Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You realize that the only other time she was involved in Politics she fucked up a whole galaxy, right?

This just confirms the suspicions that Cheney's birth name was Palatine.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sounds that way. (More ethanol subsidies? Great. Just what we need. Lower mileage for cars, worn out carburetors, higher overall energy costs to produce a gallon of fuel than what the addition of ethanol will save . . .) Key here is, sounds like it's bipartisan ps. Not that that's any better, of course, but at least they're working together.

I carefully edited the excerpts I quoted to take out party references and grossly prejudicial language. But, since you are obviously unable to conduct the conversation without bringing up partisanosity . . .

It's much more bipartisan in the House (where everyone is up for reelection in less than a month) than in the Senate. As I said, it's a non-partisan primal scream. The Rs are always saying that they are the party of fiscal restraint, and this is a glaring example of an utter lack of restraint and a leaping at the chance to cut $100 b of taxes on X, Y and Z when ostensibly only taking care of a $50 b "problem" for W, a completely different industry. I find it disgusting on all party sides, but the Rs would have us believe this kind of pork is par for the course only for Democrats.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you spend 2002 under a rock?

I can't tell you how unintentionally funny this is.

Recall the fight over whether federal employees should lose their civil-service protections when transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security, and the way the issue was cynically used to paint Democrats as soft on the war on terror.

It's all in the phrasing, isn't it? You mean when the Dems tried to hold up our desperately needed Homeland Security by throwing in a provision growing their union voter base?

(They're all somebody's tools, aren't they? Why is it "politicizing" only when someone else does it?)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I carefully edited the excerpts I quoted to take out party references and grossly prejudicial language. But, since you are obviously unable to conduct the conversation without bringing up partisanosity . . .

Um, my points were, (a), I agree it's mostly bs pork, and, (b), seems like everyone's in on it. I thought I was agreeing with you.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious - how does this differ from the normal "I'll vote for your pork if you vote for mine" dance?

The ethics committee addressed that point by saying it is different because Delay promised a personal, non-legislative favor (i.e. endorse Rep. Smith's son to succeed Rep. Smith) in exchange for Smith's vote rather that trading votes on two bills.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, my points were, (a), I agree it's mostly bs pork, and, (b), seems like everyone's in on it. I thought I was agreeing with you.

You also apparently think that the Bush Administration is comprised of uniters, not dividers.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you spend 2002 under a rock?

Recall the fight over whether federal employees should lose their civil-service protections when transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security, and the way the issue was cynically used to paint Democrats as soft on the war on terror. That's how we got to the Saxby Chambliss ads showing Max Cleland taking it up the ass from Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein somewhere in France.

Don't forget, of course, the vote to authorize the war. In October 2002. Funny how that fell on the calendar, eh?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, my points were, (a), I agree it's mostly bs pork, and, (b), seems like everyone's in on it. I thought I was agreeing with you.

You did, but she refuses to permit it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You said the campaign promise was real. I said that they didn't even try. You said they didn't try because of what happened at the end of the campaign and before Bush took office. Then you said the last four years of mean-spiritedness by the Dems was the problem. Then you went back to your first argument. Whatever. The fact is, they pumped themselves up as the great uniters and didn't lift a fucking pinkie to follow through with the promise. Cheney says he never even met Edwards. You seem to think that it's all Michael Moore's fault.


TM

This is utter bullshit. Go look at all of the bi-partisan legislation passed in the first few years (pre the 2002 elections). Tax cuts, Patriot Act (passed by 75% in the Senate), No Child (co-sponsored by Teddy), etc. This "he's not a uniter" only came about after the DEMS got creamed in the mid-terms.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You did, but she refuses to permit it.

I'm not saying he wasn't agreeing with me that it's crap, but he brought the party question into it and I was consciously trying to avoid that. Compare my edited quotes to the article.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
Natalie Portman campaigning for John Kerry:

Portman, Natalie. Has admitted to lusting after other woman, but claims never to have done anything about it. (No, certainly not.) Is succesfully living the life of an ordinary college student. I've heard a number of accounts of how modest and unassuming she is in person, but I'm now beginning to hear stories of diva-like behavior on her part. Ecstasy user. Linked with Hayden Christiansen (FOD), Lukas Haas (drug addict), Jude Law (Deeply in the closet), and Moby (rumored to be a spreader of STDs).

FWIW, Ben Affleck campaigns for Kerry too. 'Nuff said.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is utter bullshit. Go look at all of the bi-partisan legislation passed in the first few years (pre the 2002 elections). Tax cuts, Patriot Act (passed by 75% in the Senate), No Child (co-sponsored by Teddy), etc. This "he's not a uniter" only came about after the DEMS got creamed in the mid-terms.

Sorry, your timing is off. The bilmore theorem postulates that Dems brought out the bats before inauguration, so all bets were off.

The good news is, you're home free!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can't tell you how unintentionally funny this is.

And there's a good reason for that.

It's all in the phrasing, isn't it? You mean when the Dems tried to hold up our desperately needed Homeland Security by throwing in a provision growing their union voter base?

(They're all somebody's tools, aren't they? Why is it "politicizing" only when someone else does it?)

Of course there were differences in opinion about policy issues like this one. That's what politics are about. But to anyone whose first language is English, "bipartisan" means working with the other side in a spirit of compromise to bridge differences. Bush's version of word means do what you want to do, tell the other side to fuck off, and hope that you pick up a couple of Dems who agree with you on the policy.

I don't think I used the word "politicizing" so I'll let you look in the dictionary for that one.

It is now clear to you, me, and the rock that you were under that Bush preferred to have no bill passed and a campaign issue to use against the Democrats. That being the case, you can't really pretend that Bush was taking the high road until mean Democrats made things partisan.

What was particularly odious about Bush's tactics is the way he took a dispute about whether to roll back civil-service protections and made it about the war on terror. Other presidents, in wartime, have taken pains to take a truly bipartisan approach. For example, FDR's Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, was a prominent Republican. Bush went the other way -- using the war to advance the GOP's interests.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Don't forget, of course, the vote to authorize the war. In October 2002. Funny how that fell on the calendar, eh?

I don't have the same problem with that. In a democracy, it's a little odd to suggest that there's something wrong with scheduling a vote on whether to go to war right before an election.

My problem with that vote goes more to the separation of powers. Congress shouldn't have been voting so early. If the GOP leadership had had any spine, and had opted to play their constitutional role instead of seeing themselves as members of Bush's team, they would have pushed it back.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
* Appointing bipartisan leaders like Ashcroft.
* Immediately pushing through GWB's agenda with no room for Democratic proposals or amendments.

Ashcroft was approved by the Senate. I do not believe the vote was close.

Much of GWB's agenda was passed with moderate democractic support. Hell, Kerry and Edwards even voted for some of it.