Lieberman and Graham Threaten Senate Shutdown

[scandal 951]

So, a good 'change' would be to reform congress. My objection to Obama isn't so much what he does want to do, but rather the lip service he payed to this notion of 'change'. The reality is there are some real problems with the way Washington does business and yet there was never, ever a plan on the table to address these issues and yet the public is meant to believe that somehow 'change' will happen almost by osmosis? That is a big problem for me to be honest.

Reform Congress? Yes --- in two ways. One, by reformist measures like line-item veto. Two - by making them more accountable to their voters. That takes VOTERs to give a fukc, and not re-elect dirtbag incumbents. Voters are much too apathetic - they get the government they deserve.

As to Obama and "change", well, I can't really agree with you too much here MC.

He has committed himself to addressing many of the systemic Washington issues, particularly the incestuous revolving door K-street lobbyists. And the partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill.

Is it perfect? Of course not!! Has he miraculously transformed government in 5 months in office? C'mon - give me a break, of course not.

But he has put senior Republicans in his own Cabinet and made genuine efforts to reach out to Republicans in Congress on his key legislative initiatives. And he's issued guidelines about hiring lobbyists into government. Yes, he weakened those guidelines from the standard he set on the campaign trail. They remain much tougher standards than any previous Administration has ever had.

In 5 months I think the culture change has been remarkable, given the inertia of the Beltway.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have a problem with the fact that the public were not given a road map for reform. Great, if he has made progress, but it's all in an ad hoc fashion (or if it is not, the public are not privvy to the details). I would much rather have seen a road map for what the vision for reform is and see it progressively undertaken. Transparency.

[scandal 951]

...a little of Marc is still in ya.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

As I said ......

It really is just like that. I'm not making this up.

I have a problem with the fact that the public were not given a road map for reform. Great, if he has made progress, but it's all in an ad hoc fashion (or if it is not, the public are not privvy to the details). I would much rather have seen a road map for what the vision for reform is and see it progressively undertaken. Transparency.

MC --- he has been as upfront as anyone possibly can about how he intends to do things differently. Both on the campaign trail while seeking office, and in the months since he's been in office. The White House website and related briefings are a dramatic change in "sunshine" governance as compared to the most recent administrations we've had. I fear you have been sadly misinformed......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...a little of Marc is still in ya.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Better change yer diaper, son! Just don't become assimilated...must resist.

[Peikko 1,575]

...a little of Marc is still in ya.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

As I said ......

It really is just like that. I'm not making this up.

I have a problem with the fact that the public were not given a road map for reform. Great, if he has made progress, but it's all in an ad hoc fashion (or if it is not, the public are not privvy to the details). I would much rather have seen a road map for what the vision for reform is and see it progressively undertaken. Transparency.

MC --- he has been as upfront as anyone possibly can about how he intends to do things differently. Both on the campaign trail while seeking office, and in the months since he's been in office. The White House website and related briefings are a dramatic change in "sunshine" governance as compared to the most recent administrations we've had. I fear you have been sadly misinformed......

Misinformed? So, a road map is simply saying I am going to change how things are done and changing them while one is in office at the whim of what one decides to do, not constitutional change with clearly delineated lines for what is allowed and what is not? Sorry if I am not so sanguine about the durability of such a 'change'.

[scandal 951]

Misinformed? So, a road map is simply saying I am going to change how things are done and changing them while one is in office at the whim of what one decides to do, not constitutional change with clearly delineated lines for what is allowed and what is not? Sorry if I am not so sanguine about the durability of such a 'change'.

MC - no one person, not even the President, can change the constitution on his or her own.

Constitutional change is intentionally a very difficult thing to do. It requires a 2/3 vote in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures.

It is not necessary to change the constitution to effect significant change in Washington. Simply banning the hiring of lobbyists is a fantastic place to start. Why do I feel I want to post this wonderful cartoon again?

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't expect the president to do that, or to be able to do that. That would be wrong. All I am saying is that while Obama, with his best intentions in place can/will do things differently, that is simply because he chooses to do so. Without constitutional change, and a plan how to go about it, this change is fair weather and nothing to get excited about beyond today.

[scandal 951]

I don't expect the president to do that, or to be able to do that. That would be wrong. All I am saying is that while Obama, with his best intentions in place can/will do things differently, that is simply because he chooses to do so. Without constitutional change, and a plan how to go about it, this change is fair weather and nothing to get excited about beyond today.

I don't agree. If we can have 4 years, or better yet, 8 years, of clean(er) government, I'll gladly take that. And if we have sunshine during these 4 (or better yet 8) years, there's a good case to be made that a standard has been set for successive administrations to follow as well.

And, as to permanent change, why jump instantly for constitutional change? What's wrong with a straightforward legislative effort, if it can pass the smell test the courts have laid down?

There's currently a legislative effort in the Senate to get a limited line-item veto provision which could circumvent the court ruling barring previous such laws.

It's bipartisan - the famed McCain (R )-Feingold (D) pair-up known for campaign finance reform, is introducing this measure.

It has support in the House, and according to this article, the Administration is backing it too.

Don't be too grouchy - in the midst of stimulus bills, health care, foreign policy, auto bailouts --- believe it or not even line-item veto stands a chance of getting somewhere this year.

This really is an era of Change. Wonder of wonders.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't expect the president to do that, or to be able to do that. That would be wrong. All I am saying is that while Obama, with his best intentions in place can/will do things differently, that is simply because he chooses to do so. Without constitutional change, and a plan how to go about it, this change is fair weather and nothing to get excited about beyond today.

I don't agree. If we can have 4 years, or better yet, 8 years, of clean(er) government, I'll gladly take that. And if we have sunshine during these 4 (or better yet 8) years, there's a good case to be made that a standard has been set for successive administrations to follow as well.

And, as to permanent change, why jump instantly for constitutional change? What's wrong with a straightforward legislative effort, if it can pass the smell test the courts have laid down?

There's currently a legislative effort in the Senate to get a limited line-item veto provision which could circumvent the court ruling barring previous such laws.

It's bipartisan - the famed McCain (R )-Feingold (D) pair-up known for campaign finance reform, is introducing this measure.

It has support in the House, and according to this article, the Administration is backing it too.

Don't be too grouchy - in the midst of stimulus bills, health care, foreign policy, auto bailouts --- believe it or not even line-item veto stands a chance of getting somewhere this year.

This really is an era of Change. Wonder of wonders.

How so? It's not as though this road hasn't already been traveled before.

However, please explain what you mean by a 'legislative effort'? You mean laws can be changed? Sure, but why is it not possible to give the public a road map of the reality of what that change means rather than going at it piece meal? Seriously, I don't get why this has to be so, well messy.

, I smile at the thought of my being grouchy though, that's too funny.

[scandal 951]

How so? It's not as though this road hasn't already been traveled before.

However, please explain what you mean by a 'legislative effort'? You mean laws can be changed? Sure, but why is it not possible to give the public a road map of the reality of what that change means rather than going at it piece meal? Seriously, I don't get why this has to be so, well messy.

, I smile at the thought of my being grouchy though, that's too funny.

"Legislative effort" meaning that's how the system works in this country. It's like herding cats, quite literally.

You have 100 senators, and 435 members of the House. To enact any law, you need at least 50%+1 in both houses to agree on identical wording for a bill, and then have the President sign it. In some cases you need a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

Each and every one of those 535 cocksuckers (and I use the term advisedly) thinks they're smarter than God and cooler than Ahhhnooold. Each one thinks s/he should get to personally bless any bill put through. So getting a law passed takes "legislative effort" - arm twisting, shmoozing, late night drinks and cigars, and more often than not, patronage and outright bribery.

Obama has laid out a roadmap. But that's all it can be, without getting Congress on board. And he (and his Administration) are doing just that. Arm twisting like crazy. And probably some of that other stuff too.

It has to be this messy because that's how the Framers wanted it. They were so afraid of tyranny and dictatorship that they INTENTIONALLY preferred a messy process where nobody is top dog, but everyone thinks they are. It's called checks and balances. Does it work? Yeah, but it's pretty ugly to watch.

[Pooky 3,784]

Photo Fight: Lieberman and Graham Threaten Senate Shutdown

Senators Lieberman and Graham have just concluded a press conference held in response to a still unconfirmed move by the Democratic leadership in the House to strip from the supplemental appropriations bill an amendment that would bar the release of detainee photos. That amendment, the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, had been attached to the supplemental by a unanimous voice vote in the Senate and with the explicit support of the White House. However, as THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported last Friday, the Democratic leadership has been unable to secure the votes necessary to pass the supplemental and is moving to strip out the Graham-Lieberman amendment under pressure from House liberals.

A senior Democratic aide tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "the House is putting the demands of the ACLU before the interests of the troops." This aide also said that Liberman and Graham "are going to attach [the amendment] to every piece of legislation that comes down the pike." And indeed as Lieberman said at the press conference this morning, "we already actually added our original legislation as an amendment to the FDA regulation of tobacco bill that's on the floor right now."

Graham went even further during the press conference and threatened to shut down the Senate if their legislation is not passed. "We're not going to do any more business in the Senate...so nothing's going forward until we get this right," Graham said. Meanwhile, it may be premature for the left to declare victory. According to Fox News, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is apparently unaware of any deal between House Democrats and Pelosi. "I don't know whether an agreement has been reached," Hoyer said, and Pelosi herself has yet to weigh in on the matter, though reporters have quoted Democratic aides in an attempt to divine her position.

The Democratic aide I spoke with assured me that Lieberman and Graham "are not going to go quietly into the night" on this because failure to do so would "clearly put the troops in danger." This source added that if Pelosi has cut a deal with liberal members of her caucus, she is "defying the White House, and defying the commanders on the ground."

Indeed, Obama is being put in a tough position by a Speaker who has already been portrayed as running roughshod over the administration. If Obama, after backing a measure as critical to the safety of U.S. troops and securing the unanimous support of the Senate in favor of that measure, gets rolled by Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of liberal House Dems doing the bidding of the ACLU, the White House will not only look weak and feckless, it will have been proven to be weak and feckless.

Full Press Conference

Pelosi at it again. She must really want to put that knife into the President's back. Let's just hope it's her, and not Lieberman or Graham, who "goes quietly into the night". And the sooner, the better.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Photo Fight: Lieberman and Graham Threaten Senate Shutdown

Senators Lieberman and Graham have just concluded a press conference held in response to a still unconfirmed move by the Democratic leadership in the House to strip from the supplemental appropriations bill an amendment that would bar the release of detainee photos. That amendment, the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, had been attached to the supplemental by a unanimous voice vote in the Senate and with the explicit support of the White House. However, as THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported last Friday, the Democratic leadership has been unable to secure the votes necessary to pass the supplemental and is moving to strip out the Graham-Lieberman amendment under pressure from House liberals.

A senior Democratic aide tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "the House is putting the demands of the ACLU before the interests of the troops." This aide also said that Liberman and Graham "are going to attach [the amendment] to every piece of legislation that comes down the pike." And indeed as Lieberman said at the press conference this morning, "we already actually added our original legislation as an amendment to the FDA regulation of tobacco bill that's on the floor right now."

Graham went even further during the press conference and threatened to shut down the Senate if their legislation is not passed. "We're not going to do any more business in the Senate...so nothing's going forward until we get this right," Graham said. Meanwhile, it may be premature for the left to declare victory. According to Fox News, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is apparently unaware of any deal between House Democrats and Pelosi. "I don't know whether an agreement has been reached," Hoyer said, and Pelosi herself has yet to weigh in on the matter, though reporters have quoted Democratic aides in an attempt to divine her position.

The Democratic aide I spoke with assured me that Lieberman and Graham "are not going to go quietly into the night" on this because failure to do so would "clearly put the troops in danger." This source added that if Pelosi has cut a deal with liberal members of her caucus, she is "defying the White House, and defying the commanders on the ground."

Indeed, Obama is being put in a tough position by a Speaker who has already been portrayed as running roughshod over the administration. If Obama, after backing a measure as critical to the safety of U.S. troops and securing the unanimous support of the Senate in favor of that measure, gets rolled by Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of liberal House Dems doing the bidding of the ACLU, the White House will not only look weak and feckless, it will have been proven to be weak and feckless.

Full Press Conference

Pelosi at it again. She must really want to put that knife into the President's back. Let's just hope it's her, and not Lieberman or Graham, who "goes quietly into the night". And the sooner, the better.

You have to wonder when the left is going to realize how much of a liability Pelosi really is. She is not the lightning rod that Obama would hope for, especially when she is the one foolish enough to stand in the way of his agenda, so she can appease her constituents back home. There are people to the left of her, for example Cindy Sheehan, who stand a chance of taking her seat away from her, if you can believe that!

Steny Hoyer is much more of a seasoned legislator, and could produce the bipartisan legislation that Pelosi will never be able to.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Peikko 1,575]

How so? It's not as though this road hasn't already been traveled before.

However, please explain what you mean by a 'legislative effort'? You mean laws can be changed? Sure, but why is it not possible to give the public a road map of the reality of what that change means rather than going at it piece meal? Seriously, I don't get why this has to be so, well messy.

, I smile at the thought of my being grouchy though, that's too funny.

"Legislative effort" meaning that's how the system works in this country. It's like herding cats, quite literally.

You have 100 senators, and 435 members of the House. To enact any law, you need at least 50%+1 in both houses to agree on identical wording for a bill, and then have the President sign it. In some cases you need a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

Each and every one of those 535 cocksuckers (and I use the term advisedly) thinks they're smarter than God and cooler than Ahhhnooold. Each one thinks s/he should get to personally bless any bill put through. So getting a law passed takes "legislative effort" - arm twisting, shmoozing, late night drinks and cigars, and more often than not, patronage and outright bribery.

Obama has laid out a roadmap. But that's all it can be, without getting Congress on board. And he (and his Administration) are doing just that. Arm twisting like crazy. And probably some of that other stuff too.

It has to be this messy because that's how the Framers wanted it. They were so afraid of tyranny and dictatorship that they INTENTIONALLY preferred a messy process where nobody is top dog, but everyone thinks they are. It's called checks and balances. Does it work? Yeah, but it's pretty ugly to watch.

It's an understandable fear and quite honestly I like the idea that nothing can be done without effort but, when the result is this rats nest, there really is a need to at least put some top thinkers into a tank to see if there isn't another, better way to do things that isn't so visibly corrupt . At least, I would put that on the agenda if it was me

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Reform Congress? Yes --- in two ways. One, by reformist measures like line-item veto. Two - by making them more

And 3............... TERM LIMITS will solve many problems.

By the way

The Anointed One promised in every speech he would go line by line on each bill to cut waste

[scandal 951]

You have to wonder when the left is going to realize how much of a liability Pelosi really is. She is not the lightning rod that Obama would hope for, especially when she is the one foolish enough to stand in the way of his agenda, so she can appease her constituents back home. There are people to the left of her, for example Cindy Sheehan, who stand a chance of taking her seat away from her, if you can believe that!

Steny Hoyer is much more of a seasoned legislator, and could produce the bipartisan legislation that Pelosi will never be able to.

Mr. Bill -- one word can explain Pelosi's power and survival skills --- D'Alesandro.

Pure and simple. She's Tommy D'Alesandro 's daughter, and she plays the game the old-style way... pure machine politics all the way.

I won't shed tears the day we have a new Speaker.