Dems Break ANOTHER Promise

[red states rule]

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

 

[glockmail]

Name one promise thay have kept.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

http://newsbusters.org/node/9908

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.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

LOL!!!!!!! Cons get a taste of their own partisan medicine and discover how bad it actually tastes.

 

[jillian]

http://newsbusters.org/node/9908

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

Poor babies!

You gonna start stamping your feet??

 

[Avatar4321]

LOL!!!!!!! Cons get a taste of their own partisan medicine and discover how bad it actually tastes.

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.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Again as has been pointed out before Democrats had plenty of imput as the minority problem.

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!

 

[Annie]

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!

Guess that's why you are not in office?

 

[dilloduck]

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!

The old " two wrongs make a right" thinking. It's SOOOOO constructive.

 

[Bern80]

BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Poor babies.


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

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

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!

again where exactly is anyone whining by pointing out your parties hypocrisy?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The old " two wrongs make a right" thinking. It's SOOOOO constructive.

Oh, so NOW you admit two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

That's funny, I was under the impression it was people like Coulter that routinely refer to those she doesn't agree with as "traitors", my mistake.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

again where exactly is anyone whining by pointing out your parties hypocrisy?

Please, you're puttin' me to sleep here. Stop it already with your whining, and tell us about your plan to get out of Iraq.

 

[trobinett]

Please, you're puttin' me to sleep here. Stop it already with your whining, and tell us about your plan to get out of Iraq.

Actually, I'm curious about YOUR plan for Iraq, and the threat, that terror presents to not only the US, but to Western civilization in general.

Comments Spiderman?

 

[wiggles]

Actually, I'm curious about YOUR plan for Iraq, and the threat, that terror presents to not only the US, but to Western civilization in general.

Comments Spiderman?

House Dems unveil sweeping post-9/11 security measure

By Chris Strohm, CongressDaily
In one of their first legislative actions after taking control of the House, Democrats unveiled a massive bill Thursday that would overhaul how homeland security grants are distributed, require all sea and air cargo to be inspected, prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and promote international diplomacy and aid.

Making good on one of their major campaign promises, House Democrats released the contents of their bill to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Although Democrats said they would implement all unfulfilled recommendations, the bill comes up short in some areas, such as requiring a further streamlining of congressional oversight of the Homeland Security Department. But the 277-page bill contains 14 titles covering everything from grants to local fire departments to international relations with Pakistan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., plans to bring the bill to the floor for a vote Tuesday. Democratic leaders have said, however, they will not give Republicans a chance to offer amendments or hold hearings on the bill.

"I'm disappointed that, on such an important issue, there's a complete lack of debate and proper committee process," House Homeland Security ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y., said. "Homeland Security is too important an issue -- and this is too encompassing a bill -- to not have any oversight."

Significantly, the bill would increase the portion of homeland security grants that can be distributed to states and urban areas based on risks and threats. Each state would still get at least 0.25 percent of the grants, or 0.45 percent if they meet certain high-risk criteria. But the Homeland Security Department would be able to distribute the rest of the funding based on risks and threats. States now get 0.75 percent of grants.

The bill also would establish a new grant program to help states and municipalities buy interoperable communications equipment.

With regard to cargo security, the bill would require the department to inspect all cargo transported on passenger aircraft within three years. It would also require all containers being placed on ships bound for the United States to be scanned at foreign ports within five years, unless the department granted an extension.

The bill would set firm deadlines for the department to submit reports to Congress in several areas, including aviation security, transportation security, international collaboration on border security, terrorist trafficking and protection of critical infrastructure. It also would beef up information sharing practices between the federal government and state and local governments.

Notably, the report requires the department to submit a plan to accelerate the US-VISIT foreigner tracking system, including a program to document when foreigners leave the United States. The Government Accountability Office recently reported it will take Homeland Security officials five to 10 years to implement an exit system under their current schedule.

"We look forward to working with the new leadership in Congress, and we look forward to the opportunity to brief members of the new Congress on our programs and initiatives, as well as the dramatic advances that have been made in our security since 9/11," a department spokesman said in response to the bill.

"Relative to 9/11 Commission recommendations, the fact remains that nearly all of the commission's recommendations have already been implemented, particularly the ones pertaining to this department," he added.

The bill also lays out a series of measures "to accelerate and strengthen progress on preventing weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism."

"Such measures described in this title include the removal and modification of statutory limits to executing funds, the expansion and strengthening of the [Proliferation Security Initiative], the establishment of the Office of the United States Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism ... and the establishment of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism," the bill states.

The bill also says the administration should impose sanctions on foreign persons or corporations that participate in black market trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, and should suspend arms sale licenses and deliveries to nuclear proliferation host countries.

In addition, the bill calls on the administration to set up or improve international educational or aid programs, and improve international public diplomacy, particularly with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[dilloduck]

House Dems unveil sweeping post-9/11 security measure

By Chris Strohm, CongressDaily
In one of their first legislative actions after taking control of the House, Democrats unveiled a massive bill Thursday that would overhaul how homeland security grants are distributed, require all sea and air cargo to be inspected, prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and promote international diplomacy and aid.

Making good on one of their major campaign promises, House Democrats released the contents of their bill to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Although Democrats said they would implement all unfulfilled recommendations, the bill comes up short in some areas, such as requiring a further streamlining of congressional oversight of the Homeland Security Department. But the 277-page bill contains 14 titles covering everything from grants to local fire departments to international relations with Pakistan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., plans to bring the bill to the floor for a vote Tuesday. Democratic leaders have said, however, they will not give Republicans a chance to offer amendments or hold hearings on the bill.

"I'm disappointed that, on such an important issue, there's a complete lack of debate and proper committee process," House Homeland Security ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y., said. "Homeland Security is too important an issue -- and this is too encompassing a bill -- to not have any oversight."

Significantly, the bill would increase the portion of homeland security grants that can be distributed to states and urban areas based on risks and threats. Each state would still get at least 0.25 percent of the grants, or 0.45 percent if they meet certain high-risk criteria. But the Homeland Security Department would be able to distribute the rest of the funding based on risks and threats. States now get 0.75 percent of grants.

The bill also would establish a new grant program to help states and municipalities buy interoperable communications equipment.

With regard to cargo security, the bill would require the department to inspect all cargo transported on passenger aircraft within three years. It would also require all containers being placed on ships bound for the United States to be scanned at foreign ports within five years, unless the department granted an extension.

The bill would set firm deadlines for the department to submit reports to Congress in several areas, including aviation security, transportation security, international collaboration on border security, terrorist trafficking and protection of critical infrastructure. It also would beef up information sharing practices between the federal government and state and local governments.

Notably, the report requires the department to submit a plan to accelerate the US-VISIT foreigner tracking system, including a program to document when foreigners leave the United States. The Government Accountability Office recently reported it will take Homeland Security officials five to 10 years to implement an exit system under their current schedule.

"We look forward to working with the new leadership in Congress, and we look forward to the opportunity to brief members of the new Congress on our programs and initiatives, as well as the dramatic advances that have been made in our security since 9/11," a department spokesman said in response to the bill.

"Relative to 9/11 Commission recommendations, the fact remains that nearly all of the commission's recommendations have already been implemented, particularly the ones pertaining to this department," he added.

The bill also lays out a series of measures "to accelerate and strengthen progress on preventing weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism."

"Such measures described in this title include the removal and modification of statutory limits to executing funds, the expansion and strengthening of the [Proliferation Security Initiative], the establishment of the Office of the United States Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism ... and the establishment of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism," the bill states.

The bill also says the administration should impose sanctions on foreign persons or corporations that participate in black market trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, and should suspend arms sale licenses and deliveries to nuclear proliferation host countries.

In addition, the bill calls on the administration to set up or improve international educational or aid programs, and improve international public diplomacy, particularly with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Admirable-----price? Personal freedom encroachment ?

 

[Annie]

House Dems unveil sweeping post-9/11 security measure

By Chris Strohm, CongressDaily
In one of their first legislative actions after taking control of the House, Democrats unveiled a massive bill Thursday that would overhaul how homeland security grants are distributed, require all sea and air cargo to be inspected, prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and promote international diplomacy and aid.

Making good on one of their major campaign promises, House Democrats released the contents of their bill to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Although Democrats said they would implement all unfulfilled recommendations, the bill comes up short in some areas, such as requiring a further streamlining of congressional oversight of the Homeland Security Department. But the 277-page bill contains 14 titles covering everything from grants to local fire departments to international relations with Pakistan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., plans to bring the bill to the floor for a vote Tuesday. Democratic leaders have said, however, they will not give Republicans a chance to offer amendments or hold hearings on the bill.

"I'm disappointed that, on such an important issue, there's a complete lack of debate and proper committee process," House Homeland Security ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y., said. "Homeland Security is too important an issue -- and this is too encompassing a bill -- to not have any oversight."

Significantly, the bill would increase the portion of homeland security grants that can be distributed to states and urban areas based on risks and threats. Each state would still get at least 0.25 percent of the grants, or 0.45 percent if they meet certain high-risk criteria. But the Homeland Security Department would be able to distribute the rest of the funding based on risks and threats. States now get 0.75 percent of grants.

The bill also would establish a new grant program to help states and municipalities buy interoperable communications equipment.

With regard to cargo security, the bill would require the department to inspect all cargo transported on passenger aircraft within three years. It would also require all containers being placed on ships bound for the United States to be scanned at foreign ports within five years, unless the department granted an extension.

The bill would set firm deadlines for the department to submit reports to Congress in several areas, including aviation security, transportation security, international collaboration on border security, terrorist trafficking and protection of critical infrastructure. It also would beef up information sharing practices between the federal government and state and local governments.

Notably, the report requires the department to submit a plan to accelerate the US-VISIT foreigner tracking system, including a program to document when foreigners leave the United States. The Government Accountability Office recently reported it will take Homeland Security officials five to 10 years to implement an exit system under their current schedule.

"We look forward to working with the new leadership in Congress, and we look forward to the opportunity to brief members of the new Congress on our programs and initiatives, as well as the dramatic advances that have been made in our security since 9/11," a department spokesman said in response to the bill.

"Relative to 9/11 Commission recommendations, the fact remains that nearly all of the commission's recommendations have already been implemented, particularly the ones pertaining to this department," he added.

The bill also lays out a series of measures "to accelerate and strengthen progress on preventing weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism."

"Such measures described in this title include the removal and modification of statutory limits to executing funds, the expansion and strengthening of the [Proliferation Security Initiative], the establishment of the Office of the United States Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism ... and the establishment of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism," the bill states.

The bill also says the administration should impose sanctions on foreign persons or corporations that participate in black market trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, and should suspend arms sale licenses and deliveries to nuclear proliferation host countries.

In addition, the bill calls on the administration to set up or improve international educational or aid programs, and improve international public diplomacy, particularly with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Funny, even the democrats had said at the time, there were less than 50% of the 'suggestions' that were doable.

 

[SilentKnight]

Democrats in choosing to push forward with all their promises to the American people and to push forward with the First 100 Hours agenda that they were elected on should not be ashamed to not allow Republicans to derail that agenda even if it means being called hypocrites for doing so because either way Republicans will either say that Democrats aren't keeping their promise about bi-partisanship or that we can't keep our promise to the American people about what we would do in the first 100 hours if elected. A message to Republicans, "we don't mind if you call us hypocrites because we know that at least we will accomplish our agenda and keep our promise to the American people and therefore we choose being called hypocrites instead of the alternative of you saying that we can't keep our promise to the American people about what we would do within the first 100 hours.

So this hypocrite urges the Democratic hypocrites in Congress to say to the Republicans that the time for their crap is over and done with and we will act in a bi-partisan manner and we will keep our promises to the American people and there is nothing you can do about it. If Republicans want to be bi-partisan than that is something Democrats are willing to do but since they called us hypocrites on the first day of the Congress because we wouldn't play their little games it's clear they are the hypocrites who are intent on making it impossible to work with them so they can say, "the Democrats aren't bi-partisan." Well, fine we aren't bi-partisan. You win. We are the big bad wolves for not letting you say, "the Democrat's can't accomplish their agenda and lied to the American people about what they would do in the first 100 hours."

The only people on day one who were being partisan and who were resorting to partisanship were Republicans. I was sickened by them coming right out and calling Democrats hypocrites for doing what we said we would do. I urge Democratic members of Congress to have a backbone and to stand up under the fire of being called hypocrites and to do what they promised they would do. My prayers will be with them as they do so.

So I say enough is enough. Either way we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Shame on us for not being bi-partisan and allowing the Republicans to derail the agenda that Democrats promised Americans and shame on us if we do allow them to do it because either way Republicans will use whatever we do as a weapon to advance their partisan little games. So I say to the Republicans, "waaaaaaa..." You are either going to be bi-partisan or you aren't going to be bi-partisan but either way we will not let you derail the legislative process.

 

[dilloduck]

Democrats in choosing to push forward with all their promises to the American people and to push forward with the First 100 Hours agenda that they were elected on should not be ashamed to not allow Republicans to derail that agenda even if it means being called hypocrites for doing so because either way Republicans will either say that Democrats aren't keeping their promise about bi-partisanship or that we can't keep our promise to the American people about what we would do in the first 100 hours if elected. A message to Republicans, "we don't mind if you call us hypocrites because we know that at least we will accomplish our agenda and keep our promise to the American people and therefore we choose being called hypocrites instead of the alternative of you saying that we can't keep our promise to the American people about what we would do within the first 100 hours.

So this hypocrite urges the Democratic hypocrites in Congress to say to the Republicans that the time for their crap is over and done with and we will act in a bi-partisan manner and we will keep our promises to the American people and there is nothing you can do about it. If Republicans want to be bi-partisan than that is something Democrats are willing to do but since they called us hypocrites on the first day of the Congress because we wouldn't play their little games it's clear they are the hypocrites who are intent on making it impossible to work with them so they can say, "the Democrats aren't bi-partisan." Well, fine we aren't bi-partisan. You win. We are the big bad wolves for not letting you say, "the Democrat's can't accomplish their agenda and lied to the American people about what they would do in the first 100 hours."

The only people on day one who were being partisan and who were resorting to partisanship were Republicans. I was sickened by them coming right out and calling Democrats hypocrites for doing what we said we would do. I urge Democratic members of Congress to have a backbone and to stand up under the fire of being called hypocrites and to do what they promised they would do. My prayers will be with them as they do so.

So I say enough is enough. Either way we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Shame on us for not being bi-partisan and allowing the Republicans to derail the agenda that Democrats promised Americans and shame on us if we do allow them to do it because either way Republicans will use whatever we do as a weapon to advance their partisan little games. So I say to the Republicans, "waaaaaaa..." You are either going to be bi-partisan or you aren't going to be bi-partisan but either way we will not let you derail the legislative process.

You're so right--the Republicans should have been just as viscious when the ball was in thier court--maybe the will learn next time. Someone needs to teach em how to street fight. Oh well---veto pen.