The Senate has sold out the People - Page 2

Yes. It's really unfortunate that it took something like that to wake people up to the fact that this guy only cares about himself. Totally clueless and out of touch.

I guess something like that doesn't become super obvious until the second term. That's the point when he doesn't have anything to lose.

It was really appalling the way that was handled.

Let's hope that there's no more incidents between now and the end of his term because there isn't much at the wheel right now.

We can only hope that this administration isn't expected to govern anytime soon.

I think every other state should vote out its incumbant Senator. I'm thinking this sentiment is more common than yours.

I'm guessing that pragmatism outweights outrage...

Vinea

I agree with this in general.

Mainstream conservatives have always been uncomfortable with some of Bush's policies, that's true. That doesn't mean that we're going to vote Democrat though. It does mean we're going to express displeasure when a pollster calls and asks about job approval.

It does go beyond Bush. I think what you have is a realization that the conservatives are not actually running things on the Congressional side, and a further realization that Bush is really not going to get control of the purse strings anytime soon. Couple that with anger over immigration and setbacks in Iraq, and you have your numbers explained pretty well.

Take the Senate immigration bill, which is what this thread is about. It sucks. Conservatives want border security before all else. They're unhappy with the Senate bill. And, while the Republicans have not addressed the issue while they've been in power, we did hope that the conservatives would win the day and we'd get a better bill. At present, it doesn't look like that's the case. Bush has also not taken the lead on this, which further pushes his numbers down.

All that said, your portrayal of conservatives is laughable. It really just plays into your worldview: To vote for Bush or the Republicans, one must be either stupid or rich.

You just don't stop.

Let's talk about what the Federal Government should have done? The only mistake I see is that they did not invoke the Insurrection Act. This was debated, but they opted against it.

Secondly, why do you ignore the unmitigated incompetence of the State and Local Governments? Why do you ignore the stories of trucks full of water and ice being denied entry to the city by local authorities? Why do you ignore Mayor Nagin's blatant incompetence...and racism? Or Blanco's hysterical sobbing..and wait for it...incompetence?

Third, why do you assume that the Federal Government bears responsibility for disaster rebuilding, beyond local federal infastructure?

Last, why can you not acknowledge the scope of this natural disaster was something we as a nation were simply unprepared for in total, and that a good portion of the damage and destruction was completely unstoppable even if we were prepared?

Hey..I hear there is going to be a Tornado in Kansas tonight. Better get to work Blaming Bush for lack of funding for early warning systems.

Federal branches is ran by republicans, all three branches and Bush is King. The buck stops with Bush & republicans and from what i have seen they arent qualified to run a little league team let alone a country. Proof is in the pudding just look at Fema,Katrina,Borders,Immigration,Iraq,Global warming,Oil energy,healthcare etc. These clowns dont represent us they represent something else.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" To vote for Bush or the Republicans, one must be either stupid or rich. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

God! I think he's got it!

The senate has sold out the American people so many times it aint funny,yesterday it was moving all factories to China, tomorrow it will be giving free Social Security to 10 million mexicans while still ignoring the borders. Throw out the Trash! If your California is such a mess throw them out too.

Well, first off, I don't live in CA. I live in the reddest state in the union.

Second, CA is a mess because its legislature is term-limited. While this sounds great to some folks, what it means is that no one is in office long enough to really understand a) how things work or b) to get any kind of political capital.

In short, CA is literally governed by people who don't know what they're doing.

Right. So conservatives have been guarded in their support of Bush all along, they have just done a really good job of keeping it secret. Polls tell us nothing useful, because, inexplicably, conservatives are prohibited from telling the truth to pollsters, even if it means choosing "somewhat support" over "adore unconditionally". You know all this because you have the secret conservative mind reading gene.

Is there something about the conservative mindset that encourages believing that non-conservatives are incapable of noticing the recent past? Your line of reasoning is weirdly similar to the post "no-WMD" scramble to repurpose the Iraq invasion and pretend like that was the deal all along and "everybody" knew it.

It's really simple: Bush does wildly not conservative things and sets a belligerent, take-no-prisoners tone at home and abroad. Conservatives overwhelmingly support him. Bush embarks on an ill-founded preemptive invasion of Iraq, conservatives overwhelmingly support him, and join in a big old orgy of liberal bashing, angrily denouncing the leftist terror loving pussies. Bush runs up giant national debt, conservatives decide debt no longer a problem. Bush installs secret government surveillance programs, conservatives decide keeping the revenuers out of yer bidness no longer a problem.

I mean, this did all happen very recently, you know. Pretending that there were all these disaffected conservatives who kept it to themselves and didn't act on their feelings in any way but you just know they were there isn't much of an inoculation.

No, none of it is a problem until it all falls apart and the right realizes that running as a Bush republican isn't such a bright prospect-- and, Presto!
We never really liked him all along! We had, um..... Secret Misgivings.

Oh, and, look here, we can prove it: We Hate His Stand On Immigration, and, no, we don't find the timing to be cynical, why do you ask?

The funny thing is that you, SDW, are a perfect case in point for the bind that the Republicans find themselves: you can claim to be principled and to part company with Bush on any number of issues, but here you are, tirelessly defending Bush and the Republicans on every single point of contention that comes up. Except: wait for it-- immigration!

Rich or stupid? You have me confused with someone else. My word would be reactionary, plus the reflexive will to power at all costs that comes with the conservative obsession with seeing themselves as "beleaguered outsiders". As in easily herded by cultural wedge issues and the specter of the liberal elites mandating gay marriage. And, of course, cultural wedge issues will be the center-piece of the mid-term elections, as they have been for the last 30 years or so.

And if it doesn't work this time because the policies they enableded have proven to be harmful to the country in ways that no one can ignore, and that the whole "tomorrow belongs to us" thing has kind of gone off the rails, please don't pretend they didn't work before and that Bush was a conservative that betrayed your trust. Ya'll knew exactly what you were voting for.

It looks like we're between the proverbial rock and hard place. What is the best course... governmental screw ups because of inexperience and/or tackling political-process learning curves, or the corruption thats endemic in longterm career politicians who learn the skills of how to manipulate the system while staying within the law by the tiniest of margins?

Read my siggy.

addabox:

Right. So conservatives have been guarded in their support of Bush all along, they have just done a really good job of keeping it secret. Polls tell us nothing useful, because, inexplicably, conservatives are prohibited from telling the truth to pollsters, even if it means choosing "somewhat support" over "adore unconditionally". You know all this because you have the secret conservative mind reading gene.

That's just it. It's never been a secret, you've just failed to acknowledge it. The thing is that you've been quite busy running around calling Bush supporters Blind Sheep...so busy that you actually started to believe it. Meanwhile, Bush supporters have always been far more complex in their thinking and positions than you've ever acknowledged. It's really an amazing revelation: Someone can support a President without agreeing with him on everything.

Is there something about the conservative mindset that encourages believing that non-conservatives are incapable of noticing the recent past? Your line of reasoning is weirdly similar to the post "no-WMD" scramble to repurpose the Iraq invasion and pretend like that was the deal all along and "everybody" knew it.

I think the problem is what you percieve to be the recent past. It seems to me, to use your example, that the administration layed out many different reasons to invade Iraq. Of course, at the time the anti-Bushies said the opposite...that there were no WMD and it was all a lie and there was no imminent threat. Then, when no WMD were found, you screamed "they're switching justifications!!!"

It's really simple: Bush does wildly not conservative things and sets a belligerent, take-no-prisoners tone at home and abroad. Conservatives overwhelmingly support him. Bush embarks on an ill-founded preemptive invasion of Iraq, conservatives overwhelmingly support him, and join in a big old orgy of liberal bashing, angrily denouncing the leftist terror loving pussies. Bush runs up giant national debt, conservatives decide debt no longer a problem. Bush installs secret government surveillance programs, conservatives decide keeping the revenuers out of yer bidness no longer a problem.

Or, conservatives support the President for invading Iraq, tolerate the deficit in the wake of 9/11 and recession, and don't like the massive federal expansion that has happened in the past few years. Oh, and we still think liberals are pussies.

I mean, this did all happen very recently, you know. Pretending that there were all these disaffected conservatives who kept it to themselves and didn't act on their feelings in any way but you just know they were there isn't much of an inoculation.

Exactly. Much of what has the drawn the ire of conservatives has happened recently.

No, none of it is a problem until it all falls apart and the right realizes that running as a Bush republican isn't such a bright prospect-- and, Presto!
We never really liked him all along! We had, um..... Secret Misgivings.

Oh, and, look here, we can prove it: We Hate His Stand On Immigration, and, no, we don't find the timing to be cynical, why do you ask?

Right...see it's really just that we want to be on the winning team. Seriously...shut up. You're babbling.

The funny thing is that you, SDW, are a perfect case in point for the bind that the Republicans find themselves: you can claim to be principled and to part company with Bush on any number of issues, but here you are, tirelessly defending Bush and the Republicans on every single point of contention that comes up. Except: wait for it-- immigration!

Really? Once again, you've just refused to notice. Immigration is something that I'm displeased about, that's true. But let's add to my "single issue" to illustrate the point.

I want real tax reform, like a flat tax.

I want entitlement reform.

I disagreed with the medicare expansion.

I think McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

Federal spending is out of control.

We need more active duty military, some of which should be placed on the borders.


Those are just some examples. Many other conservatives feel the same way. Now, in light of our lack of enforcement of immigration policies, growing federal government, deficit, etc...some conservatives are displeased with the President. Imagine the shock. [

Rich or stupid? You have me confused with someone else. My word would be reactionary, plus the reflexive will to power at all costs that comes with the conservative obsession with seeing themselves as "beleaguered outsiders". As in easily herded by cultural wedge issues and the specter of the liberal elites mandating gay marriage. And, of course, cultural wedge issues will be the center-piece of the mid-term elections, as they have been for the last 30 years or so.

And if it doesn't work this time because the policies they enableded have proven to be harmful to the country in ways that no one can ignore, and that the whole "tomorrow belongs to us" thing has kind of gone off the rails, please don't pretend they didn't work before and that Bush was a conservative that betrayed your trust. Ya'll knew exactly what you were voting for.

Our government is not governing with conservative policies. You can't pretend that we "tried it that way" and it failed. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our policies have grown consistently more liberal over the last 40 years, and those same policies have failed time and time again. The Republicans may be running things, but it's not the true conservatives especially as it pertains to fiscal policy. Bush certainly ran as a conservative and I would argue, initially governed that way. His tax cuts are a prime example. Federal spending and immigration policy are examples of areas that he's let down the party's base on.

Purple Haze man!

Geez! Give it up SDW!

You've been Bush's biggest cheerleader here.

Nobody's buying this tactic so don't even start.


Also telling people to shut up isn't going to change anyone's mind.


Bottom line : The republicans have dominated the control for the last 2 decades and things are still shitty.

The only time they weren't sliding all the time was a brief period in the 90's and guess who was in control then?

It makes one take serious stock in what's going on.

That pretty much says it all.

I am a supporter of the President, that is true. My feelings about the deficit, federal spending and even immigration do not change that, though I disagree with him on all of those issues. I realize that's an amazing concept for you to comprehend.

Secondly, I have previously pointed out my disagreements in this public forum on numerous occasions, not just recently. Good luck trying to pretend that I haven't.

Third, the Republicans have controlled congress for about 10 years. That said, I don't see how you equate this with conservative Republicans running things. That's like saying moderate Democrats have been running the Democratic Party for the last five years.

Fourth, what the hell does "sliding" mean? Are you actually back to arguing that the economy is always bad with Republicans in office? Please, do you really want to have that argument with me again?

Firstly congress isn't the only influence in washington.

There's a president you know.

We're talking Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Another Bush.

Do the math!

During the republican tenure if there hasn't been bad economic times there was racking up the national debt ( and not in a small way mind you ) to make future crappy outlook times.

Out of the four mentioned above only one set a policy of paying for things.

Out of four there was only one who did something about it.

Guess who?

As a matter of fact they are the only times in the last 20 years where things were going reasonably well across the board.

They all promised to do something about the debt. Only one did.

Now Clinton isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He did plenty of dumb things. As a matter of fact I blame him for our current dilemma with Bush in office. If he hadn't had that little affair Gore might of won the next election. It was really close if you'll recall. But because of his lack of good judgement america soured on a democrats. Just like they're doing right now with Bush and the republicans. Plus there's the cycle thing where it was ripe for a change. Also just like now.

As far as the job goes Clinton did pretty well by comparison to these other guys.

If I might remind you we had a surplus before our current Bush took office.

Now we have a debt bigger than ever.

I know you'll try to say " Debt can be good ". Yeah well not one of this magnitude.

Now there are other things like the environment, programs that were total failures like the war on drugs and the star wars program where lots of money was spent with little or no return. But you would never admit such things because you'd find some way of spinning out of it. You'd excuse or apologise for it and say it was nothing.

So once again what's the point?

Attempting to say it was Bush's fault this time and excusing the rest of the republicans who've been running things is just nothing short of lame.

Also you'll forgive me if I think your disagreements here with Mr. Bush haven't exactly stuck out like a sore thumb.

That's exactly right. And they're not in office long enough to be held accountable for the votes they make.

Can anyone say "Energy Crisis"?

Not in office long enough to be held accountable, or to learn how to do their job, or to have much interest in compromise, or, most importantly, to know more about the system than the lobbyists, who, go figure, are not term limited.

Hmmm.... amateur legislators vs. seasoned pro industry bag-men. What a surprise-- the energy industry heavily subsidized the Prop. 140 term limit drive!

I, for one, support term limits for mechanics and doctors. After all, after they've been at it for awhile, they become wily insiders and fat cats.

Better to rotate out experienced mechanics and doctors for novices every few years. To keep them honest.

Hey your message did not fall on deaf ears. I am with you with your idea here.

The Republicans and AND that's right I said "and" Democrats are bought off by corporations which have been selling off the interests of the American people for years.

Bought and paid for politicians.

American people sold out.

Corporations cost cutting away American jobs while importing slave labor made products from China etc.

Americans MUST demand government to represent "we the people" not the allmighty corporations and cronies in high places.

Vote out ALL of those who do not represent YOU...

WE NEED TO STOP STARTING WARS TO SECURE OIL SUPPLIES.

WE NEED TAX POLICY TO GIVE INCENTIVE / BREAK TO THE BUYING OF ENERGY SAVING TECHNOLOGIES.

WE NEED TO VALUE MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS.

WE NEED TO PLACE SUPREME IMPORTANCE UPON QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL AMERICAN STUDENTS.

WE NEED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW!

WE NEED MORE THAN JUST TWO PARTIES TO CHOOSE FROM NOW!

LEADERS SHOULD NOT RESORT TO WEDGE ISSUE POLITICS.

LEADERS UNITE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

LEADERS MAINTAIN COOPERATION WITH THEIR FELLOW ALLIES ABROAD AND REACH CONSENSUS NOT EXTREAMISM.


May God truly Bless this land and free our peoples from the faults and mistakes of this government.

May the American people stand up and DEMAND QUALITY GOVERNANCE.


Fellowship

Why is it ONLY Republicans or Democrats?

Why not a viable 3rd party that represents the middle majority of Americans who identify with neither party?

With 3 (or more) parties, there would be some real group compromise and working together to gather enough votes on issues, rather than the current "our party has the most seats so any bills your party tries to pass are dead", making party members toe the line or else, etc...

Just my .02 USD...

I have an idea. Why don't you come down here and we will get some people together that lived through it.....and you tell us all that YOU THINK (cute) that the Federal Government only made one mistake.

Nice post and I agree. Very few of these guys are worth a bag of cat poo. VOTE EM OUT! Its all we can do. They havent represented anything American in a decade. Patriot Act passed without even being read. Pathetic paid for by corporations Senators. We could do better as a nation with a random draw of anyone.

1. Never said it was

2. Plenty of debt has been racked up during Dem administrations. In any case, the debt going up cannot be you're only standard for measuring how "things are sliding."

3. Clinton set no such policy. It was the Republican congress that controlled spending.

4. So Clinton's only mistake was the Lewinsky affair? That's a good one. Oh, and again: Tell me what economic policies Clinton put in place that helped the economy become what it was in the late 1990s?

5. Yes, we had a surplus. However, I argue that some of that was unavoidable in the wake of 9/11 and recession. Granted, spending has increased too rapidly. I don't disagree with you there.

6. The national debt is not "good," though it is not currently unmanageable.

7. I didn't say it was all Bush. Not at all.

8. My disagreements have been well documented.

Al, say hello to Jesse for me when you see him next.

Obviously a lot of outrage here. I wonder if you know whom or what you're mad at. If you have specific greivances against the federal response, post them. I am telling you what my opinion is. I cannot read your mind. I agree it's much easier just to scream "THE STATE BETTER TAKE CARE OF US" and be on your way.

As for number 4 what do you think this sentence says? :


" Now Clinton isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He did plenty of dumb things. "

At least you could be accurate in your rebuttals.

The rest is your usual smoke and mirrors.

Oh by the way Clinton made it clear before he was elected that his priority would be fixing the economy ( you may remember " focusing like a laser beam " and the saying " It's the economy stupid! " ). You can try to give credit for this to someone else but I don't think you can argue the results.


Number six is just stupid.

Also we have a gigantic debt because of Mr. Bush's spending and not anything else. Also you know that every cent that's been lavished on Iraq and it's expensive predecessor was unnecessary. Here we are many years later and what really have they accomplished?

By the way were's the WMD?

And for that matter where's OSBL?

We got Saddam but he didn't destroy the WTC or anything else over here.


About number 2.....Not even in the same ball park as this one.

You're just delusional SDW. I'm just glad not many are still buying this line of reasoning.

No outrage here. Just offering a place for you to sit down and offer up your opinion to some locals. I've read your opinions long enough to understand you dont know jack $hit what your talking about. I'm sure I will get the typical "Please type everything down so we can beat the dead horse some more". Honestly, I'm too tired for all that. I just wanted to pop in hear and say what I had to say.

You watch too much Fox News

Hey trailmaster - I'll be more than happy to pitch in for his plane ticket.

Save your money to help send Malkin, Coulter and O'reilly to Iraq. If there's not an organization with this aim, there should be.

Ain't that the truth. The republicans (congress in general) have been selling this country down the road for years.

OK, Clinton did some dumb things. I didn't even ask you to list them. I asked you what he did for the economy. And by that, I mean a more specific answer than "he said fixing it would be his priority and then he focused like a laser beam on it."

Number six is stupid? My statement was that the national debt was not "good," but that it was not unamangable. Do you disagree with that, and if so..why?

Every cent was unneccessary? That's quite a claim. First, it assumes federal spending has only increased because of Iraq, which is false. Secondly, it was ALL unneccessary? That's your opinion, but don't label it as fact. Third, are you referening Afgahnistan by the term "predecessor." I suppose that was uneccessary too. I agree federal spending is out of control, but try and be accurate about what the causes are.

As for the debt once again: I still fail to see how that is sole determining factor for your claim of "things sliding."
The debt is rising and rising too fast for my liking. But why don't you just take issue with that and be done? Why try and portray the entire country as going to hell because you disagree with the war and are unahappy about federal spending?

I fail to see why my personally witnessing the devastation would change my mind on the Federal, State and Local response, at least not in your favor.

That's not the point - the point is to hear about the Federal, State, and Local response from the people who actually experienced it, rather than the media or blogs or whatever.

The sad truth is that our government is broken. ALL of our problems boil down to a 98% congressional incumbency rate. We all knew that this was bad, but until this border security issue came along with an overwhelming percentage of Americans wanting the border secured we (the voters) didn't truly realize that our opinions just didn't matter to them anymore.

Here it is an election year and the whole lot of them are flat-out not scared of the voters! They are worried about keeping special interest cash, pork-barrel projects, and other sources of funds so they can buy enough advertising so the masses, most of whom aren't really politically aware, will vote for them.

Sadly, I don't see any way to fix this. Historically I tend to vote Republican as the lesser of two weasels, but this Bush congress is spending money like a terminal cancer patient who has just won the lottery. So next time around I get to choose between Hillary and yet another fake Republican?

The Liberals took control over the Democratic Party years ago. Now the Republicans have completed their sell out to corporate America. Both parties have conspired to keep 3rd parties out and to keep the incumbency rate as high as possible. Seeing as how we Americans have no referendum option, it would appear we are screwed until we hit rock bottom.

As for Bush, I blame the Democrats for him. At least the second time around... I didn't vote for Bush the first time, I voted against Gore (I read Gore's book and so I had no choice.) Bushs second time around was the Democrats election to loose (as evidenced by the fact that Kerry even came close.) I was fully prepared to vote Democrat and what did I get as an option? Kerry? GAG The Libs have control of the Dem party and so I get a super Liberal one step down from Hanoi Jane as my option?

I, like many people, didn't vote for Bush. We voted against Kerry! If Kerry had gotten in we would still have had a disaster (although granted likely one without 2500 dead soldiers). Kerry would have spent a ton of cash only it would have gone to social handouts and our further slide into socialism (which please note many European countries are tying to get rid of).

Kerry would have stagnated the economy and brought the middle class to the verge of bankruptcy. At least Bush is giving away the farm to American business. It still sux, but the economy is good and I'm well employed which I feel is better than a Kerry presidency would have offered.

In the end, the next election once again is the Democrats to loose. And once again I will have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two weasels. If the Dems want to win big in 08 all they need to do is run a less extreme candidate. If they ran a moderate, they would win in a landslide. Sadly as the Libs control the nomination process in the Dem party we will get another super-lib.

The Repubs on the other hand will have to convince the public that we aren't getting more of the same lies AND run a good candidate on top of that. I cant wait to hold my nose while I vote yet again



Between this and the Patriot Act it's starting to look like the book 1984 was just off a few decades.

That's the craziest rant I ever heard. Just vote for the guy with an R next to his name and the liberal boogie man won't getcha.

Shorter Corey:

The Republicans just keep sucking at this "governing" thing, but for some reason I keep voting for them!