Is this how the Democrats are going to run things?
=====================================
From the Wall Street Journal REVIEW & OUTLOOK JANUARY 3, 2009
Harry Reid v. the Constitution
If Roland Burris isn't fit for the Senate, how is Chris Dodd?
An Illinois court will eventually decide if Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of corruption. But on at least one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats: the seating of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to represent Illinois on Tuesday, ahead of the official start of the 111th Congress next week. This was certainly an act of brash defiance given that nearly everyone had warned the Governor not to do so after he was heard on tape contemplating the sale of the seat for personal gain. But under Illinois law, Mr. Blagojevich had every legal right to do so.
As the Governor said in his announcement, the Illinois public also deserves its full measure of representation in Washington. Mr. Burris is a former state attorney general who is untainted by the charges against Mr. Blagojevich. After the Blagojevich tapes were made public, Democrats who run the state legislature said they'd pass a law to require a special election for the Senate. But their passion for that option ebbed when it became clear that a Republican could win, especially amid this Democratic fiasco. When the legislature failed to act, Mr. Blagojevich saw his opening to name Mr. Burris.
Meanwhile, Mr. Reid and Washington Democrats are refusing to seat Mr. Burris, never mind their lack of authority to do so. As an initial matter, they're hiding behind the Illinois secretary of state, who is refusing to certify the appointment. But Mr. Burris has asked a court to order the secretary of state to carry out what under state law would typically be a nondiscretionary duty. In any event, Beltway Democrats can't inject themselves into what is clearly a matter of Illinois law. The legal precedent here is the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell had been accused of corruption but was nonetheless re-elected in 1966. House Democrats declined to seat him, Powell sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in denying him his seat. Congress could have expelled Powell with a two-thirds vote, as stipulated in the Constitution, but it couldn't deny him the seat in the first instance.
While the Constitution says the Senate can determine its own membership, the Court in Powell interpreted Article I, Section 5 to say that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "qualification" saying that a Senator must not have been appointed by an embarrassing Illinois Governor.
Mr. Reid is also attempting the dodge of referring the matter to the Senate Rules Committee, which is run by Democrats, but the Powell precedent ought to be clear even to political lawyers. If Mr. Reid wants to banish Mr. Burris, he must first seat him and then persuade two-thirds of the Senate to expel him. Needless to say, the last thing Mr. Reid wants to do is create turmoil in his party by expelling an African-American Democrat whose only offense has been to accept an appointment to serve. But if Mr. Reid does go that route, we'd suggest worthier expulsion possibilities, such as Connecticut's Chris Dodd, who received sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial while sitting on the Banking Committee.
Republicans want Illinois to hold a special election for the vacant seat, and we recommended that ourselves (as did Mr. Obama) when the Blagojevich tapes first became public. But now that Mr. Burris has been appointed, Mr. Reid can't legally deny him his seat. If this is the way Democrats are going to use their new monopoly on Beltway power even against a member of their own party, we're in for an ugly couple of years.
Reid and Pelosi are determined to bring down this country, come hell or high water. This is our very own elected official, I live in Nevada. Me, my neighbors and co-workers? WE HATE HIM! This monkey also voted down a bill that would have recognized ENGLISH as the official language of the UNITED STATES! Who votes for these morons????(With so many Mormons around here, I always have to double check that word!).
IP: Logged
03:19 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20707 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
To understand Harry Reid, you must look to the small mining town of Searchlight, Nevada.
Searchlight is where Harry Reid watched his father work as a hardrock miner. It’s where he attended a school with one teacher for eight grades. And it’s where he learned Nevada values like hard work, opportunity and independence.
But he still lives in Searchlight … and he is still guided by the lessons and values he learned there. Note: emphasis mine.
Well, I'm glad i didn't grow up and learn the values of misdirection, outright lying, self-aggrandizement, and dishonesty which Reid embodies.
Isn't Reid a Mormon? No Mormon I know has these values.
IP: Logged
04:10 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9115 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Oh c'mon, disregard for Constitution? Patriot Act? As if? That's the fundamental problem with the current state of political leadership, they don't give a damn about 'that piece of paper.'
Id go so far to say its how the *politicians* are going to run things. I see both sides of the isle doing disgusting nonsense like this.
Point taken, but the Democrats are now in power. And they've been bitching about how Republicans do things. They're not showing any sign of being better than that which they accuse the Republicans of doing.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-03-2009).]
IP: Logged
09:07 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20707 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
To understand Harry Reid, you must look to the small mining town of Searchlight, Nevada.
Searchlight is where Harry Reid watched his father work as a hardrock miner. It’s where he attended a school with one teacher for eight grades. And it’s where he learned Nevada values like hard work, opportunity and independence.
But he still lives in Searchlight … and he is still guided by the lessons and values he learned there. Note: emphasis mine.
Well, I'm glad i didn't grow up and learn the values of misdirection, outright lying, self-aggrandizement, and dishonesty which Reid embodies.
Isn't Reid a Mormon? No Mormon I know has these values.
Reid converted to Mormonism during college while attending the University of Utah, probably as a slimy way to get in good with the in-crowd.
The main stream LDS church do not endorse Reid and all church members do not support nor care for him. They have made repeated claims that Reid is a bad guy.
The only sect of Mormonism that supported Reid is the Warren Jeffs child polygamy fundamentalist sect.
The dude is a corrupt, slime bag, POS fraud. I'm mean hell, Reid was the Chairman of the Nevada State Gaming Commission from 1977 to 1981, which is the heyday of Mafia Gambling control in that state. How can Reid not be corrupt. He is a very bad guy. Trust me.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 01-03-2009).]
IP: Logged
09:26 PM
Jan 4th, 2009
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
We're only seeing the smallest tip of the iceberg at this point. Wait until January 21. We'll then be exposed to what this bunch of 'holier than thou' Democrats will do. You can totally forget about their clean-up of Republican 'corruption'.
Whether or not the dems do a good job or bad, they are only cominig into power thru the total incompetance and criminal behaviour of the republicans. Whine later.
IP: Logged
07:45 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37817 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by weaselbeak: Whether or not the dems do a good job or bad, they are only cominig into power thru the total incompetance and criminal behaviour of the republicans. Whine later.
Not exactly, . What greatly contributed to the democrats power was the liberal news media. Too many people will believe what they read/hear.
Whether or not the dems do a good job or bad, they are only cominig into power thru the total incompetance and criminal behaviour of the republicans. Whine later.
Have you been asleep for all these years. Republicans wiped out the records for spending, gave us illegal wiretaps, lied us into a war in Iraq, (yeah, sure, alibi all you want), gave us the no bid contract, etc. If you think doubling the federal debt of 200 years in only 6 is not incompetant, what do you call it? This has all been debated for most of the last two years and the country voted. Republicans took a bath. Many prominent republicans admit that they had it coming. Fired for doing a lousy job. Live with it.
Have you been asleep for all these years. Republicans wiped out the records for spending, gave us illegal wiretaps, lied us into a war in Iraq, (yeah, sure, alibi all you want), gave us the no bid contract, etc. If you think doubling the federal debt of 200 years in only 6 is not incompetant, what do you call it? This has all been debated for most of the last two years and the country voted. Republicans took a bath. Many prominent republicans admit that they had it coming. Fired for doing a lousy job. Live with it.
The wire taps were not illegal. Spending is not a crime and its maybe incompetence but no more or less then all the spending under Clinton or the last 2 years. No bid contracts have been around for a long time. That's hardly criminal or incompatible. Not sure where the doubling of debt for 200 years comes from. Can explain exactly what you mean by that. Maybe back it up with some facts and figures. Can you name these prominent republicans and quote them.
IP: Logged
11:09 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Whether or not the dems do a good job or bad, they are only cominig into power thru the total incompetance and criminal behaviour of the republicans. Whine later.
So you're saying the American people had to be scraping the bottom of the barrel before they'd consider Democrats? Don't set that bar too high. You might not be able to live up to those lofty standards.
Republicans are in a budget quagmire largely of their own making, said former House Appropriations chairman Robert Livingston (left) in a September 17 Director's Forum at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Gingrich, the former House Speaker, who stepped down in late 1998 before he could be pushed out, blames his successors for taking the low road to disaster. With his fondness for alliterative lists, Gingrich cites four areas where the Republicans fell short or went astray: "Candor, competence, corruption and consultants." He specifically blames former majority leader Tom DeLay, who effectively replaced Gingrich as the GOP leader in the House from 1999 through 2005. In Gingrich's judgment, DeLay, as well as other Republican leaders, threw away the power of ideas in their narrow focus on self-preservation. "When an institution develops 'the Hammer' as a model, that's not the most intellectual form of leadership," says Gingrich, alluding to DeLay's nickname, earned for his skill at enforcing party loyalty in the handing out of favors to lobbyists and influence peddlers.
November 7, 2008 By Kevin O'Neal
Republican losses in Tuesday's elections should be blamed on Republican incompetence, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in Indianapolis on Thursday.
"When you've had the failures that we've had, when you've had the economy we've had and the Wall Street meltdown, it's a little hard to turn around and focus on what the campaign did," Gingrich said. "Any Republican who wants to talk only about the campaign misunderstands the great lesson of the last eight years: that you have to govern well to make a lasting majority."
The American public said enough . . . the Republican Party is struggling to get beyond incompetence," he said.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's just-published memoirs skewer his former comrades in the historic 1994 Republican revolution for squandering the victory through useless and ineffective leadership.
DeLay's book, "No Retreat, No Surrender," which hit bookstores this weekend, singles out former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, DeLay's predecessor as House majority leader.
CONWAY, S.C. -- Republicans spent their way into losing control of Congress, presidential candidate John McCain said yesterday.
"The reason why we lost that election, my dear friends, was because we let spending get out of control," the Republican senator from Arizona told a breakfast crowd in Conway. "We came to power in 1994 to change government and government changed us."
Republicans began to value power over principle, which caused spending to lurch completely out of control, McCain told 225 people at a restaurant on a bend in the Waccamaw River, not far from Myrtle Beach.
"It's got to stop," he said of the excesses, which also led to corruption among members of Congress. "We're going to have to clean up our act." Ever heard of Duke Cunningham? Larry Craig? Ted Stevens? You probably overlooked Siljander-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hozJp13EJR8- Of course this could go on forever, but I think you should do your own legwork. I know it's just easier for you to tune in Lush Limprod.
The fact is, republicans had full control of all three branches of government for 6 years, and blew it. They fixed nothing. The debt under Bush has gone from 5.7 trillion to over 11. BTW, you haven't even started to pay for his Iraq mess. It's all been put on the credit card.
This is really pointless, it's been hashed over for the entire election cycle and you lost, big. Bush wasn't even welcome by his own party on the campaign trail. Speaks volumes.
Not sure why just because the repub's blew it that we should not take the Dem's to task for anything, hmmmm. Sounds pretty dam lame to me.
I think that part of the problem is the left leaning members here repeatedly make the mistake of thinking that the conservatives on this forum are republicans.
The Democrats won five Senate contests to transform a slim majority - 51 seats in the 100-member chamber - into a solid majority of 56.
The party retained hopes of further Senate gains, with four other contests still being counted or going to a recount. The final balance in the Senate will not now be known until next month.
If Democrats win all four, they would, for the first time in 30 years, have the 60 seats needed to clear Republican procedural hurdles that can kill legislation.
The Democrats also added 20 more seats in the House of Representatives, bringing their total to 255 against only 173 Republicans. The results of seven other seats in the 435-member House are still pending. The senate count is up to 59 for the democrats. Don't even start on Gingrich, I'll embarass you.
[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 01-06-2009).]
Keep in mind tho, historically, mid term congressional election results do not bode well for the party in the White House. America, it seems, does not like a solid majority, with little check and balance.
Keep in mind tho, historically, mid term congressional election results do not bode well for the party in the White House. America, it seems, does not like a solid majority, with little check and balance.
That's a good thing. Too much unchecked power from 2001-2007 is what got the republicans in trouble.
IP: Logged
01:13 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by weaselbeak: That's a good thing. Too much unchecked power from 2001-2007 is what got the republicans in trouble.
WRONG!
They failed to do what they were elected to do.
Most who vote for Republican candidates don't vote for 'the ticket'. We vote for conservative values. Nothing else explains the landslides like the Ronald Reagan.
When those who run for office on the Republican side grow a 'set' and have the courage to stand against liberal ideas and the media who are in bed with Democrats, you'll see a rapid swing.
I HATE RINOs!
I am sick to exhaustion of RINOs.
IP: Logged
01:48 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
One of the things you pointed out the republicans did badly was to spend so much money. Which I totally and completely agree with.
My question would be, what did you see or hear in the Obama campaign, and from democrats in congress, that makes you think it is their idea to spend LESS?
All I remember hearing was how he was going to TAX MORE (well, at least from certain 'lucky', greedy people and businesses), and then SPEND more as he distributed it to the people that deserved it. And get out troops home. Oops. Just this week, Obama is talking about sending troops to Afghanistan. And good for him. It is the right thing to do. BUT, that isn't what he ran on.
Democrats are ALREADY gearing up the tax machine. Increase the gas tax? Just getting warmed up.
But yeah, did the republicans do a HORRIBLE job with their opportunity? Absolutely. Then you get a campaign run on "vote for me. I'm really cool, and I'm going to give you a lot of stuff." No wonder "the bath".
This isn't about "whine later". This is about: what in the world would give you hope that democrats are going to do a good job when THAT is their campaign? To use YOUR criteria, at least you will get rid of those wiretaps that have been ruining your daily life. But you are going to get even MORE spending (that was his campaign. All these programs I am going to do.), and MORE troops deployed.
Should I quote you one more time? Sure: "Live with it".
Most who vote for Republican candidates don't vote for 'the ticket'. We vote for conservative values. Nothing else explains the landslides like the Ronald Reagan.
When those who run for office on the Republican side grow a 'set' and have the courage to stand against liberal ideas and the media who are in bed with Democrats, you'll see a rapid swing.
I HATE RINOs!
I am sick to exhaustion of RINOs.
How am I wrong? They had veto proof majorities and immediately went to the republican candy store, shattering all spending and deficit records. The dems did not have any power to stop that train. McCain himself said they put drunken sailers to shame. You are only correct if the majority of republicans were not "conservartives" as advertised. The party of less government expanded government greatly.
IP: Logged
02:05 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
The dems did not have any power to stop that train.
Like that was their gripe. They weren't upset because they couldn't stop the train. They were upset because the train wasn't going where THEY wanted it to go, not due to the SIZE of it.
IP: Logged
02:10 PM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Phranc: What exact incompetence and criminal behavior?
incompetence: "the fundementals of our economy are strong" criminal behaviour: attacking a nation with unclear cause, torture & indetermined imprisoning of foriegn citizens
IP: Logged
02:19 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
How am I wrong? They had veto proof majorities and immediately went to the republican candy store, shattering all spending and deficit records. <snip>
That is EXACTLY my point.
Failures to cut spending, to not be influenced by lobbyists, failure to restructure SS, failure to stop the flow of illegals, failure to control errant congressmen (Foley, Cunningham, etc) and senators, (Craig, Vitter, Stevens, et al) just to name a few. Each house has rules and powers that would have enabled control of character issues but none in the 'party' cared or had the courage to act.
We've come to expect such behavior from Democrats but Republicans claim to be above that level. They just aren't willing to prove it.
It WAS NOT their 'power' that got them thrown out. It was their misuse of or their unwillingness to use that power that got them thrown out.
[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 01-06-2009).]
criminal behaviour: attacking a nation with unclear cause, torture & indetermined imprisoning of foriegn citizens
What nation was attacked with unclear cause?
Proof of torture?
"indetermined imprisoning of foriegn citizens"? You mean the people who were captured mostly on battle fields and many of whom returned?
If these crimes happened where are the charges? These regurgitated liberal talking points are routinely discredited yet it doesn't stop people like you from puking them back up.
IP: Logged
02:48 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27105 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
For friends who can THINK: A British editorial view of Obama's Victory Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:00:34 +0000 [Sender's identity not known]
An editorial from the London Daily Mail :
Obama's Victory
A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless, but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups.
A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising [sic] over reality.
A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon.
Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group-think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.
Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media have to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are extremely liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.
A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.
A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.
Congratulations, America!
IP: Logged
04:25 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
I couldn't help but notice that you provided NO link to a source. You provided NO authors name. Without that, as Phranc would say, "You're being dishonest, Fierobear." A Google search turned up NO such "editorial" published in the London Daily Mail. It appears to be a product of a crazy blogger in the USA (surprise!) http://www.rense.com/general84/win.htm How pathetic your latest lame attempt at propaganda was. I did, however, find this. From Rupert "FOX" Murdoch's own Wall Street Journal, no less. Now hurry up, or else you'll be late for dance class.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-06-2009).]
IP: Logged
06:09 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27105 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I couldn't help but notice that you provided NO link to a source. You provided NO authors name. Without that, as Phranc would say, "You're being dishonest, Fierobear." A Google search turned up NO such "editorial." I did, however, find this. From Rupert "FOX" Murdochs own Wall Street Journal, no less. Now hurry up, or else you'll be late for dance class.
So, let me get this straight. After MONTHS of posting articles with links, I'm now suddenly dishonest because I post ONE without? BTW, I found it on another forum, and the link wasn't provided there. And what the hell difference would it make - it's an EDITORIAL. *I* could have wrote it and sent it in. Big f***ing deal. Nice try, Neptune.
Oh, and OF COURSE the Europeans are cheering Obama's victory. They LOVE socialism over there.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-06-2009).]
IP: Logged
06:24 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
So, let me get this straight. After MONTHS of posting articles with links, I'm now suddenly dishonest because I post ONE without? BTW, I found it on another forum, and the link wasn't provided there. Nice try, Neptune.
Oh, and OF COURSE the Europeans are cheering Obama's victory. They LOVE socialism over there.
Sorry dude. This isn't the first time you've tried to pull that. I'd be crucified if I tried it. Hell, I'm crucified even when I quote an unimpeachable source!
You have been
Again.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-06-2009).]
.
