Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
Vash the Stampede's Journal
It is an extremely common practice for Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to share apartments, especially among those that do not want a permanent residence in Washington so as to create the impression they remain in touch with their districts. Hell, it used to be common that Democratic and Republican Congressmen would actually live together! It has NOTHING to do with being gay. It is a non-story in every sense of the word, unless you can prove otherwise specifically.
All the pithy comments do is display a level of ignorance unbecoming of DU. Furthermore, it could easily be seen as a slight to the gay community, among whom number some of our greatest allies.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
At this point, even Republican pollsters are predicting that Democrats are going to take over the House. Encouraging numbers from places like Virginia, Tennessee, and Arizona give us great hope for taking back the Senate too.
But elections aren't won in September. There's two months to go, and there's no time to be resting on laurels that haven't even been earned yet.
Volunteer, donate, and tell everyone you know to vote for your local Democrats. We've come too far to give up now!
Remember - 6 feet isn't going to be deep enough for this monster. We're going to need to put the Republicans at least 12 feet deep if want them to stay buried.
I know I could use one of these... and I'm thinking a lot of us could with all of the craziness going on around here these days. So, let's have a nice big group hug and tell us what you love about DU.  I love how we all come together when other DUers are having personal problems and the support we can provide each other as a community.
November elections drawing near + sagging Republican numbers on terrorism = total and complete bullshit
Seems like simple math to me.
Dear Senator Lieberman,
Though you have not always been aligned with our interests, the community of Democratic Underground would like to thank you for your years of service to the Democratic Party and to the state of Connecticut. However, on Tuesday evening, the citizens of your state have expressed the desire to go in a different direction. We ask that you respect the wishes of these citizens and show your faithfulness to the progressive agenda by foregoing your intentions to run for the U.S. Senate as an Independent candidate.
The Democratic Party has, over the years, shown enormous loyalty to you through our donations and through our approval of your nomination as Vice President in 2000. We ask that you respond to this immense loyalty in kind by stepping aside with the same grace and dignity you displayed as a United States Senator.
Thank you for your time and for all of your efforts. We wish you the best of luck in the future.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned Members of Democratic Underground
Ever have someone on your listserv accidentally send something out, and then send out an apology for doing so in triplicate? Yeah - great idea. You fucked up and annoyed us by clogging our mailbox and you want to make up for it by further clogging our mailbox. Genius. You know what? Next time you should include a virus in your apology emails and finish the job, jackass.    (Note: I'm not really that mad about it, it's just something that's never made any sense to me at all.)
This is a very, very important issue which is about to be voted on. Essentially, these Sunset Commissions would hand the President the power to unilaterally axe any program he wants. It gets worse when you consider it further - say Republicans want to roll back environmental regulations. They could say to Democrats "Either you vote to roll back these regulations or we're just going to eliminate the EPA entirely." Here's a link to a paper by James Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whom just gave testimony this morning before the House Committee on Government Reform: http://www.cbpp.org/6-16-06bud.htm Quote: The leadership of the House of Representatives has said that the House will soon consider legislation to establish a “sunset commission.” The Bush Administration and several House members — including Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) and Kevin Brady (R-TX) — each have offered proposals to create such a commission. In the Senate, Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH) has also put forward such a proposal.
--snip--
The leading sunset commission proposals have been promoted by their sponsors as “good government” reforms to increase efficiency and reduce waste. Examination of these proposals shows, however, that they have a darker side. Under the various sunset commission proposals, extensive program terminations and reductions could be rammed through Congress via the use of extraordinary procedures. Far-reaching changes could be developed by a sunset commission and moved through Congress on a purely partisan basis, without any support at any stage of the process from a single member of the minority party and with minority-party members of Congress prohibited even from offering amendments at any stage of Congressional consideration. In some versions of the sunset commission proposal, agencies and programs could be abolished even if Congress declines to pass the legislation containing the commission’s changes.
--snip--
*
The commission established under these proposals would likely have a distinct partisan (and ideological) slant. Under all four of the leading sunset-commission proposals, either all or a sizable majority of the commission members would be appointed by Republican leaders. (They would be appointed either by the President or by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate.) This is highly significant, because under these proposals, only a simple majority of the commission would be needed for the commission to pass its recommendations. Thus, the commission’s recommendations could be developed and approved on a strictly partisan basis.
*
The problems caused by the partisan way in which of the commission could conduct its business would then be exacerbated by another critical feature of all four proposals — the sunset commission proposals all include a mechanism to allow agencies and programs to be eliminated, regardless of whether legislation to accomplish that could be enacted through the regular legislative process. Three of the four proposals (the President’s plan,<1> the Tiahrt bill — H.R. 2470 — and the Gregg plan — S. 3521) would require that the commission’s recommendation be considered with no amendments allowed either in committee or on the House or Senate floors. The normal Congressional steps that can be used to try to develop consensus — committee mark-ups and the offering and consideration of amendments — would be dispensed with. As a result, a series of far-reaching recommendations entailing sharp program eliminations and cuts could be developed in the commission on a purely partisan basis and brought to a vote on the House floor, with the minority party barred even from offering amendments.
*
The other leading sunset-commission bill (Rep. Brady’s, H.R. 3282) would use the regular legislative procedures, but would require that every federal agency be automatically abolished one year after the sunset commission completed its review of the agency, unless new legislation to reauthorize the agency was enacted within this one-year window. (The President’s proposal includes a similar provision, in addition to fast-track consideration of the commission’s proposals.) That would enable Members of Congress who sought to kill various programs or agencies to try to achieve that result by blocking legislation to reauthorize the program within the one-year period. Alternatively, the President could kill programs or agencies simply by vetoing legislation to reauthorize them and having his veto sustained by one-third of either the House or the Senate. In this manner, programs and agencies could be killed even if they enjoyed broad public support, and legislation to eliminate the program or agency could not possibly pass.
Seriously, give the Dems some love! They're fighting like hell to get this done and I don't see anyone making a big deal about it!
Today, we had Russ Feingold once again pontificating over the fact that he voted against the Iraq War. Kucinich has practically made a career doing it. We've seen hand wringing and praising over this issue day in and day out here on DU. Quite frankly, I'm totally sick of it. Here's a few facts that I think we can all agree with: - We are currently in a quagmire Iraq.
- Bush plans on keeping us there until at least 2009, when he leaves office.
- We need to get out much, much sooner than that.
- With or without support from Democrats as a whole, IWR was going through.
- With or without IWR, Bush was going to invade Iraq.
With these items in mind, why are we STILL insisting on dwelling over a vote that had very little actual impact upon the course of events that occurred nearly FOUR YEARS AGO? Isn't it more important to figure out where we're going from here and how we can move America past this tragedy? Don't we have a responsibility to the men and women that are actually in harm's way to move the discourse of our national debate past a non-binding decision that was made four years ago and towards solving this horror? Regardless of what happened and who voted for what, we are where we are. Period. And where we are is a nightmare. The IWR vote happened and there's no getting it back. It is utterly puerile for us to take pot-shots at our own people, people that actually are trying to help solve the current problem, over one mistake that was made four years ago. It is utterly absurd that while we sit here and accuse Bush of never accepting blame or fault, that we absolutely lynch our own leaders when they do so. Finally, and most importantly, why in the world would we seek to neuter the exact people whom are trying to act on our behalf? It's time to put the specter of IWR in our rear view mirror once and for all. Our message to our leaders should be simple - whatever the case was before, we want you to lay your cards on the table NOW. Even if you didn't once before, act on our behalf NOW. The future of our country, the lives of our troops, and our very moral decency demands that we work together, not against each other, to end this war.
Just thought I'd take a few minutes on my lunch break to say hello to everyone! I just started my new job yesterday, which is going great so far. I probably won't be able to post on DU as much as I have in the past, due to a more demanding job and also due to the fact that I'm now the director of an education lobbying association, so I have to watch what I say (which is no fun at all, of course). But I'll be poking around the Lounge here and there when things settle down and I'll be sure to chip in my $.02 when the urge becomes irresistable.  I miss you guys! I hope all is well!!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas... --snip-- WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday. --snip-- This should be the target of high ridicule. We need to pound it home that a mere $100 bribe is not going to save the Republican Party this November.
It's an AOL article, so I'll post enough to get the point across:
President Bush's approval ratings hit a series of new lows in an AP-Ipsos poll that also shows Republicans surrendering their advantage on national security - grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power.
Democratic leaders predicted they will seize control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. Republicans said they feared the worst unless the political landscape quickly changes.
"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."
---snip----
- Just 36 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling. By contrast, the president's job approval rating was 47 percent among likely voters just before Election Day 2004 and a whopping 64 percent among registered voters in October 2002.
· Only 40 percent of the public approves of Bush's performance on foreign policy and the war on terror, another low-water mark for his presidency. That's down 9 points from a year ago. Just before the 2002 election, 64 percent of registered voters backed Bush on terror and foreign policy.
EDIT: COPYRIGHT PLEASE POST ONLY FOUR PARAGRAPHS
FROM THE COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE PER DU RULES.
Freeper talking point: "The President can declassify any information he wants as Commander-in-Chief!"
Technically speaking, he has the power. HOWEVER, there would only be one reason to declassify the information that Joseph Wilson's wife was a covert CIA agent at that particular time and that would be for personal political gain. In other words, that's an egregious abuse of power right there.
If it was declassified, why was there any need for an investigation? Why did Bush have a news conference pretending not to know who leaked the information if it was perfectly legal to leak in the first place? Why wouldn't he just hold up the document saying "it's not classified" and end the whole ordeal?
Of course, the information was NOT declassified because though he had the authority to declassify it, that would constitute an abuse of power, which is an impeachable offense. Essentially, he'd have been signing his own death warrant to sign a document officially declassifying that information. Therefore, it was not declassified, the leak was not legal, and that's why it's always the cover-up that puts you into jail!
please note that my leg is not, I repeat, NOT part of the seat. Next tourist to sit on me while I'm commuting to or from work is going to get an elbow to the back of the fucking head!! While we're at it, when using an escalator, walk left/stand right. Other people might actually be in a hurry. This is not Orlando and people actually live and work here. Thanks.
|
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
