Strider Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 Of course, it doesn't matter who gets into the White House, there won't be any REAL change until Congress gets it act together and remembers what they are there for...as this op-ed makes it clear: IS THERE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS IN THE HOUSE? Lawmakers act as if they have taken an oath to serve the president or their party, not the Constitution. By Mickey Edwards Los Angeles Times June 3, 2008 The central feature of American government, the one that made the United States "exceptional" and preserved our freedoms for more than 200 years, is in the process of being destroyed. The enemy is not in Iraq or the hills of Pakistan but in Washington and in cities and towns throughout the United States. America's founders, it turns out, were not as smart as we thought. They assumed that if they put most of the nation's real powers -- over war, taxes and spending -- in the hands of the people themselves, through their representatives, those representatives would do their duty and prevent an American president from acting as though he were king. Congress was not to be a copy of the British Parliament but its exact opposite: Whereas Parliament is essentially an extension of the executive (the prime minister's party always controls Parliament, and its members are expected to enact his or her proposals) and members need not have any connection to the "constituencies" they allegedly represent, the American system requires members of Congress to come from the states they represent and to serve as a check on -- not enabler of -- the president. It's a simple enough concept but one apparently hard for members of Congress to grasp. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) was quoted recently bemoaning the fact that legislators were going to have to fend for themselves in November's elections. "You are going to run on who you are and establish some independence," he told the New York Times, "and that is going to be tougher for some than others." Having served in Congress myself, I feel sad for those members who are going to find it tough to run as who they are and "establish some independence," but I had assumed that was precisely what they were supposed to do. The opposite, of course, would be to pretend to be someone other than who one really is, or to have no convictions other than to obey somebody else's directives (presumably those of the president or party leaders). Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has a similar confusion. Interviewed on National Public Radio, she said part of her job as House speaker was to ensure that there would be a Democratic majority in the next Congress. That, of course, is likely to happen regardless of what she does, but that is actually the job of the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Pelosi's job is to legislate and to see to it that the House fulfills its constitutional duties as a separate, independent and equal branch of the federal government. Tom Cole, the Oklahoma congressman who is chairman of the Republican campaign committee in the House, inherited a mess, including a deeply unpopular president and a host of GOP incumbents heading for the hills, and has been unfairly blamed for the party's losses in this year's special elections (full disclosure: He is a friend who once worked on my congressional staff). But even Cole, who holds a doctorate and is one of the smartest members of Congress, sometimes loses sight of what it means to be a member of the legislative branch. Asked about the desirability of distancing oneself from George W. Bush, Cole told the Washington Post that "it's not for me to second-guess the president of the United States." Yes, it is. That is precisely the constitutional obligation of a member of Congress -- to second-guess, challenge, question and, when necessary, serve as a check on a president. In November, voters will elect every member of the House and one-third of the members of the Senate. In January, each successful candidate will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Perhaps it would be good for each of them to get a crash course in exactly what that means. Mickey Edwards is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma. His new book is "Reclaiming Conservatism." He is now a lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 True, but the problem lies that no Dem is going to go along with any bush deal, even if it's a Dem issue. I mean how would Obama claim McCain is the 3rd bush failed term, when his own people are voting for his policy. The congress G.O.P. is a joke. The same congress that won in 2004, decided to worry about themselves and lost big time in 2006 and will again in 2008. What is retarded is 100 house Republicans voted for the farm bill, which makes the govt even bigger, which goes against all true Conservative. Bush opposes this bill and some Repubs are trying to distance themselves from the man who got them elected. If Obama gets elected, shit will get done. The Dem's would rule Washington, but it won't be anything that will solve the gas prices and economic situation since i believe they caused this gas situation and if people can't buy gas, they won't buy anything else. Yes there is a good chance of no more troops in Iraq, but the middle east situation will not be solve, nor will it be on it's way to be solved. They may get close to universal health care, but they will have hard time to find the money for it. If you love liberal agendas, then the next 8 years will be a wet dream. Im saying bill after bill will get pass, but will most likley be of no concern for most of the nation. McCain will get as much done as any repub can, most likely more since he's more D than R. So i believe the Repubs are to blame for this. They did not defend their president, which cause him this unfavorable rating, which prevents the Dem's for voting for anything he approves of which in turns cause this congress to be even worse than the president. I truly believe if McCain retired after losing in 2000, and one head repub stood up in 2006 and said I'm not taking this anti bush shit anymore. Gas would be cheaper and Mitt Romney would have a 20 point lead over Hilrod in the gen election, since Obama bases his whole campaign on being anti-Bush. Congress may have a rating appoval over 20 points. Bush is the issue, but he is not the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 OBAMA or McCAIN? Labotomy or Root Canal? Gallows or Firing Squad? Hernia or Hemoroids? Viscectomy or Tubal Ligation? Oh! Lifes' Choices? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I wish i could select neither, so they will select new canidates. I don't mind Pres. Bush personaly, but nothing will get done if he is still president, since the dems decided in 2004 that they will do anything to kill this country so they can blame Bush for everthing and get a Dem elected. What is sad is the G.O.P. thought the Dems were just stupid at the time and failed to relize that america will belive in the blame game more, than the true facts. But i do blame Bush for not making a strong enough case to pass those bills that would solve most of these problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 They should get rid of the whole lot. The walls stink of fresh ink and fresh blood all too often. The country was not founded to become what it has, a rattling dog foaming at the mouth, awaiting its own execution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Hi all, They should get rid of the whole lot. The walls stink of fresh ink and fresh blood all too often. The country was not founded to become what it has, a rattling dog foaming at the mouth, awaiting its own execution. When are they getting rid of the 'whole lot'? Also, when are you moving to another country? This country,past and present was founded on the truth of "free will", that people have free will and be able to say,if you agree with them or not.Freedom of speech,to bear arms,etc,.....and that same 'free will' I talked about has the same 'free fault' as we all have,...again. Excuse me and not a personal rant on others but do folks who can not vote or live in the US,give a crap who our next POTUS will be,and tell me the ****'in truth! KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 When are they getting rid of the 'whole lot'? I was tuned in to AM radio the other day and there was talk of a movement to vote out all incumbents within the next three years. However, given that most people wish to exercise some personal exceptions to the cause, this cause will undoubtedly fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Did anybody know of the theory that if you split all the money evenly around the world, within two generations. those who where rich, will be rich, those who were poor, will be poor. Now there will be exceptions and the avg wealth of rich people won't be as high and the avg wealth of poor people, won't be that low, but inflation would take care of that. Well i think that will be the deal with voting out all the incumbents, eventually, most of them will get back in, and the ones who weren't in, there is a pretty good reason why they weren't there before. Think about all the assholes in congress and than think about all those asshole that lost. These are the best assholes we can come up with. Imagine if a non asshole gets in, he'll get nothing done and get voted out. people make a big deal about McCain age and 1/4 of the senate is older than he is. These people are cockroaches, they survive for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 There's a TV program on at the moment commemorating the D day invasion. The program has just shown a picture that was taken from a high flying aircraft. It shows Omaha Beach. All you can see is hundreds of black dots against the white sand background. Everyone of those dots is an American casualty. An estimated 4500 were killed in about 18 hrs. I think those guy's would all kick our asses if we even suggested giving up on freedom and democracy. Our job is much easier....just vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misty Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 given the choices..i am leaning toward mccain. i honestly don't feel confident in either candidate right now, but i won't not vote because of it..... the one i actually liked the most was mike huckabee..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) So i believe the Repubs are to blame for this. They did not defend their president, which cause him this unfavorable rating, which prevents the Dem's for voting for anything he approves of which in turns cause this congress to be even worse than the president. Are you kidding? This is exactly the kind of mindless thinking that the article was talking about! Congress is NOT there to blindly follow their President and rubber-stamp his every whim. Congress is there as OUR representatives. And you say the GOP should have defended Bush? What Bush and Cheney and his cronies have done the last 8 years is nigh undefensible. Bush's ratings would have sank with or without the GOP's support. The PEOPLE are sick and tired of Bush/Cheney! Go back and read the article, then read the United States Constitution and learn what your House and Senate representatives are there for...believe me, it is not to be the President's sycophants, and that goes for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, whatever party is in power. Edited June 7, 2008 by Strider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Are you kidding? This is exactly the kind of mindless thinking that the article was talking about! Congress is NOT there to blindly follow their President and rubber-stamp his every whim. Congress is there as OUR representatives. And you say the GOP should have defended Bush? What Bush and Cheney and his cronies have done the last 8 years is nigh undefensible. Bush's ratings would have sank with or without the GOP's support. The PEOPLE are sick and tired of Bush/Cheney! Go back and read the article, then read the United States Constitution and learn what your House and Senate representatives are there for...believe me, it is not to be the President's sycophants, and that goes for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, whatever party is in power. Here' a little insight into Pb for ya, Strider: When it comes to political debate, "mindless thinking" is his modus operandi. For further evidence of the mindlessness of Pb, visit the POTUS thread or simply check out this McCain-supporting Pb-sponsored campaign slogan: No, you didn't read me wrong, Strider. That's Pb's campaign slogan IN SUPPORT OF John McCain. See now what you're dealing with here? Edited June 7, 2008 by Hermit_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Hi all, Are you kidding? This is exactly the kind of mindless thinking that the article was talking about! Congress is NOT there to blindly follow their President and rubber-stamp his every whim. Congress is there as OUR representatives. While this is true,the truth doesn't back the reality. -------------------------------------------------------------------- And you say the GOP should have defended Bush? What Bush and Cheney and his cronies have done the last 8 years is nigh undefensible. Bush's ratings would have sank with or without the GOP's support. The PEOPLE are sick and tired of Bush/Cheney! Well,everyone will get their wish in November.Also, hold Congress to this same standard,the could not have done the -undefensible- without them,.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Go back and read the article, then read the United States Constitution and learn what your House and Senate representatives are there for...believe me, it is not to be the President's sycophants, and that goes for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, whatever party is in power. When were the Libertarians in power??? Kidding,.... Again, I agree,in part with you Strider,yet an ideal,or law,the US Consitution,is a living document,open for interpretation,as intended,it doesn't mean it will work that way.It never does.It never has. Dee Snyder(No! We ain't going to take it,..noooo more,...) KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Here' a little insight into Pb for ya, Strider: When it comes to political debate, "mindless thinking" is his modus operandi. For further evidence of the mindlessness of Pb, visit the POTUS thread or simply check out this McCain-supporting Pb-sponsored campaign slogan: No, you didn't read me wrong, Strider. That's Pb's campaign slogan IN SUPPORT OF John McCain. See now what you're dealing with here? Wow, Hermit is back. Welcome back you old forum criminal you. I have heard a rumor that one reason Hillary is maintaining her pledged delegates is because there is a lot more damaging video that will come out about the Obama's church. I keep hearing of a video where Michelle Obama uses the word "whitey" while speaking from the church pulpit. And that the Hillary camp while not having access to the tape, knows about it's existence, and is therefore waiting for the Obama campaign to self-destruct. In any event -- if Obama wins I will be moving to Iran... or some other place that will be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Wow, Hermit is back. Welcome back you old forum criminal you. Howdy Delbro. "Old Forum Criminals". Is that the latest moniker for the "Banned of Brothers"? Hope you enjoy your time in Iran, bud. After you've gone heading off to the desert, I'll be asking myself.. Why'd he go running off to a place like that? [see what I'm gettin at there, Whitey? ] edited to add: when you do end up going to a place that's hot as hell.. it sure aint gonna be Iran, and it's gonna be 'hot as hell' for a damned good reason. ..know whatta mean, Vern? Edited June 7, 2008 by Hermit_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Are you kidding? This is exactly the kind of mindless thinking that the article was talking about! Congress is NOT there to blindly follow their President and rubber-stamp his every whim. Congress is there as OUR representatives. And you say the GOP should have defended Bush? What Bush and Cheney and his cronies have done the last 8 years is nigh undefensible. Bush's ratings would have sank with or without the GOP's support. The PEOPLE are sick and tired of Bush/Cheney! Go back and read the article, then read the United States Constitution and learn what your House and Senate representatives are there for...believe me, it is not to be the President's sycophants, and that goes for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, whatever party is in power. So you saying im wrong that the G.O.P was right in not supporting thier president, you have proven that the Dems are the reason behide this article. Because it was them who listened to there party leaders and not be able to work with the president wiht a low rating and becasue of that they have a lower rating by 12%. yeah for congress. They would not have sank with support becuase bush won the presidency, house and senate in 2004 with the some war going on, and they decided to look out for themselves and they lost huge in 2006. yes they are supposed to repesent the poeple, but they are there to get shit done, not just talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Hermit, stop being the cheerleader for a second, you may know what color underware obama wears, but i bet 80% of the population can't even tell you what big thing obama did other than win a nomination. people know McCain lost to bush in 2000, people know about the McCain/feingold campaign finace reform bill. People know he has been in the senate for the last two decades, while Obama was in his church with his racist pastor for two decades. McCain is bad right now, obama is good right now. but with a 5% lead in the polls, could obama win when the race begins and the G.O.P. will make obama look bad. There is no way obama is gong to look any better than he did yesterday or the day before or even threee months ago. remeber rev. wright and jesse jackson will be out thier spending thier love for thier homeboy Edited June 7, 2008 by Pb Derigable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Bill Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 i bet 80% of the population can't even tell you what big thing obama did other than win a nomination. Make that 100%, he has no legislative accomplishments as far as I can tell. Can anyone name something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Make that 100%, he has no legislative accomplishments as far as I can tell. Can anyone name something? He was responsible for getting the toilet paper in the Senate upgraded to two-ply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 He was against the war, but it seemed every black person was agianst the war back then becasue it was a white men sending the black man to die. He was against the surge, which so happens to be winning this war, which was a brain child of McCain. Do you know what, this bush third term is sounding better everday. You have balls to prevent terriosim and you don't have the piss poor appoval numbers. too bad McCain won't allow drilling in ANWAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 It is intriguing that she said she has "suspended" her campaign. Perhaps she does await the other shoe to drop, or perhaps she's simply looking to leverage herself in the best way possible. There are several reasons why a canidate makes the choice to suspend a campaign. But one of them is that by doing so they have the ability to continue to have money contributions pay off campaign debts. I don't believe that Hillary has any power to 'leverage' Obama now that it is clear that he is the presumtive nominee (prior to being declared so in the Democratic convention). Some people think that she might be trying to force Obama to select her as VP. But I believe that this move is so that she can remain on "the radar screen" a bit longer. One reason is so that she continues to be kept in reserve in case Obama stumbles badly... probably a long shot. But more likely just to establish herself as a viable canidate for the 2012 race in case Obama looses to McCain. It would be foolish for Obama to select Hillary as a VP, because that will have the net effect of making him seem weak and in need of a so called "dream ticket" in order to beat McCain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 By suspending her campaign, yes she is hoping for an obama fuck up. but at the same time, she may want a roll call at the convention, just so she can look good for 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthekingshorses Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Make that 100%, he has no legislative accomplishments as far as I can tell. Can anyone name something? He graduated from Columbia University in NY in 1983 College "He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Soon after, he returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law. Finally, his advocacy work led him to run for the Illinois State Senate, where he served for eight years. In 2004, he became the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Political Career It has been the rich and varied experiences of Barack Obama's life - growing up in different places with people who had differing ideas - that have animated his political journey. Amid the partisanship and bickering of today's public debate, he still believes in the ability to unite people around a politics of purpose - a politics that puts solving the challenges of everyday Americans ahead of partisan calculation and political gain. In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars." source: barackobama.com Now if you are really interested in what Barack has done, you could read about it. Library of Congress has a boat load of boring reading. But if you really wanted to know, he has plenty of Resolutions, Bills and Amendments you can read over. http://thomas.loc.gov/ you can do a search for all your favorite politicians. and to stay on topic... OBAMA! Edited June 9, 2008 by allthekingshorses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Bill Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Now if you are really interested in what Barack has done, you could read about it. Library of Congress has a boat load of boring reading. But if you really wanted to know, he has plenty of Resolutions, Bills and Amendments you can read over. The more I read the harder it is figure out what he actually did and what work of others he took credit for. In the Il state senate; "The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor. Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's kingmaker. Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio program. I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows: "He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'" "Oh, you are? Who might that be?" "Barack Obama." Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. "I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit. "I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book." " source In the US senate: "Both Obama And Clinton Embellish Their Roles" As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself. "I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out," he said. To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them. But in a presidential contest involving three sitting senators, embellishment of legislative records may be an inevitability, Specter said with a shrug." and "Immigration is a case in point for Obama, but not the only one. In 2007, after the first comprehensive immigration bill had died, the senators were back at it, and again, Obama was notably absent, staffers and senators said. At one meeting, three key negotiators recalled, he entered late and raised a number of questions about the bill's employment verification system. Kennedy and Specter both rebuked him, saying that the issue had already been resolved and that he was coming late to the discussion. Kennedy dressed him down, according to witnesses, and Obama left shortly thereafter. "Senator Obama came in late, brought up issues that had been hashed and rehashed," Specter recalled. "He didn't stay long." " source Edited June 9, 2008 by Uncle Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 The next President will indeed bring change, not Congress. As of right now, the power of the Presidency is near an all-time high and his decisions have much more of an effect on the country than Congress does. His impact determines the fate of the country, not Congress (at this point in history anyways) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.