To thank him for growing a spine and guarding the gates of democracy over the holidays:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/21044-1.html

For the click-impaired, Majority Leader Reid is keeping the Senate in session over the Thanksgiving holiday to keep George Bush from making any more 'unsavory' recess appointments in order to avoid confirmation proceedings.

It's a shame that it's come to this, and given some of the heinous recess appoinments we've had over the past couple of years, a case of too little, too late, but what other choice does the Senate have at this point? They are dealing with a president who treats the normal procedures for handling appointments with contempt, preferring simply not to work with anyone at all and just slide the most egregiously unqualified or dangerously polarized individuals in when Congress is not in session.

Apparently Reid offered several compromises to the administration (quid pro quo in exchange for some Democrat-favored appointments); all were refused. So it has come down to a standoff.

You may not like our current crop of Senators (I'm very disappointed in the Democrats' utter lack of spine this session), but at least they will be earning their pay this weekend instead of just going home and then coming back and then wringing their hands about whatever the administration has done in their absence. Thanks Harry, you're one bright spot left in the sad tatters of our democracy...

Regards,
Nydia

Hopefully they will get the AMT tax issues resolved before the first of the year.

As much as I dislike Reid and consider him to be accountable for much of the gridlock of our government, I will applaud this tactic simply because I am fed up with Bush thinking he can pull these maneuvers and have his way whenever he wants.

And I also want to see the Alternative Minimum Tax get taken care of, but I don't believe it will. Bush refuses to let it be fixed with any tax increases, and it is difficult to see how they would make up the revenue otherwise. After all, we can't really expect any of these folks to actually cut spending, like they always promise to do.

And it really is a shame that Bush waited until the Democrats controlled Congress to start vetoing bills due to earmarks; a large part of his legacy will include the unbridled spending that he presided over when the Republicans controlled the Congress and pork was the order of the day. Now, we are seeing the Defense budget, which includes veteran's benefits as well as war funding, being held hostage to the Bush veto pen unless it says only what Bush wants it to say. (For the record, I think it is inappropriate to include time tables for Iraq in any Defense Budget bill)

(For the record, I think it is inappropriate to include time tables for Iraq in any Defense Budget bill)How else do you think Congress can or should assert itself on the matter of Iraq?

If they want us out, they should make a seperate bill to deny any more funding, with no other rider bills attached so it can't be denied on any other grounds.

Whatever they do to cut funding is met with calling them anti American and wanting to see our soldiers die... It is hard to compete with that when you want to get re elected.

Elemak is 100% completely correct.

If they really think their bill is the just and right thing to do quit attaching riders to the bill.

My stance on this is known, it's bullshit to call out anyone for their vote on a bill that is laden with nonrelated bullshit.

It's also bullshit to decry the other side for knocking down a bill because they can't stand the bullshit riders;P

Make it clear to your rep's folks, no more riders!!!

I don't see what is "non-related" about binding war funding with a provision to end the war. It's very true that unrelated riders get tied to appropriations bills -- this seems to be a political reality whoever is in charge, and I'm not sure it'll go away. Too convenient. And in this case, Bush will veto not because of riders (whatever they are, I haven't looked) but because he wants the war to continue.

It's telling that Reid is at his best when he's doing nothing.

Anyway, I'm a bit surprised by Reid... or maybe I shouldn't given his leadership so far. As someone smarter than me said, if your enemy is doing something stupid, don't stop him. Bush has had some mighty bonehead nominations (Miers, Gonzo ...) and from what I've heard, there was a good chance he was about to do that again.

It's telling that Reid is at his best when he's doing nothing.

Anyway, I'm a bit surprised by Reid... or maybe I shouldn't given his leadership so far. As someone smarter than me said, if your enemy is doing something stupid, don't stop him. Bush has had some mighty bonehead nominations (Miers, Gonzo ...) and from what I've heard, there was a good chance he was about to do that again.

Ah, but should the President be the enemy of the Senate? Shouldn't they wish to work together, and instead of getting a boneheaded person in a position of serving our country get one that everyone agrees would do a good job?

You mean like Mukasey?

Anyone who claims to vote down bills because of riders is full of shit. They all do it.


Ah, but should the President be the enemy of the Senate? Shouldn't they wish to work together, and instead of getting a boneheaded person in a position of serving our country get one that everyone agrees would do a good job?

First off, Bush did win the election so I don't know who this 'everyone' is, or why what they agree on matters. And yeah, I do think that unless there is unified government, the President and the Senate have an obligation to place checks on eachother as afforded by the Constitution. The legislature is constantly trying to extend its interpretation of 'advice and consent,' and the Executive is engaging in recess appointments and other questionable activities.

Second, the battle over judicial nominations is one over political power. If the Democrats had control of the White House, they might be able to push through a candidate that "everyone agrees on" (Read: Democrats), but it's unlikely that it wouldn't meet strong opposition in committee, especially if they did not have the 60 to bring cloture. I don't think we'll be seeing an objective, qualification based evaluation of a candidate by the Judiciary committee for a long time. There is way too much partisanship and the power that can be achieved by stacking the courts or by blocking the other side is too enticing for these politicians to ignore.

Harry Reid on filibustering judicial nominees - "We should have up or down votes on the floor" (regarding federal judicial nominees) 146 Cong. Rec. s1209 (Daily ed. Mar. 7, 2000)

Harry Reid on Miguel Estrada - "We're not going to allow an up or down vote on Miguel Estrada". http://cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/senate.estrada.ap/

This guy got held up in the confirmations process for 2 years before he finally withdrew his nomination. Why? He wouldn't provide documents informing the Democrats on committee of his political ideology. I'm not sure that's how 'advice and consent' were supposed to work.

Everyone being the people in the confirmation process: Congress and the White House. Hence them not going on break for Thanksgiving, I.E. the topic of the thread :)

Oh fuck off, Sen Reid is just as corrupt as the base line lately. He's just as guilty as the rest.

Ya'll stand up and send up rips to your reps....no more riders!!!!


Or, suffer the same and well hell take it in the rear...enjoy same as same.

I don't hate earmarks, as long as they aren't 500% of the original bill.

$5 billion for a water works bill goes into committee, comes out totalling $23 billion just to get the votes needed.

Our government is sometimes better off when it's doing nothing. Government is too damned powerful atm. They have too much of our money and influence over our lives right now.

And some people thing giving them more power, money, and influence is the answer. /boggle

And some people thing giving them more power, money, and influence is the answer. /boggle

The current administration that you've supported so vehemently are as much or more guilty of this than any prior administration.

I've supported Bush's spending "vehemently"? You're very mistaken.

Perhaps Taleren was more focused on the "power and influence" portion of the statement.

I was talking about the entire statement. It's difficult to find examples where you are critical of the current White House on any subject, be it spending, abuses of power, or influence.

It's easy to throw out such statements against people who don't share the same ideolgy as yourself, but you've been as staunch of a yes man to the current presidential administration as anyone on this board.

Stay on topic.

Take away their money and they lose power. I've said it quite a bit on here, but I could see where you'd miss it... considering (much to Halo's displeasure) the number of political threads about Iraq and the Bush / Kerry election.

Congress: Bingo with Billions ~ Red Skelton

Even cutting taxes does not solve the problem. Tax revenues just continue to roll in even more.

It doesn't matter. I posted on here not long ago how some polititians were getting hundreds of millions funneled to some family friends to build boats (that were never used) for the Navy ... what was done about it? Nothing.

With the current political landscape from both major parties, I don't see any resolution in sight until we have more than one more additional relavent parties. The two party system allows for them to just play dodgeball with each other and only focus on reelection instead of helping the people.

The idea of our democracy isn't broken right now, but the way it's being practiced is. The problem is, to fix the problem, we need to elect people that are outside of this power struggle. Obviously a catch 22.

As far as the water works part of the spending bill, the majority of the projects I saw were needed and not anything at all like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere. The reason so much was getting added on I think is due to the lack of monies for the projects in the last one or two go-rounds on budget. Our spending priorities have been foreign rather than domestic, like the $100 million Bush "secretly" spent on helping Pakistan protect it's nuclear program and missiles.