Personally, I think most of the to do over the lax reporting of travel paid for by special interest groups is amusing. This isn’t to say such reporting should be ignored or lapses investigated. Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), former chairman of the House ethics committee, said in an AP story that, "There is no particular sanction (for tardiness) if you come back and file. They get lax. They don't think about it. People will be more aware now. The ethics committee will be more aware that it's a problem."
What amuses me are the excuses being offered by the men and women in office.
A spokeswoman for House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the office searched the files after the travel issue was raised initially by "Republicans doing opposition research to deflect from their own ethical issues." [The “He hit me first” defense.]
Some other goodies:
I didn’t know I had to file [Try a variation on this one if you’re pulled over for a traffic violation.]
We sent them in, didn’t you get them? [This one always works with the IRS.]
It’s in a pile on my desk. [I use this one at work. It has the added advantage of giving you an excuse for your messy desk.]
But my favorite has to be from Maxine Waters (D-CA). "Sometimes they run late because the people who are responsible for inviting you have to get you all the receipts and they are so slow."
Perspective is a wonderful thing.
5/31/2005
5/30/2005
Memorial Day
. . .Americans pay tribute to those who have given their lives in the service of our nation. As we honor the members of our Armed Forces who have died for our freedom, we also honor those who are defending our liberties today. Our citizens live in freedom because patriots are willing to serve and sacrifice for our liberty. . .Today a new generation of Americans is making its own sacrifice on behalf of peace and freedom, and some have given their lives.In their hometowns, these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are more than names on a roll of honor. They were friends and neighbors, teachers and coaches, classmates and colleagues. Each was the most important person in someone's life; each had hopes for the future, and each left a place that can never be filled.
We mourn their loss, and we honor their sacrifice. We pray for their families. And we take heart in knowing that these men and women believed deeply in what they were fighting for.
- President George W. Bush (radio address 05.28.05)
My father was too young for Korea and too old for Vietnam. One of my uncles served in Vietnam, came home whole, and served until his retirement. Why am I telling you this? Just to say that I realize that many people have a much more personal reason for their feelings and emotional investment today. Still, all Americans have cause to remember these patriots, these heros. It is for all of us that they sacrifice so greatly. Our safety, security, liberty, and freedoms are all paid for with their many great sacrifices. They have sacrificed their time, their families, their bodies and their lives. There is nothing we can do that will even begin to repay them for all they've given, but today we try.
Today many of us will take a day off from work, cook out, and spend time with our families and friends. Those who we remember would surely have no problem with that. It is things like these for which they have worked and fought and died so we can enjoy. But while we are enjoying the fruits of our freedom let's remember those who allow us to be free. I don't believe that anyone has ever said it better than Thomas Paine in his first "Crisis" paper:
The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. (I encourage you to read the entire essay here)
Thank you. May God bless you for all you do and for all you have done. I pledge, and ask others to join me, to never forget your great gift, nor it's price.
5/27/2005
Blocking Bolton
By a vote of 56-42 the Senate failed to move forward on the confirmation of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. The claim of wanting still more information appears to be the left's "new" delaying tactic. Senator Joseph Biden(D-DE) said Democrats do not want to postpone an up-or-down vote indefinitely but conditions their willingness to vote on the administration providing the classified information regarding government intelligence on Syria, and instances in which Bolton asked for names of fellow U.S. officials whose communications were secretly picked up by a spy agency.
It sounds very reasonable, but let's call it what it really is: another way for the minority to thwart the will of the President, the Majority, and the people who elected both. You will see the truth in that statement unless you believe that additional documents, testimony, hearings, questions, or debate will change even one vote. Let alone six. Like a magician, the minority left tries to use misdirection to keep us from seeing what they are really doing. Sadly a significant portion of the population is going, "ooohh, aaaah". I can almost here the left saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Well, we need to expose the fraud for what it is, and point out every instance where the left tries to behave as if they are still in control.
It sounds very reasonable, but let's call it what it really is: another way for the minority to thwart the will of the President, the Majority, and the people who elected both. You will see the truth in that statement unless you believe that additional documents, testimony, hearings, questions, or debate will change even one vote. Let alone six. Like a magician, the minority left tries to use misdirection to keep us from seeing what they are really doing. Sadly a significant portion of the population is going, "ooohh, aaaah". I can almost here the left saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Well, we need to expose the fraud for what it is, and point out every instance where the left tries to behave as if they are still in control.
5/26/2005
Social Insecurity
How can anyone with a 401k, or even a savings account of their own, continue to have trouble with President Bush's suggestion of private accounts for inclusion in any Social Security fix. The options without private accounts are like trying to fix a flat tire with bubble gum.
From the White House website:
To keep the promise of Social Security alive for our children and grandchildren, we need to fix Social Security now once and for all. We can not pretend the problem doesn'’t exist. The fact is Social Security will go broke when our young workers get ready to retire. Every year we wait the problem becomes worse for our children.
I can only wish that they had put a plan like this in place earlier. I'll be turning 50 this year; very close to the cut off that's been suggested. The alternatives are not much to look forward to. Higher taxation, reduced benefits, and all without the ability to pass on what I don't outlive. What kind of answer is that? This kind according to Michelle Malkin:
In other words, Republicans would give Democrats almost everything they want and get virtually nothing in return. Sounds like the kind of plan John McCain and other Senate "mavericks" will enthusiastically support.Senator McCain, et. al. : Don't you get it? We're the majority. Let's act like it for a change.
5/25/2005
One down
Priscilla Owen was confirmed 56-43 which included yes votes from Dems Robert Byrd(D-WV) and Mary Landrieu(D-LA) and a no vote from Chafee(R-RI). It appears as if the nomination of Robert Bolten will be up next. Fox news is reporting that,
"The Senate began debate on Bolton's nomination immediately after confirming one of President Bush's most controversial nominees for a federal judgeship. A Senate vote on Bolton's nomination would end weeks of wrangling over whether Bolton, an outspoken State Department official, mistreated co-workers or took liberties with government intelligence."
I believe it is not a matter of if, but of when the ridiculous Memoradum will be tossed out. Will it be on Bolton, Rogers-Brown, or one of the other nominees?
5/24/2005
The Thoughts behind the Memo
I was able to find a special copy of the memo that has been imprinted with the actual thoughts of the signers. Here is that historical document:
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid.
[We had to say that, even though Frist is a right-wing religious radical who thinks that wining means something.][We had to say that because we want them to like us, really like us]
This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
[Hehehe, they’re actually buying it!]
[Why are they smiling?]
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
[Throw ‘em a bone, it’ll make it look like we’re being “reasonable”]
[See, they’re being reasonable]
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
[That is if you don’t count our commitment to vote against anything or anyone the President supports][We’re sure they’re going to be reasonable]
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.
[Yeah, right][Of course]
Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
[extraordinary circumstances=submitted by a Republican President][extraordinary circumstances= ]
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
[Yeah Baby! They’d probably gives us the Majority Leadership if we could get a bigger shovel for this pile][We’re being reasonable. It’s only fair that we give up something, seeing how willing they’ve been to compromise]
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations.
[So, just ask us. We’ll tell you which “centrist” (hehehehehe) is acceptable][They are being SO reasonable]
We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
[You’re the President? So what? We’re Democrats and it is our (higher power, deity, greater self) given right to be in charge][I hope they don’t think we’re being to hard on them]
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
[Because you don’t let us have the power even though we are in the minority][We can’t have rancor. That would mean they don’t like us]
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
[Thank goodness it’s not the Constitution we have to seek to uphold][SO Reasonable]
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid.
[We had to say that, even though Frist is a right-wing religious radical who thinks that wining means something.][We had to say that because we want them to like us, really like us]
This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
[Hehehe, they’re actually buying it!]
[Why are they smiling?]
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
[Throw ‘em a bone, it’ll make it look like we’re being “reasonable”]
[See, they’re being reasonable]
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
[That is if you don’t count our commitment to vote against anything or anyone the President supports][We’re sure they’re going to be reasonable]
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.
[Yeah, right][Of course]
Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
[extraordinary circumstances=submitted by a Republican President][extraordinary circumstances= ]
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
[Yeah Baby! They’d probably gives us the Majority Leadership if we could get a bigger shovel for this pile][We’re being reasonable. It’s only fair that we give up something, seeing how willing they’ve been to compromise]
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations.
[So, just ask us. We’ll tell you which “centrist” (hehehehehe) is acceptable][They are being SO reasonable]
We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
[You’re the President? So what? We’re Democrats and it is our (higher power, deity, greater self) given right to be in charge][I hope they don’t think we’re being to hard on them]
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
[Because you don’t let us have the power even though we are in the minority][We can’t have rancor. That would mean they don’t like us]
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
[Thank goodness it’s not the Constitution we have to seek to uphold][SO Reasonable]
Making book on filibuster detente
A compromise has been made. Fourteen "moderate" Senators, seven from each party, have added their signatures to a deal that would allow the voting to go forward on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Others would still be subject to the obstructionist threat of filibuster. In other words, they will be obstructed and the will of the majority will not be heard. When I'm speaking of the majority in this instance, I am not talking about the majority in the Senate, I am referring to the REAL majority, the American people that elected these Senators to office. I can understand, and support, filibusters on legislation. But it is my opinion that not granting a vote on these and future nominees is a gross abuse of the constitutional role of "advise and consent". How you can parse that to "block and thwart" is beyond my understanding.
Let me make just a few points about this situation. Those in favor say that it keeps checks and balances in place. Excuse me? Checks and balances have nothing to do with the Senate. Checks and balances are in place to curb the power of the branches of government, not to give the minority party a majority status. Note to the milquetoast middle: Republicans-You won, now do what the people elected you to do. Democrats-The Republicans won, have your say with your vote and move on.
"It's been this way for 214 years. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game." That sounds good, to bad it's just not true. The Senate rules regarding unlimited debate have been changed more than half a dozen times, including the fairly recent change of requiring only 60 votes to close debate.
Still, my biggest issue with this compromise is that the right did all the compromising. Why stop there? Should we even up sides? "We'll give you four Senators now and moderate to be named later if you'll just be nice to us and say nice things about us in the press." Makes me want to choke, but then I'd spit coffee out of my nose. I just don't see the minority party restraining themselves when it comes to future nominees. One of the seven is going to say, "Sorry but that candidate is too extreme, so all bets are off." The fair-minded Republicans will stick to their word and not vote to end this ridiculous charade and highly qualified judges will be blocked by the side that lost seats in the last election, is in the minority in the Senate, and who's track record on fairness (politically speaking) is totally in doubt. In fact is there anyone who will give me even money that the left will show restraint when it comes to future debate on judges? Anyone? I could probably give 2:1 against (or higher) and still come out a winner.
From Confirm them here is a list of the signers:
Republicans: John McCain (AR), John Warner (VA), Mike DeWine (OH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lincoln Chafee (RI).
Democrats: Ken Salazar (CO), Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mark Pryor (AR), Robert Byrd (WV) and Daniel Inouye (HI).
Please, let these mis-guided souls know that they are wrong, that the memo they signed is wrong and that supporting them in the future will be wrong and won't be happening. So, if your not going to take my bet on future filibuster detente will you at least better the odds for the future with your checkbook and your ballot.
Let me make just a few points about this situation. Those in favor say that it keeps checks and balances in place. Excuse me? Checks and balances have nothing to do with the Senate. Checks and balances are in place to curb the power of the branches of government, not to give the minority party a majority status. Note to the milquetoast middle: Republicans-You won, now do what the people elected you to do. Democrats-The Republicans won, have your say with your vote and move on.
"It's been this way for 214 years. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game." That sounds good, to bad it's just not true. The Senate rules regarding unlimited debate have been changed more than half a dozen times, including the fairly recent change of requiring only 60 votes to close debate.
Still, my biggest issue with this compromise is that the right did all the compromising. Why stop there? Should we even up sides? "We'll give you four Senators now and moderate to be named later if you'll just be nice to us and say nice things about us in the press." Makes me want to choke, but then I'd spit coffee out of my nose. I just don't see the minority party restraining themselves when it comes to future nominees. One of the seven is going to say, "Sorry but that candidate is too extreme, so all bets are off." The fair-minded Republicans will stick to their word and not vote to end this ridiculous charade and highly qualified judges will be blocked by the side that lost seats in the last election, is in the minority in the Senate, and who's track record on fairness (politically speaking) is totally in doubt. In fact is there anyone who will give me even money that the left will show restraint when it comes to future debate on judges? Anyone? I could probably give 2:1 against (or higher) and still come out a winner.
From Confirm them here is a list of the signers:
Republicans: John McCain (AR), John Warner (VA), Mike DeWine (OH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lincoln Chafee (RI).
Democrats: Ken Salazar (CO), Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mark Pryor (AR), Robert Byrd (WV) and Daniel Inouye (HI).
Please, let these mis-guided souls know that they are wrong, that the memo they signed is wrong and that supporting them in the future will be wrong and won't be happening. So, if your not going to take my bet on future filibuster detente will you at least better the odds for the future with your checkbook and your ballot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)