH parties...perhaps even MORESO in the REPUBLICAN Party.

Please....PLEASE... try and read and understand that.

[tonton]

The problem, SDW, is that you've lost your credibility.

You've become the boy who cried Liberal.

[jimmac]

What the fuck are you talking about? How does that counter anything? I was making a joke about pretending someone else said it so you wouldn't get all bent out of shape.

I'm going to say it again: I did NOT start this thread to be partisan. I am talking about phenomena, most recently demonstrated by Pelosi in my opinion, but occuring in BOTH parties...perhaps even MORESO in the REPUBLICAN Party.

Please....PLEASE... try and read and understand that.

SDW on the one hand you state tacidly that it does matter to you who made the statement. On the other you try to appear neutral. Don't try to pretend you're not spicing this up with your own polarized opinion. It's pretty transparent. This is not me being a troll. This is me calling you on it. Those are your words.

[SDW2001]

The problem, SDW, is that you've lost your credibility.

You've become the boy who cried Liberal.

Oh my God. You're on crack, aren't you? First I am criticized for "blindly supporting the GOP" and being a "Bush Lemming," But then, when I point out what people in my own party are doing wrong I am also criticized.

I've been as clear as I can about this thread. Pelosi's comment happened to make me think of this phenomena as I see it. I then went on to say that in my opinion and experience, Republicans are the bigger culprits. I just don't know what else I can say.

[SDW2001]

SDW on the one hand you state tacidly that it does matter to you who made the statement. On the other you try to appear neutral. Don't try to pretend you're not spicing this up with your own polarized opinion. It's pretty transparent. This is not me being a troll. This is me calling you on it. Those are your words.

Let me speak slowly and loudly so you can understand:



1. Pelosi's comment made me think of this phenomena.

2. I said Republicans are the bigger culprits, IMO

3. I discussed the issue, not the people involved except for illustrative purposes.




If those words are two big for you, let me know. Jesus. :err:

[SpamSandwich]

Don't use the Lord's name in vain... :smokey: Have a cigarette. :lol:

[SDW2001]

Don't use the Lord's name in vain... :smokey: Have a cigarette. :lol:

Maybe a cigar. They are excellent. I prefer CAO Maduro wrappers (MX series) 6 to 7 inches, full bodied. About $100 a box.

[ronaldo]

Maybe a cigar. They are excellent. I prefer CAO Maduro wrappers (MX series) 6 to 7 inches, full bodied. About $100 a box.

Yep he's a Republican. My brother in-law smokes the same thing.

[SpamSandwich]

Yep he's a Republican. My brother in-law smokes the same thing.

Cancer doesn't discriminate based on your politics. Lost a relative recently due to lifelong cigarette smoking.

[SDW2001]

Cancer doesn't discriminate based on your politics. Lost a relative recently due to lifelong cigarette smoking.

Ugh. Well cigars are better as you don't inhale. You still can't smoke 10 a day, but I usually have one or two a few times per week.

[jimmac]

I quit smoking recently.

Back in July I'd had enough of the price and the possible health issues. It's a good thing to because about a month later I started to feel really lousy ( huffing and puffing at the smallest thing and not sleeping at all ). I went to the doctor and found out my blood pressure was 218 over 145. They wouldn't even let me leave the Dr. office until they lowered it 30 points. It was either that or the emergency room at the hospital. They were that afraid I was going to pop off at any time. A stroke or heart attack waiting to happen. Since then I've changed my diet and been on medication. My BP is now somewhere around 138 over 80.

However I'm glad I've got lots of sick leave. I've been to the doctor so many times in the past 2 months it's really tiresome.

I suppose now that I'm in my 50's it was just a matter of time.

My advice don't wait until you have symptoms. Quit smoking now!

And trust me no one enjoyed it more than I. I smoked cigarettes, cigars, and a pipe. All gone now. I'd rather live.

[JupiterOne]

I'd rather live.
So as to argue another day with SDW? :lol: Congratulations on quitting, keep it up!

[jimmac]

So as to argue another day with SDW? :lol: Congratulations on quitting, keep it up!


Exactly! Thanks!

[MacRR]

Ugh. Well cigars are better as you don't inhale. You still can't smoke 10 a day, but I usually have one or two a few times per week.
Don't fool yourself. Your chances of developing cancer might not be as great if you smoke ten vs a cuppa two tree cigars a week- but it's certainly elevated, and if you win the cancer trip despite the lower odds, it won't matter too much now will it?

be healthy so you can keep posting :)!

[SDW2001]

I quit smoking recently.

Back in July I'd had enough of the price and the possible health issues. It's a good thing to because about a month later I started to feel really lousy ( huffing and puffing at the smallest thing and not sleeping at all ). I went to the doctor and found out my blood pressure was 218 over 145. They wouldn't even let me leave the Dr. office until they lowered it 30 points. It was either that or the emergency room at the hospital. They were that afraid I was going to pop off at any time. A stroke or heart attack waiting to happen. Since then I've changed my diet and been on medication. My BP is now somewhere around 138 over 80.

However I'm glad I've got lots of sick leave. I've been to the doctor so many times in the past 2 months it's really tiresome.

I suppose now that I'm in my 50's it was just a matter of time.

My advice don't wait until you have symptoms. Quit smoking now!

And trust me no one enjoyed it more than I. I smoked cigarettes, cigars, and a pipe. All gone now. I'd rather live.

Good job quitting. The good thing is my cigars aren't an addiction. I don't feel a need to smoke them, just a desire 1-2X per week.

Sorry you've been at the doctor. I have to...for my back. Just say yes to spinal injections and treating herniated discs and stenosis!

[SDW2001]

Don't fool yourself. Your chances of developing cancer might not be as great if you smoke ten vs a cuppa two tree cigars a week- but it's certainly elevated, and if you win the cancer trip despite the lower odds, it won't matter too much now will it?

be healthy so you can keep posting :)!

Well, everything kills you it seems. You know? I enjoy having a few drinks and few cigars. I don't think it's going to be a big deal. It might raise the risk slightly, but I can't imagine it would that much, not for the amount I'm smoking.

[thuh Freak]

Good job quitting. The good thing is my cigars aren't an addiction. I don't feel a need to smoke them, just a desire 1-2X per week.

I think this thread has gotten a pretty good derailment. Keep in mind, lung cancer doesn't care if you're addicted. I just started quitting 'bacco on saturday.



So, back on topic: sometimes people's literal words don't match their intent. Aint that a bitch? ;)

[SDW2001]

I think this thread has gotten a pretty good derailment. Keep in mind, lung cancer doesn't care if you're addicted. I just started quitting 'bacco on saturday.



So, back on topic: sometimes people's literal words don't match their intent. Aint that a bitch? ;)

Yeah, it doesn't care...but increased use is a result of addiction, and the chances of cancer go up with frequency.

[jimmac]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442715/

Investigations good!

It's about flippin time!

You know someone's got to take the wheel and steer us back on to the the right course and it certainly isn't going to be dubbya!

I'm sure this is only the begining.;)

[lunocrat]

Right-O. It will be the congress of investigations and ethics reform, items a clean congress wouldn't have to deal with. All this while the daily murder goes on in Iraq. Where was that Iraq Study Group before the slaughter began?

[jimmac]

Right-O. It will be the congress of investigations and ethics reform, items a clean congress wouldn't have to deal with. All this while the daily murder goes on in Iraq. Where was that Iraq Study Group before the slaughter began?


Somebody has to do something. Now we finally have a chance to see that happen. A clean congress wouldn't have to deal with such things if we had a clean administration in the white house.;)

[SDW2001]

Somebody has to do something. Now we finally have a chance to see that happen. A clean congress wouldn't have to deal with such things if we had a clean administration in the white house.;)

You're really deluded, aren't you? ;)

I don't think we've ever had a "clean" administration or Congress. There are always scandals and fuck ups and what not. It's just the way it is. Personally, I think Congress needs to investigate doing fewer investigations...not just of the admin but of everything. It's a little like when they looked into the baseball steriods thing. I mean really...a friggin Congressional investigation? Why? It's grandstanding bullshit. I assume we can at least agree on that.

Now as for this article, read this:



* The new Medicare drug benefit. “There are lots and lots and lots of scandals,” he said, without citing specifics.
* Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
* An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It “was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies,” Dingell said.

Sounds like someone is chomping at the bit for revenge to me. Really...can we stop investigating!? I mean for both parties....enough. Pass some real reforms and do your jobs. Stop investigating whether or not Total cereal really equals ten bowls of Special fucking K.

[midwinter]

I mean really...a friggin Congressional investigation? Why? It's grandstanding bullshit. I assume we can at least agree on that.

...

Really...can we stop investigating!? I mean for both parties....enough. Pass some real reforms and do your jobs. Stop investigating whether or not Total cereal really equals ten bowls of Special fucking K.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States):

"One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This power is usually delegated to committees—standing committees, special committees, select committees, or joint committees composed of members of both houses. Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public; important hearings are widely reported in the mass media."

[Aurora]

SDW2001 doesnt want to investigate Bush & his draft dodging republican goose steppers for getting us into Iraq when there wasnt any WMDs? Im not surprised at all. 400 billion & counting,3,000 dead Americans, 100,000 wounded, Iraq now a clusterF... , Jr now calling for daddys help and he still wont even admit its a failure nor call the Iraq war a civil war. Iraq was better off with Saddam.

Democrats wont be able to show any leadership until they are in the Whitehouse. 2 more years.

[jimmac]

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States):

"One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This power is usually delegated to committees—standing committees, special committees, select committees, or joint committees composed of members of both houses. Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public; important hearings are widely reported in the mass media."


Good one! Thank you!

No I think now that the shoe is on the other foot I think we need a lot of investigating!;)

[midwinter]

Good one! Thank you!

No I think now that the shoe is on the other foot I think we need a lot of investigating!;)

It is the job of Congress to oversee and investigate. It is the job of Congress to rein in the President. Congress is a crucial check in the system, and this congress has failed miserably at its job and deserves to be 1) thrown to the curb and 2) investigated and 3) tarred and feathered. I suppose that's why so many people had to carry water for them and now beg the incoming congress to abdicate one of its most important functions. If this were, in fact, a series of hearings about cereal, I'd be right there with SDW, much as I'm sure SDW was opposed to the Whitewater investigations. But it's not.

Look at what the proposed hearings will be about:


* The new Medicare drug benefit. “There are lots and lots and lots of scandals,” he said, without citing specifics.
* Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
* An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It “was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies,” Dingell said.

This is nothing new at all. Those of us who have not been carrying water have been bitching about this for years. These are serious questions and they demand investigation, since they apparently had none beforehand. And now, the Republicans come along and say


Really...can we stop investigating!? I mean for both parties


And why? Because the Democrats are supposed to be cowards. They're supposed to be touchy-feely wusses who will listen to this voice of reason. But this is just another example of the Republican bitch-slap theory of politics (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003295). The Republicans beat the ever-living shit out of the Democrats for 12 years (and rightly so!). And now that the Republicans have been utterly, utterly repudiated, now that nearly everything they've touched has turned to shit, now that the curtain has been pulled back, now that we have to question whether, in this party of family values, there are any men left who aren't gay or pedophiles or wife-beaters or racists, they beg the Democrats to play nice.

And when the Democrats do play nice? They don't look like statesmen.

They look like pansies.

I call bullshit. It's not for both parties. And it's not an investigation into cereal. Did the pharmaceutical industry write the new Medicare drug benefit? Did the energy companies write our energy policy? How much money has been lost in contracts in Iraq? How many accounting scandals? How many shipments of "sailboat fuel"? Are you saying you don't care about these questions?

No. This is not petty. This is not frivolous. This is serious damned business, and the simple fact that a former water-carrier for this government would come along and beg that it not be investigated is a clear indication that either some people don't get it or some people are being completely disingenuous.

I think it's clear which I think is going on.

[Aurora]

Its very clear except to the fan club, This President took a oath of Office that he is now derelict of. Just as he was derelict of duty for missing National guard time he is derelict of duty for the office of president. Wether ignoring our border for over 5 years during his terror war which should be impeachable, or sending our troops in harms way for missing WMDs or for keeping our troops in harms way during Iraqs civil war or has been stated letting the big businees make our energy and medical policys he is derelict of duty to the american people. Spying on Americans with no legal authority other then a blind republican congress this president policys have taken our country back 50 years while giving most nations cause for alarm. Some are incapable of change, thats the 30% who support this clown no matter what.

[jimmac]

Its very clear except to the fan club, This President took a oath of Office that he is now derelict of. Just as he was derelict of duty for missing National guard time he is derelict of duty for the office of president. Wether ignoring our border for over 5 years during his terror war which should be impeachable, or sending our troops in harms way for missing WMDs or for keeping our troops in harms way during Iraqs civil war or has been stated letting the big businees make our energy and medical policys he is derelict of duty to the american people. Spying on Americans with no legal authority other then a blind republican congress this president policys have taken our country back 50 years while giving most nations cause for alarm. Some are incapable of change, thats the 30% who support this clown no matter what.


Yes and also the problem with those people is that they think the president isn't answerable to anyone when in fact he is.

Bush has lost 2/3rds of his power base now and the shoe is on the other foot.

He's a lame duck now and that gives me hope.

[sammi jo]

Its very clear except to the fan club, This President took a oath of Office that he is now derelict of. Just as he was derelict of duty for missing National guard time he is derelict of duty for the office of president. Wether ignoring our border for over 5 years during his terror war which should be impeachable, or sending our troops in harms way for missing WMDs or for keeping our troops in harms way during Iraqs civil war or has been stated letting the big businees make our energy and medical policys he is derelict of duty to the american people. Spying on Americans with no legal authority other then a blind republican congress this president policys have taken our country back 50 years while giving most nations cause for alarm. Some are incapable of change, thats the 30% who support this clown no matter what.

When President Bush took the Oath of Office at his January 2005 inauguration, he had already authorized the illegal/unconstititional wiretapping of American citizens from within the US, several months prior to that. His oath of office includes the words... "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States..... "

Bush lied under oath. For offending likewise, Clinton was impeached. And the Democrats will soon have the power to implement articles of impeachment against Bush. If they had any spine, or respect for the law of the land, they would do the same.

Unfortunately... (fill in the rest...)

[SDW2001]

SDW2001 doesnt want to investigate Bush & his draft dodging republican goose steppers for getting us into Iraq when there wasnt any WMDs? Im not surprised at all. 400 billion & counting,3,000 dead Americans, 100,000 wounded, Iraq now a clusterF... , Jr now calling for daddys help and he still wont even admit its a failure nor call the Iraq war a civil war. Iraq was better off with Saddam.

Democrats wont be able to show any leadership until they are in the Whitehouse. 2 more years.


What's to investigate? You can't just investigate someone because you disagree with him. There haev already been inquririres as to WMD. No evidence of pressure being applied exists. No evidence of lying exists. What do you want to investigate...and why?

Besides, I'm not just talking about Bush. I think Congress does too much investigating of everything.

[SDW2001]

When President Bush took the Oath of Office at his January 2005 inauguration, he had already authorized the illegal/unconstititional wiretapping of American citizens from within the US, several months prior to that. His oath of office includes the words... "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States..... "

Bush lied under oath. For offending likewise, Clinton was impeached. And the Democrats will soon have the power to implement articles of impeachment against Bush. If they had any spine, or respect for the law of the land, they would do the same.

Unfortunately... (fill in the rest...)

That's dumb. The FISA court was not created for the kind of tapping he wanted to do. It was for specific people... not screening all calls into and out of Afghanistan, for example. That's why they didn't go to the court.

[SDW2001]

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States):

"One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This power is usually delegated to committees—standing committees, special committees, select committees, or joint committees composed of members of both houses. Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public; important hearings are widely reported in the mass media."


Thanks for the civics lesson. :no:

I know they have the power to investigate. Is it your position that they are not investigating too many things? Why did they get involved in baseball/steriods for example? It was grandstaning, pure and simple.

[thuh Freak]

That's dumb. The FISA court was not created for the kind of tapping he wanted to do. It was for specific people... not screening all calls into and out of Afghanistan, for example. That's why they didn't go to the court.

If FISA wasn't the law governing those particular actions, then what was? It has been suggested that the authority for the war was his justification in wiretapping. But, without specific legal wording around the program, there is no opportunity for oversight, and no real check on that power. That is why we need investigations, to make sure americans calling americans weren't being tapped, and that whatever rules for taps that we can agree on were actually being carried out. To keep the tappers honest.

[midwinter]

Thanks for the civics lesson. :no:

You're welcome. You apparently needed it.

I know they have the power to investigate.

It's not that they have the power. It's one of their most important jobs

Is it your position that they are not investigating too many things? Why did they get involved in baseball/steriods for example? It was grandstaning, pure and simple.

I don't know anything about that, so I can't comment. But this is the second time you've attempted to associate congressional investigations with something other than what is being proposed. Let us know when you get ready to discuss the proposed investigations. Here they are again, just FYI:


* The new Medicare drug benefit. “There are lots and lots and lots of scandals,” he said, without citing specifics.
* Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
* An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It “was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies,” Dingell said.


And so I ask again:

Did the pharmaceutical industry write the new Medicare drug benefit? Did the energy companies write our energy policy? How much money has been lost in contracts in Iraq? How many accounting scandals? How many shipments of "sailboat fuel"? Are you saying you don't care about these questions?

[jimmac]

What's to investigate? You can't just investigate someone because you disagree with him. There haev already been inquririres as to WMD. No evidence of pressure being applied exists. No evidence of lying exists. What do you want to investigate...and why?

Besides, I'm not just talking about Bush. I think Congress does too much investigating of everything.


Back to making up stories again?

There's plenty to investigate! You know! All the things people have had questions about ( some of them on this forum ) for the last 6 years.

You just don't like the way things are going.

[SDW2001]

If FISA wasn't the law governing those particular actions, then what was? It has been suggested that the authority for the war was his justification in wiretapping. But, without specific legal wording around the program, there is no opportunity for oversight, and no real check on that power. That is why we need investigations, to make sure americans calling americans weren't being tapped, and that whatever rules for taps that we can agree on were actually being carried out. To keep the tappers honest.

Well, that doesn't make it illegal. I do think it was irresponsible for the program to be disclosed publicly. Now that it is out though, we should probably have a law that authorizes it.

[SDW2001]

You're welcome. You apparently needed it.



It's not that they have the power. It's one of their most important jobs



I don't know anything about that, so I can't comment. But this is the second time you've attempted to associate congressional investigations with something other than what is being proposed. Let us know when you get ready to discuss the proposed investigations. Here they are again, just FYI:



And so I ask again:


I'm saying Congress does too much investigating for the pupose of grandstanding and not enough passing of important legislation. The best example is the baseball/steriod scandal. There is no way in hell that was under the pervue of Congress.

Of course Congress is supposed to oversee the administration. But what will the fruit of these investigations be? It would seem to be utterly partisan to me, as if they're investigating for the purpose of investigating.

[SDW2001]

Why would we need a new law to authorize certain conduct if the old laws didn't prohibit it?

It would make it less ambiguous. I wouldn't say it's a "need."

[SDW2001]

Back to making up stories again?

There's plenty to investigate! You know! All the things people have had questions about ( some of them on this forum ) for the last 6 years.

You just don't like the way things are going.

1. I stand by my statement. There is no evidence as listed above, and you know it.

2. "Having questions" does not require congressional investigation.

3. I don't even know what that means. If anything I find the Dems conduct in the past few weeks to be comical. They've already backed off of their real agenda...from the draft to impeaching Bush to raising taxes to "fully implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations." I find it fairly amusing as they have not even taken power yet and they're already folding like a cheap tent.

[Gilsch]

Funny how you deny making up stories by making another one up. The Dems since the beginning said they would not be seeking impeachment.

[midwinter]

I'm saying Congress does too much investigating for the pupose of grandstanding and not enough passing of important legislation.

And I'm saying that that's not what we're talking about. I would also add that investigating and passing legislation are not mutually exclusive.

The best example is the baseball/steriod scandal. There is no way in hell that was under the pervue of Congress.

And this is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course Congress is supposed to oversee the administration.

Thank you.

But what will the fruit of these investigations be?

They might find out that crimes have been committed? Do you think that's important? They might find out that no-bid contracts have bilked the taxpayers for billions of dollars? Do you think that's important? They might find out that the pharmaceutical companies have designed

It would seem to be utterly partisan to me, as if they're investigating for the purpose of investigating.

That's because you want the Dems to act like a bunch of pussies so they'll look weak. And your suddenly being all Rodney King here and begging us to all just get along, while hysterically funny, is disingenuous, considering you've implied that investigations into these three topics (none of which you have addressed specifically) are at once irrelevant, grandstanding, and partisan. The olive branch of a Republican congress investigating steroids is a nice touch, too.

So. What's your answer? Do you think it is important to know whether crimes were committed in the following:

* The new Medicare drug benefit (http://www.google.com/search?q=medicare+drug+benefit+scandal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).
* Spending on government contractors in Iraq (http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+contracts+scandal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
* An energy task force (http://www.google.com/search?q=energy+task+force+scandal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) overseen by Cheney. It “was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies,” Dingell said.

[jimmac]

1. I stand by my statement. There is no evidence as listed above, and you know it.

2. "Having questions" does not require congressional investigation.

3. I don't even know what that means. If anything I find the Dems conduct in the past few weeks to be comical. They've already backed off of their real agenda...from the draft to impeaching Bush to raising taxes to "fully implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations." I find it fairly amusing as they have not even taken power yet and they're already folding like a cheap tent.


I find your comments comical! You're just burned up because they have the power now to shed some light on things ( if this was Clinton and Whitewater you wouldn't be saying this and you know it ). Well they are going to go around and lift up some boards to see what kind of bugs run out. This will happen whether or not you like it so just accept it.

By the way your " folding like a cheap tent " is just your wishful thinking. Kind of like the election.

[SDW2001]

mid:
And I'm saying that that's not what we're talking about. I would also add that investigating and passing legislation are not mutually exclusive.


It's what I'm talking about. As for your second point, I think that's basically semantics. They're essentially different acts.


And this is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Uh, no it's not. I'm the one who brought issue up, so I should know.



They might find out that crimes have been committed? Do you think that's important? They might find out that no-bid contracts have bilked the taxpayers for billions of dollars? Do you think that's important? They might find out that the pharmaceutical companies have designed

If there is probable cause to suspect criminal; acticity, then let's investigate. If it's just something the Dems disagree with...something that drives them crazy...then there should not be an investigation. It's a waste of time.

That's because you want the Dems to act like a bunch of pussies so they'll look weak. And your suddenly being all Rodney King here and begging us to all just get along, while hysterically funny, is disingenuous, considering you've implied that investigations into these three topics (none of which you have addressed specifically) are at once irrelevant, grandstanding, and partisan. The olive branch of a Republican congress investigating steroids is a nice touch, too.

Can't win with you liberals, can I? If I make statements you disagree with, you slam me. If I make statements that are more in line and/or critical of Republicans, you accuse me of being disingenuous. I must say, that's really clever of you.

[skatman]

It's the last 4 words, not the first, that bother me. I realized it bugged me because the House of Representatives is just that, representative of the people's will, or it should be. Now clearly the people have spoken for change. But I don't think they elected the house to "lead them."
Your thoughts...

People didn't vote for democrats, but rather they voted AGAINST the republicans. Democrats will be equally bad, just in a slightly different way!

[SDW2001]

I find your comments comical! You're just burned up because they have the power now to shed some light on things ( if this was Clinton and Whitewater you wouldn't be saying this and you know it ). Well they are going to go around and lift up some boards to see what kind of bugs run out. This will happen whether or not you like it so just accept it.

By the way your " folding like a cheap tent " is just your wishful thinking. Kind of like the election.


jimmac,

They're not going to pursue the agenda items they really believe in because they know the country hasn't moved left. That's what I'm saying.

Your other statements are unsupported. You have no idea what I'd be doing if the roles were reversed.

[thuh Freak]

Uh, no it's not. I'm the one who brought issue up, so I should know.
The baseball/steroids investigation is irrelevant because no one here is arguing for those. Furthermore, the point in contention is investigations that the democratics are likely to frivolously bring up, and that investigation was brought (iirc) by the republicans. It is something we can all agree is both stupid and retarded, and i fault el presidente for bringing that up in his sotu speech.

If there is probable cause to suspect criminal; acticity, then let's investigate. If it's just something the Dems disagree with...something that drives them crazy...then there should not be an investigation. It's a waste of time.
Sometimes you have to poke around a little to find the probable cause and evidence. On many issues a large and considerable portion of the populace, as evidenced by the elections, find the government behavior suspect. The presented reasoning behind certain actions are questionable. And some programs, as they stand, don't offer the oversight that The People require; to rectify that, (a) investigations into the history of those programs are necessary for retroactive oversight, and (b) based on the investigations, laws can be made to provide sufficient and efficient transparency.

[jimmac]

jimmac,

They're not going to pursue the agenda items they really believe in because they know the country hasn't moved left. That's what I'm saying.

Your other statements are unsupported. You have no idea what I'd be doing if the roles were reversed.


God! You sound just like moe!

Real AA grade BS. however.;)

[jimmac]

mid:


It's what I'm talking about. As for your second point, I think that's basically semantics. They're essentially different acts.




Uh, no it's not. I'm the one who brought issue up, so I should know.



If there is probable cause to suspect criminal; acticity, then let's investigate. If it's just something the Dems disagree with...something that drives them crazy...then there should not be an investigation. It's a waste of time.



Can't win with you liberals, can I? If I make statements you disagree with, you slam me. If I make statements that are more in line and/or critical of Republicans, you accuse me of being disingenuous. I must say, that's really clever of you.

It's because it's you who have wild, unsupported statements that are just aimed at stroking your own viewpoint. One that doesn't reflect reality I might add.

[jimmac]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/30/republicans.2008.ap/index.html

SDW this is why the democrats are " ready to lead ". Someone has to.:p

[jimmac]

And here's another good example of " Why? "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/12/01/traveler.screening.ap/index.html

[Aurora]

That's dumb. The FISA court was not created for the kind of tapping he wanted to do. It was for specific people... not screening all calls into and out of Afghanistan, for example. That's why they didn't go to the court.
No the reason why they didnt follow law was because all of congress was ran by Republicans who are busy raising millions from the corporations rather then doing the oversight on the executive branch as they are suppose to do. Just more of Bush & Cheney deciding on laws they may follow and ones they just choose to ignore because no republican would say.....Mr President thats against the law. People Like the puppet Gonzales.
So first they let in the bad guys, Bin Ladens Boys, then they say see 911! We must remove everyones libertys and rights to keep them safe, then they ignore millions of mexicans & possible terrorists crossing the mexican border for,1,2,3,4,5years then oops a election is here we better pretend to be doing something. All Bullsh.. and lies from Bush & his gang of draft dodgers.