Comments (37)

gobacktotexas wrote on January 12, 2007 1:01 PM:

I don't get it. Why are the Republicans pushing for the stronger bill?

Dee wrote on January 12, 2007 1:04 PM:

Nice try, Harry. Go sell another piece of property and make a few million... take in another boxing match while you're at it.

Thanks to the other Dems who stood up for the American taxpayer. Maybe real reform will come to the budget process now.

gobacktoelitistville wrote on January 12, 2007 1:05 PM:

They're not as ethically challenged as you espouse.

Patience wrote on January 12, 2007 1:05 PM:

I'm a New Yorker and gave HRC's office a call this morning to ask her to support the DeMint amendment. Maybe I wasn't the only one and it was Dem senators hearing from their constituents that put the pressure on Reid.

JayAckroyd wrote on January 12, 2007 1:32 PM:

gobacktotexas

Demint is a small government conservative. This bill illustrates the fragmentation of the party. In many ways, this the rank and file against the leadership.

Steve wrote on January 12, 2007 1:39 PM:

Let's be fair. The Republican amendment (Pelosi's language) would have been better in several ways, but it also would have been worse in several ways.

For example, the bill Reid favored would have required notification of all earmarks in a bill to be posted on the Internet 48 hours in advance, as opposed to disclosure that only comes after the fact. That's a great concept. It would be a shame to lose it.

Also, the Republican version covers targeted spending, but it doesn't cover targeted tax breaks, which are also a major type of earmark. Again, it would be a shame to lose the broader definition.

Hopefully, the deal that got worked out today means that we will have the best of both worlds. But there's a tendency to make every debate into a good vs. evil issue and this is simply not one of those situations.

Sandy wrote on January 12, 2007 1:39 PM:

Don't overlook the possibility that this was classic politics on the Republicans' part. Some Dems caught it, and went with the Pelosi language; and too many didn't. The good news is that either constituents got through to Reid, or other Dems did, and we're going to get the right thing done.

Steve wrote on January 12, 2007 1:47 PM:

I should also clarify that the Dems didn't "hold the vote open" as we've come to understand it from the DeLay era. All that happened is that they declined to unanimously consent to DeMint's amendment once the motion to table it failed, which means it had to come up for a roll call vote. That's a deviation from standard practices in the Senate, as Reid seems to recognize, but it's a far cry from holding a vote open until you win.

mark wrote on January 12, 2007 1:53 PM:

I'd guess the reps are pushing for the stronger bill because the dems are now in power, and the reps probably wouldn't be able to get so many earmarks, anyway.

oldtree wrote on January 12, 2007 1:53 PM:

hope the nevada voters care, naaaa
are you kidding? they elected a governor that pulled off a criminal conspiracy in the weeks preceding the election.
they don't care about the law enough to care about this

sad, reid has a lot of 'splainin to do

Crust wrote on January 12, 2007 2:45 PM:

Dee obviously isn't a regular reader of this site. How else to explain uncritically passing along John Solomon's "reporting" re boxing tickets and real estate transactions?

Chris wrote on January 12, 2007 2:57 PM:

It's nice to see the darn place working for a change. Criticize Senator Reid if you must, but at least give the Dems credit for standing up to their Majority Leader and give Senator Reid at least a little credit for reading the tea leaves correctly and doing the right thing. This will not be the last time that Senate Dems are going to disagree with the Majority Leader.

jab wrote on January 12, 2007 4:44 PM:

Chalk this up as a big victory for the Democrats who supported the plan with teeth: Feingold, Obama, Webb, Tester, ...

Mary wrote on January 12, 2007 5:02 PM:

Thanks Steve.

Stevie wrote on January 12, 2007 5:47 PM:

If the Dems are serious about spending reform, then let them combine both earmark proposals. We would thus have 48-hour advance notice in addition to the DeMint/Pelosi notifications.

MarchDancer wrote on January 12, 2007 5:57 PM:

Well, there is hope. My family in NV have deep reservations about the morals of Sen. Reid. They also recognize that the little junk has sure been put out in the news as Big News. It isn't. No boxing tickets, forget the land deal - all okay there.

I'd like to believe that this was a case of two strong men, two parties who have learned from a recent election who are determined to make it somewhat harder for the graft(y) ones to make their extraordinary livings.

That's all I see. Naive. Maybe. Hopeful. You bet!

Mick Stockinger wrote on January 12, 2007 11:53 PM:

The comments are so amusing bereft as they are of the usual moral indignation.

The public is the winner here regardless of Democrat ethics hypocrisy or Republican shenanigans.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, this was a devastating political hit and only those guzzling the koolaid can see it otherwise.

It does not bode well for a Democrat Congress that they failed to capitalize on the one piece of moral high ground they've managed to claim in many years. This was a chance for the Crats to bronze the baby shoes and instead the Republicans came out with the true "moral" victory.

This is the honeymoon period folks--its gets worse from here on out.

Terry Ott wrote on January 13, 2007 3:20 AM:

The GOP went for this because (1) some of them are fiscal conservatives who don't particularly like to be in the pork barrel game, and (2) some are astute enough to know that the public is fed up, and want a chance to be seen as the "white hat" crowd.

Personally, I am disappointed that the Democrat party got outmaneuvered, disappointed that they allowed themselves to be pushed into a corner and have to try to wiggle out. Disappointed that they didn't take this issue by storm and "own it". Unforgivable, even for leadership neophytes.

I have very little faith in either political party, but I WAS hoping that the Democrats would show themselves to be CLEARLY the lesser of two evils until some new coalition of leaders coming from both sides of the aisle form a "Common Party" (common sense for common people) -- my pipe dream.

There is no excuse to be tone deaf and out of touch these days --- communication is plentiful about what is on people's minds and in their hearts. And critical judgments about those in the public sector are made and printed and spoken daily. You almost have to be in an isolation chamber to avoid the voice of the people about issues and opportunities like this. Maybe that IS the problem.

EUGENE wrote on January 13, 2007 10:24 AM:

THIRD PARTY THIRD PARTY THIRD PARTY!!
EVERYBODY NOW, AFTER ME
THIRD PARTY THIRD PARTY THIRD PARTY
THEN
FOURTH PARTY FOURTH PARTY FOURTH PARTY!

Joe wrote on January 13, 2007 1:01 PM:

Reid has too many real estate land deal skeletons in his closet to be an effective leader for the Democrats. He should be asked to step down as soon as possible. Some of the Democrats are already starting to give the impression that they're as corrupt as the Republicans they replaced. Tuna companies and pork barrel politicians should not be allowed to ruin this opportunity. The American people will just put another Republican majority back in.

Matt wrote on January 13, 2007 1:29 PM:

The Republicans in Oregon are pursuing a similar strategy of taking Democrats stances on reform of lobbyist gifts and earmarks and being more hawkish over the aims of the legislation. Politically it makes sense as a way to gain back some respect they have lost, but it is just a political maneuver, they're no more ethical now than they were on the St. Andrew's Old Course with Abramoff.

Terry Ott wrote on January 14, 2007 2:47 AM:

Third party (or fourth), Eugene? I'm not for that. The "parties", as they have come to be constituted, have outlived their usefulness.

My generation has permitted this (I'm 60-ish), but I doubt very much my grandchildren would. They are interested in actually seeing things accomplished, and are not as patient/tolerant as we have been about the posturing, the wasted effort, the insincerity. To them, our two political parties stand for virtually nothing worth being involved in. They lumber on with the primary purpose of providing status and power and the potential for an affluent lifestyle bestowed on incumbents; they connect themselves to a variety of interest groups that push their buttons and pull their strings.

Those candidates for election advanced by our two political parties "care about" their constituents for a few months prior to election, and even then can't get far beyond just trashing their opponents, as if to imply, "I may be worthless, but the other guy is not only that but also dishonest and corrupt." And then they go back to doing what they do.

I'm for a post-partisan coalition that puts one or both of the current parties out of business, and forces the other one (if it survives) to "shape up." Call it something other than a party; call it a "consortium" of individuals who would be attracted to a group like Common Cause. That consortium or coalition would compete for support and allegiance with some other group(s) evisioning and enunciating an even better alternative. And by "better", I mean more attractive to responsible, progressive, and inclusive-minded people who value openness and who despise classism and cronyism.

It's not exactly like we have a couple of political All-Star Teams out there right now. The general population now says that the only category of people they hold in lower esteem than the leaders of big corporations is: (surprise!) "Congress". Are YOU able to separate that out from "Democrats and Republicans"?

I'd like to start with ONE consortium or coalition that has new approaches to governance; then, let the competition begin in the arena of ideas. The thing that is the scariest to me is not change but the status quo.

P.S. I used the term "Common Party" (as shorthand) because it didn't seem the place, in this thread, to bloviate re: how the whole concept of political parties as we know them is an anachronism. But, since you brought it up...

Thanks for the soap box. Sorry to go on so long with my personal pipe dream.

jimmy@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 11:19 AM:

mals penis

monyka@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 1:47 PM:

hello

suse@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:33 AM:

hello

hillary@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 3:38 AM:

hello

hillary@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 3:38 AM:

hello

clomid wrote on May 13, 2007 12:30 PM:

Very nice site!

bill@aol.com wrote on May 22, 2007 4:29 PM:

free viagra

dbwfh aeirj wrote on May 30, 2007 4:01 PM:

pmqz ujmagxl xkei vmlskincy nodp tquhslvy itjv

dbwfh aeirj wrote on May 30, 2007 4:01 PM:

pmqz ujmagxl xkei vmlskincy nodp tquhslvy itjv

rugtia kryb wrote on May 30, 2007 4:03 PM:

eqnwuo jehpldu mluasy kwgpvt pbzivqxt tslmpfgdy mqslzjv jhpb grey

enbrvpczk obmgc wrote on May 30, 2007 4:04 PM:

gvbj zvedagr lsgc etdqc tkgdom wjidvxh ajxk [URL=http://www.dvqkfocpb.lyztfsh.com]oekzr imhyleaj[/URL]

enbrvpczk obmgc wrote on May 30, 2007 4:05 PM:

gvbj zvedagr lsgc etdqc tkgdom wjidvxh ajxk [URL=http://www.dvqkfocpb.lyztfsh.com]oekzr imhyleaj[/URL]

enbrvpczk obmgc wrote on May 30, 2007 4:06 PM:

gvbj zvedagr lsgc etdqc tkgdom wjidvxh ajxk [URL=http://www.dvqkfocpb.lyztfsh.com]oekzr imhyleaj[/URL]

bavw cmdxb wrote on May 30, 2007 4:07 PM:

vansbwkg hitp iuyplzq hxapyf lcqj rdegxfwhz anjxowp [URL]http://www.wtubco.hgcur.com[/URL] glmbiwzad wimxvj

satommypr wrote on August 3, 2007 11:27 AM:

Very nice point of view! Respect!