Dems Break ANOTHER Promise

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Jan 2, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Wa. Post: Good Hearted Dems 'Torn' about Shutting GOP Out
    Posted by Warner Todd Huston on January 2, 2007 - 07:17.
    This morning the Washington Post published a story about how the Democrats are going to exclude Republicans from participating in the "First 100 Hours" plan that the Democrats intend to implement when they officially become the majority in the House of Representatives this week. And, while they do clearly state that the Democrat majority is going against a campaign promise to be less partisan, the Post just cannot help but make it seem as if it pains those poor Democrats that Republicans are so mean that they cannot include them in compliance with their promises.

    Democrats To Start Without GOP Input

    But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

    Wow, breaking a campaign promise before they even take the reigns of power! But, wait... the Post papers over this promise breaking by saying how bad the Dems feel about this lapse.

    Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

    Gosh. That must make it all OK. Those poor, sad Dems must really be broken up over this. Why, if Republicans weren't so evil and all, the Dems COULD let them join in the legislation process. It isn't like the Republicans were really elected fairly, anyway.

    "There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."

    Um, you mean disruptive like the Democrats have been for a decade, Mr. Van Hollen?

    And, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly is already priming the pump for their "Fist 100 Hours" plan to fail with no complaint or comment about such backtracking from the Post.

    "The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do."

    And after telling us how the Democrats intend to have secret meetings closed to the public and won't allow the GOP to participate in the process if they can help it, the Post assures us that:

    For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.

    REALLY!!

    When all is said and done, and despite the rather soft sell the Post tried to spin what is the coming Democrat Power grab, there will be no "change in tone" in Washington. Especially from Democrats who have, historically, been far more prone to mean-spirited power plays.

    "If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University . "I would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be casting against type."

    At least one quote in the piece was right on.

    Naturally, Mr. Baker does not work for the Washington Post.

    http://newsbusters.org/node/9908
     
  2. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Name one promise thay have kept.
     
  3. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    Poor babies.


    Guess what, you're now in the minority, so your opinion doesn't really matter.

    Over the past 6 years, the Right has defined partisanship as the minority not doing what the majority wants, and bi-partisanship as the minority doing what the majority wants.

    I'm fine with that definition now.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. CTRLALTDEL
    Offline

    CTRLALTDEL Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +40
    LOL!!!!!!! Cons get a taste of their own partisan medicine and discover how bad it actually tastes.




    :razz:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,432
    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! :eusa_hand:

    Poor babies!

    You gonna start stamping your feet??
     
  6. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    Again as has been pointed out before Democrats had plenty of imput as the minority problem.

    Besides, they promised bipartisanship. You guys cant claim to be bipartisan then act like this and expect not to be called hypocrites. And pointing out hypocrisy is hardly whining.
     
  7. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    On what?


    And by the way, BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA whine whine whine could you get anymore pathetic?


    Guess what? You're not in the majority! No one cares about you!
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Guess that's why you are not in office?
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    The old " two wrongs make a right" thinking. It's SOOOOO constructive.
     
  10. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    WOW, how silly of me to think that once in power the libs would stop using name calling as a debate tool.

    Coulter was actually right about you all. If you couldn't call the the other side names you really would be deprived of half your arguing power.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page