The Democrats Gloat Thread

Hi Cyclo, Thanks for the welcome back. As for the sushi meal, it'll have to wait until I return from Israel on October 27: leaving on Friday. It'll have to fit between my return from Israel and my trip to Europe on November 22 for a Danube cruise, and will be home from December 3 till December 29 for yet another trip to Miami and a Caribbean cruise.

Hi Cyclo, Waiting for your call.... tap, tap, tap...

Early Democratic priorities will include raising the minimum wage, boosting homeland security spending, shifting the nation's energy policy away from oil and gas exploration toward alternative fuel sources, and reversing cuts to education spending.

Meanwhile in the committee chambers, aggressive new chairmen, such as Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), promise a series of investigations and hearings into matters that have largely gone unexplored under GOP control, such as allegations of waste in Iraq and mismanagement of the war.

That alone could dramatically change the political atmosphere during Bush's final two years in office.

My fear is that we go from the radical right to the radical left. Neither of which is IMO the correct course for this nation to follow.

au1929 wrote:

My fear is that we go from the radical right to the radical left. Neither of which is IMO the correct course for this nation to follow.

I seriously doubt that happens. But what would you suggest, just to continue the same way of doing things with a rubber stamp to all Bush's policies. What was the point of people voting the republicans out if the candidates do no changes from the status quo?

January 18, 2007
Court to Oversee U.S. Wiretapping in Terror Cases

Graham opposition to nominee acknowledged in Bush reversal

01/10/07
The Herald (S.C.)

President Bush bowed Tuesday to opposition from Lindsey Graham and other senators, declining to re-nominate the Pentagon's top lawyer to the federal appellate court that oversees South Carolina.
Bush's decision not to send the Senate the nomination of William Haynes to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals represents an acknowledgement of new political realities with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

The decision is also a victory for Graham, a military lawyer who opposed Haynes' appointment because of his role as Defense Department general counsel in formulating tough interrogation techniques for accused terrorist detainees.

[..] Graham said Tuesday[,] "Now is time for us to push ahead and fill vacancies on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ... with solid conservative and confirmable nominees."

In a Dec. 19 letter to Bush, obtained Tuesday by McClatchy Newspapers, Haynes asked the president to withdraw his name from consideration.

"It is not at all clear that any vote would be forthcoming in the 110th Congress and, absent such a vote, you would lose the opportunity to fill the judicial vacancy for which you nominated me," Haynes wrote. [..]

Haynes was one of four controversial judicial nominees Bush chose not to re-nominate. The others were Terrence Boyle, William Myers and Michael Wallace. [..]

Lawrimore said Bush has not chosen a replacement nominee for Haynes to the 4th Circuit. She denied that his decision not to re-nominate Haynes means that he is backing down to the new Democratic-ruled Congress.

"He remains focused on appointing nominees who understand that the role of a judge is to interpret law and not to legislate from the bench," Lawrimore said.

Brian Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Defense Department officials are glad that Haynes will remain as the Pentagon's top lawyer, a post he has held since May, 24, 2001. [..]

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a top policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton, intensified the debate Friday by accusing Republicans of taking a projected $5 billion budget surplus left by Clinton and converting it into a sea of red ink.

"You did something no American president and no Congress has ever tried in American history: three wars, three tax cuts and $3 trillion in new debt," Emanuel said. "On day No. 2, Democrats have said enough is enough with running up the debt and the deficit in this country. We're going to begin to take steps to put our fiscal house in order." [..]

Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., the former National Football League quarterback and newly elected Blue Dog Democrat, drove the point home at a news conference Friday by cutting a credit card in half with scissors.

"If Congress is going to buy something, we need to figure out how to pay for it," added Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., another newly elected member. "That is what the small-business owners, farmers and families in the Eighth Congressional District of Pennsylvania do every day."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-17-dems-family-lobbyists_x.htm

Interesting how the dems dont want the rules to apply to themselves,isnt it.

mysteryman wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-17-dems-family-lobbyists_x.htm

Vitter and Coburn are right. I think its daft that current congressional rules permit relatives of senators and House members to work as lobbyists, and that they permit for earmarks that financially benefit senators, their staffers or their relatives. Reid and Feinstein shoud be ashamed for opposing these proposals - they should capitalize on them.

mysteryman wrote:

Interesting how the dems dont want the rules to apply to themselves,isnt it.

Question for you, Mysteryman. The Republicans have had a majority in both Senate and House, and the Presidency, for the past, what is it, six years. Any Republican-sponsored proposal should have had a fair chance of sailing through at any point in those years. Why in hell's name have Vitter and Coburn waited six full years until right the first moment when they dont have a majority anymore, to make these proposals? The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.