Gop sends lobbyist reform to the ****ter

[bendog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_go_co/senate_ethics

No lobbyist reform unless the potus has the pocket veto.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

No lobbyist reform unless the potus has the pocket veto.

The pocket veto already exists, Gregg's amendment was what he believed would be a constitutional line-item veto.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No way should the president be granted line item veto powers!

[W*GS]

Why not?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why not?Not his or hers job to enact selective parts of legislation passed by Congress. If the prez doesn't like it he/she can veto it.

[bendog]

You don't think this, or any other president, wouldn't use the select veto power to punish individual congressmen who didn't toe the line on some issue? This admin is more vindictive than any since Nixon, but they all have degrees of pay back.

[bendog]

The pocket veto already exists, Gregg's amendment was what he believed would be a constitutional line-item veto.

Thanks, I thought I recalled the line item being killed by the supreme court. And pocket veto was not applicable.

[Crushaholic]

Not his or hers job to enact selective parts of legislation passed by Congress. If the prez doesn't like it he/she can veto it.

He/She wouldn't be changing the meat of the legislation. The president would be eliminating the funny stuff (pork projects) that has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation. Any effort to save money is welcomed. Before you think I'm being partisan, I understand that both Democrats and Republicans play this game. It needs to stop...

[Crushaholic]

You don't think this, or any other president, wouldn't use the select veto power to punish individual congressmen who didn't toe the line on some issue? This admin is more vindictive than any since Nixon, but they all have degrees of pay back.

Where did you get that idea? He may be stubborn when it comes to Iraq and other issues, but vindictive is not a word I would use...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He/She wouldn't be changing the meat of the legislation. The president would be eliminating the funny stuff (pork projects) that has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation. Any effort to save money is welcomed. Before you think I'm being partisan, I understand that both Democrats and Republicans play this game. It needs to stop...This is incorrect. Line item means exactly that. He may strike ANY part of legislation passed by Congress.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

[Crushaholic]

This is incorrect. Line item means exactly that. He may strike ANY part of legislation passed by Congress.

Good point. Provided that Congress is serious about giving the president this power (which I still doubt will ever happen because Congress can't play their pork games), guidelines need to be set to ensure the intent of the legislation stays intact. I still support the concept of a line-item veto...

[bendog]

Where did you get that idea? He may be stubborn when it comes to Iraq and other issues, but vindictive is not a word I would use...

made me spit on the monitor with that one.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

This is incorrect. Line item means exactly that. He may strike ANY part of legislation passed by Congress.

Good thing that the amendment offered by Gregg did not allow for unilateral repeal of provisions that the President didn't like, hence Gregg's belief that the amendment would satisfy constitutional muster. Congress would be required to vote on whether or not to accept any line-item veto by the President.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Good thing that the amendment offered by Gregg did not allow for unilateral repeal of provisions that the President didn't like, hence Gregg's belief that the amendment would satisfy constitutional muster. Congress would be required to vote on whether or not to accept any line-item veto by the President.I missed that but I'm still against the president being able to use line item veto. Better would to be prevent all the last minutes attachments that dilute these bills.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Better would to be prevent all the last minutes attachments that dilute these bills.

Yep, the lack of a germaneness requirement in Senate bills is bull****. It needs to change, but both parties love it so I doubt it'll happen.

[bendog]

I dunno. I think the dems are ready to give it. The gop just torpeoded it by attaching something the dems will never accept. You can have lobbyist reform w/o son-of-line-item-veto. Plus the whole notion of bushii being the deficit monitor is absurd.

Personally, I'm just as happy with the gop saying nay, because I think basic corruption will be an issue in 08, and it certainly appears trending to the dems.

[Bladerunner]

I wish this would have passed so GW could have vetoed it with the statement that he would have passed it if he could have lined out the "almost a line item veto" portion.

[defenseman]

You don't think this, or any other president, wouldn't use the select veto power to punish individual congressmen who didn't toe the line on some issue? This admin is more vindictive than any since Nixon, but they all have degrees of pay back.

The Clintons aren't vindictive? I wouldn't want to be Obama's press secretary in about 9 months. She is the defintion of vindictive, and , she swears like a drunk sailor in addition to her tirades and loss of control. Obama, will be buried..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The Clintons aren't vindictive? I wouldn't want to be Obama's press secretary in about 9 months. She is the defintion of vindictive, and , she swears like a drunk sailor in addition to her tirades and loss of control. Obama, will be buried..dmanLink?

[defenseman]

Link?

I'll get you a few. You just don't hear about it very often. the "media" has deemed it not fit for general consumption for any of us. Gee, I wonder why? Freakin media morons...dman

[bendog]

There all vindictive, but I don't recall the clintons outing cia agents over their hubby's blowing the whistle on lying about womd.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'll get you a few. You just don't hear about it very often. the "media" has deemed it not fit for general consumption for any of us. Gee, I wonder why? Freakin media morons...dmanBS! If ANY of them are "swearing like a drunk sailor" throwing "tirades" and out of "control" ALL media would be over it like stink on your BS.

[bendog]

BS! If ANY of them are "swearing like a drunk sailor" throwing "tirades" and out of "control" ALL media would be over like stink on your BS.

My God, she can't be worse than McCain (-: But wait, ladies aren't supposed to do that ****. (-:

[defenseman]

Hillary's Scheme : Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House by CARL LIMBACHER - ...Hillary Clinton has carefully constructed her public persona as a calm and nurturing earth mother, but underneath that thin veneer lies a coldly calculating and vicious schemer. Limbacher details Hillary's many temper tantrums and outbursts of foul language. Staffers recall her fits of rage and describe her as "in a perpetual state of anger." Dee Dee Myers, the former Clinton press secretary, says people "clammed up" when Hillary entered the room because "she would... humiliate you in front of your colleagues." Clinton also "tended to campaign against people behind their back."...Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House By Carl Limbacher - Review by Joanne McNeil

Just a review on a book on the streets with respect to Broomhillary and her antics. Just, the tip of the iceberg. I'll get you a bit more shortly...dman

*Anyone know obama did cocaine?

[defenseman]

BS! If ANY of them are "swearing like a drunk sailor" throwing "tirades" and out of "control" ALL media would be over it like stink on your BS.

I call Bulls**t on you pal. The freakin elitists media LOVES broomhillary. They'll protect her fata$$ to her eventual demise politically. Looking forward to it...dman

*Obama, stands NO chance at all. Coke and smokes will be his undoing at broomhillary's convienience I might add.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hillary's Scheme : Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House by CARL LIMBACHER - ...Hillary Clinton has carefully constructed her public persona as a calm and nurturing earth mother, but underneath that thin veneer lies a coldly calculating and vicious schemer. Limbacher details Hillary's many temper tantrums and outbursts of foul language. Staffers recall her fits of rage and describe her as "in a perpetual state of anger." Dee Dee Myers, the former Clinton press secretary, says people "clammed up" when Hillary entered the room because "she would... humiliate you in front of your colleagues." Clinton also "tended to campaign against people behind their back."...Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House By Carl Limbacher - Review by Joanne McNeil

Just a review on a book on the streets with respect to Broomhillary and her antics. Just, the tip of the iceberg. I'll get you a bit more shortly...dmanLimbacher has personal agenda against her which doesn't mean much. Anyone can say anything about what someone says behind closed doors.



*Anyone know obama did cocaine?He told everyone he did.


*Obama, stands NO chance at all. Coke and smokes will be his undoing at broomhillary's convienience I might add.Why, it didn't hurt your boy.

[defenseman]

Limbacher has personal agenda against her which doesn't mean much. Anyone can say anything about what someone says behind closed doors.

He told everyone he did.

Why, it didn't hurt your boy.

Ever think they did so, for fear of being drawn and quartered by broomhillary? My point is, just like the media, where there is smoke, there's fire. 2 border agents get yrs in jail and already they are saying "there has to be more to it", coverup? Ok fine. Now Broomhillary is called on the carpet by this guy, claims and actions pretty much out of character from what the "media" spews. Well, sorry pal, where there is smoke, there is fire. There has to be some validity to it, just like there has to be some validity to the the "other facts" with respect to the two border agents. She's a witch, plain and simple it appears, and will stop at nothing to get to the white house it appears. I'm guessing, so many skeletons, they'd fill a dump truck. Pretty scary that broomhillary, it will eventually catch up with her though, it always does...dman

*Good point on GW. Freaking coke. Both of them are stupid as hell for even trying the stuff. As far as Obama, he's considered cool, too bad a "cool" guy will get roasted by the political flames. It will happen. Whether hollywood or the media likes it or not. 6yrs state senator, 2 in the house, quite simply not enough experience...

[bendog]

I don't think there's ever been a doubt that Hillary has a temper and is a power hungry bitch from hell. But, bushii's aids say giving him bad news is "walking into the propeller," ie his temper. McCain blows up at other senators, publically. I guess it's whether a temper keeps you from getting people to tell you stuff you need to know.

Anyway, aside from hillary hating, it all seems rather meaningless.

Anyway, I saw this. I'm not sure what it means as far as actually getting reform. I think the House is pretty set in that they took care of ear marks and lobbyist money by resolution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070119/pl_cq_politics/senatebreaksimpasseonethicsbill

[defenseman]

I don't think there's ever been a doubt that Hillary has a temper and is a power hungry b**** from hell. But, bushii's aids say giving him bad news is "walking into the propeller," ie his temper. McCain blows up at other senators, publically. I guess it's whether a temper keeps you from getting people to tell you stuff you need to know.

Anyway, aside from hillary hating, it all seems rather meaningless.

Anyway, I saw this. I'm not sure what it means as far as actually getting reform. I think the House is pretty set in that they took care of ear marks and lobbyist money by resolution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070119/pl_cq_politics/senatebreaksimpasseonethicsbill

In short, they are all f**ked is your point? You are correct, most politicians are exactly that, BOTH SIDES I might add. Bill and Hillary though, I'm thinking they redefined the terms. Bill started and broomhillary is trying to finish, better leadership through screaming, yelling and demeaning. Freaking morons, the lot of them, that includes any repub that operates this way. Accomplishes nothing but create an atmosphere of fear and represses valuable input when you need it most. The old, give em rope, let them hang themselves, why should I bail them out...dman

[alkemical]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_go_co/senate_ethics

No lobbyist reform unless the potus has the pocket veto.

Also since it requires bloggers to register, and has some other speech related issues - i'm glad.

[alkemical]

Ever think they did so, for fear of being drawn and quartered by broomhillary? My point is, just like the media, where there is smoke, there's fire. 2 border agents get yrs in jail and already they are saying "there has to be more to it", coverup? Ok fine. Now Broomhillary is called on the carpet by this guy, claims and actions pretty much out of character from what the "media" spews. Well, sorry pal, where there is smoke, there is fire. There has to be some validity to it, just like there has to be some validity to the the "other facts" with respect to the two border agents. She's a witch, plain and simple it appears, and will stop at nothing to get to the white house it appears. I'm guessing, so many skeletons, they'd fill a dump truck. Pretty scary that broomhillary, it will eventually catch up with her though, it always does...dman

*Good point on GW. Freaking coke. Both of them are stupid as hell for even trying the stuff. As far as Obama, he's considered cool, too bad a "cool" guy will get roasted by the political flames. It will happen. Whether hollywood or the media likes it or not. 6yrs state senator, 2 in the house, quite simply not enough experience...


So when there's smoke there's fire dman?

Keep that in mind with anything you read then. Like when bush states the constitution is a goddamned piece of paper, etc.

[defenseman]

So when there's smoke there's fire dman?

Keep that in mind with anything you read then. Like when bush states the constitution is a goddamned piece of paper, etc.

It goes both ways, keep that in mind. that said, I'm thinking the "lobbyists" stuff presently under scrutiny is wrong. I'm guessing they want to do is squash the dissenting opinions with respect to what our elected officials do or say. Totally against that. Then again, wouldn't mind if the entertainment industry, many of them anyway, could be made to shut the hell up. Love to see Sarandon get caught in the nets of this. Sharpton and Jackson to boot. But, still don't think it's right...dman

[alkemical]

It goes both ways, keep that in mind. that said, I'm thinking the "lobbyists" stuff presently under scrutiny is wrong. I'm guessing they want to do is squash the dissenting opinions with respect to what our elected officials do or say. Totally against that. Then again, wouldn't mind if the entertainment industry, many of them anyway, could be made to shut the hell up. Love to see Sarandon get caught in the nets of this. Sharpton and Jackson to boot. But, still don't think it's right...dman


So what about O'Riely then or Limbaugh?

Dman, you have a choice to listen to what others say. Change the damn channel or ignore it.

PS - i loved o'reily's rant last night now how "the gov't will come after me because i don't give lib's their view...."

He's got the fear mongering down to a science - once i heard that brieft rant - on came some "black rebel motorcycle club" - and eased out of reality and into my own mind for a stretch.

[bendog]

The lobbyist problem is essentially it got out of hand. What DeLay did was 1) refuse to allow lobbyists to contact gop congressmen if they hired ex aids of dems, 2) allowed lobbyists to directly write legislation, 3) not disclose lobbyist contact. You can google K-Street Project yourself. It's rather a sad tale, as Duke Cunningham was pretty much a hero who is now destroyed, personally, professionally and financially.

Making bloggers register is wrong ... unless they're giving cash for access.

[defenseman]

The lobbyist problem is essentially it got out of hand. What DeLay did was 1) refuse to allow lobbyists to contact gop congressmen if they hired ex aids of dems, 2) allowed lobbyists to directly write legislation, 3) not disclose lobbyist contact. You can google K-Street Project yourself. It's rather a sad tale, as Duke Cunningham was pretty much a hero who is now destroyed, personally, professionally and financially.

Making bloggers register is wrong ... unless they're giving cash for access.


Delay, was an idiot. Agreed. Don't think for a second though, that now that the dems have the house, they aren't going to try to pull the same stunt, they can and will. Just by phrasing the legislation correctly...dman

*Agreed on the bloggers.

[defenseman]

So what about O'Riely then or Limbaugh?

Dman, you have a choice to listen to what others say. Change the damn channel or ignore it.

PS - i loved o'reily's rant last night now how "the gov't will come after me because i don't give lib's their view...."

He's got the fear mongering down to a science - once i heard that brieft rant - on came some "black rebel motorcycle club" - and eased out of reality and into my own mind for a stretch.

Thats my point, none of them should be shut down no matter whether they spin liberal or conservative. This legislation I believe could be mis-handled and shut down dialogue. I personally think the Lefties want it that way, little Orwellian influence here , with the media right behind it for the cause. Shut down conservative spin on the airways. Don't like it one bit. Agreed, if the diatribe is just rhetoric, I change the station. Hell, I haven't watched oreilly but once in the last two weeks. He's beginning to bore the hell out of me...me

[alkemical]

Thats my point, none of them should be shut down no matter whether they spin liberal or conservative. This legislation I believe could be mis-handled and shut down dialogue. I personally think the Lefties want it that way, little Orwellian influence here , with the media right behind it for the cause. Shut down conservative spin on the airways. Don't like it one bit. Agreed, if the diatribe is just rhetoric, I change the station. Hell, I haven't watched oreilly but once in the last two weeks. He's beginning to bore the hell out of me...me



Dman -

You are sooooooooooooooooooooo off base on this.

First off, both parties have a vested interest in shutting down dissent. Since dissent/anger can be used to chip at "their" (part affiliation does not matter)own power base.

Secondy, as stated above: This doesn't have anything to do with any party politics and isn't a "left/right" issue. This is where your fatal flaw is, and why I give you **** about it. If you want to see the record of the voting for this Dman, click here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00017).

Lastly, You want to talk about the lefties and what not Dman - but guess what - Rupert Murdoch - the owner of newscorp, DirectTV, etc - gave Hillary lots o' money. I don't understand why people don't see past the damn party **** and see it's all the same. **** is ****, no matter if it's brown or green (or in this case, blue or red).

Maybe my anarchist views make it easier for me to see how much B.S. is on both isles without getting caught up in how "rosey" it smells.

[defenseman]

Dman -

You are sooooooooooooooooooooo off base on this.

First off, both parties have a vested interest in shutting down dissent. Since dissent/anger can be used to chip at "their" (part affiliation does not matter)own power base.

Secondy, as stated above: This doesn't have anything to do with any party politics and isn't a "left/right" issue. This is where your fatal flaw is, and why I give you **** about it. If you want to see the record of the voting for this Dman, click here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00017).

Lastly, You want to talk about the lefties and what not Dman - but guess what - Rupert Murdoch - the owner of newscorp, DirectTV, etc - gave Hillary lots o' money. I don't understand why people don't see past the damn party **** and see it's all the same. **** is ****, no matter if it's brown or green (or in this case, blue or red).

Maybe my anarchist views make it easier for me to see how much B.S. is on both isles without getting caught up in how "rosey" it smells.


Don't agree with you. I cannot swallow shutting down dissent, no matter what side it affects. The money part of it, well that needs to be fixed, agreed. And to be honest, I could care less about either sides power base. They both need their collective a$$es kicked...dman

*Fatal flaw? I think not. And you are flawless? I think not. I am what I am, conservative sometimes, liberal POV others , depends on the subject. Fact is , I trust NEITHER party right now and it will take a while for me to climb on board anyones bus. All the more reason I need to retire asap. Pretty soon they'll screw me out of that also, don't trust them (repubs/dems) one bit.

[bendog]

I dunno Dman but the House denied Murtha the no2 job cause of his misuse of earmarks, and they've already tightned that up. So, so far all I see is the Dems trying and the gop fighten

As to the pissing match over tempers, there's no question Bill would tear people a new one, but he did for them screwing up. Hillary may, or may not, isolate herself from advice by her temper. Bill did not. Bushii does, bigtime. McCain seems to be a lot of flash/bang, but he gets over it and people don't take it too serious. I mean hell, we are talking some serious alpha personalities here. LOL

Clav's right, murdoch gave hillary the dough. She's no threat to the status quo. But Obama might be. and that's why I find your dislike of him too, odd.

And on that note, I've heard this a lot on my "black" npr station (we have two in this town: one's good jazz, guess which one)

.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070117/pl_afp/usvoteobamaminority

[alkemical]

Don't agree with you. I cannot swallow shutting down dissent, no matter what side it affects. The money part of it, well that needs to be fixed, agreed. And to be honest, I could care less about either sides power base. They both need their collective a$$es kicked...dman

*Fatal flaw? I think not. And you are flawless? I think not. I am what I am, conservative sometimes, liberal POV others , depends on the subject. Fact is , I trust NEITHER party right now and it will take a while for me to climb on board anyones bus. All the more reason I need to retire asap. Pretty soon they'll screw me out of that also, don't trust them (repubs/dems) one bit.



Dman, re-read my post. It's about BOTH sides shutting down dissent. Your owellian comment would hold more merit if you'd note what INGSOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INGSOC) was in 1984.

That's more or less how i "view" the political party in the US.