Democrat Senate Passes 94% of Bills With no Debate
If I remember correctly didn’t the Democrats promise a fair and open government before the 2006 election? Didn’t they promise a more transparent government? I believe that they did. Well, on top of all of their other broken promises and failed policies they have broken that promise.
The Democrat controlled senate is the opposite of open and transparent, and it certainly isn’t fair. I am referring to the fact that 94% of the bills passed under the Democrat controlled senate were not debated in the open and were not even voted on.
the majority of bills that have passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate of the 110th Congress have done so without any debate or even a vote.
a non-partisan study released on June 10 by the government’s Congressional Research Service (CRS), which indicates that 855 of the 911 bills passed by the Senate of the 110thCongress have been streamlined by Democratic Party leadership with a procedural tactic known as Unanimous Consent (UC), which requires no debate or even a vote.
This was obviously done so that nobody had to be held accountable for their votes.
“The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating, because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability,” Coburn told reporters at press conference Wednesday at the Capitol.
“This report shows that the reality is worse than the public’s fears. Instead of encouraging open debate, I’m disappointed that Majority Leader Reid often chooses secrecy or demagoguery,” he added.
If they really had the courage of their convictions they would stand up in public and vote their conscience. But they don’t, they hide from their supposed convictions and are not even strong enough to let the American people see where they stand on the issues.
I thought that debate on issues was good, wasn’t one of the Democrats biggest issues before the 2006 election the “rights of the minority” when talking about their own situation. They claimed that even though they were in the minority that they somehow still held an equal voice in the proceedings. Remember that they kept referencing the “rights of the minority must not be forgotten” and other such nonsense.
Now that they are in the majority we hear nothing about the “rights of the minority” and in fact most bills are being passed without the minority even be able to have a voice at all. Funny how things change, huh? It all depends on who is in the majority.
Why is the Left so Hateful?
By Mr.Pink Eyes
The left is supposed to be the compassionate ones. The left supposedly cares so much about human rights. The left is righteous and all accepting. Why then are they so full of hate? Why are they so angry and hostile to people who do not share their same views on the issues?
This post was inspired by a recent comment I received to one of my posts, Democrat Solution for the Oil Crisis? Stop Driving. This comment was written by someone who called him/her self Fuck you.
Here is what Fuck You had to say about my post:
You are a fucking idiot if you believe that increasing oil supply will bring the price down. Here’s how it works numbnuts: domestic oil production peaked in the 1970s. Get a fucking clue. If I piss a quart of oil will that bring the price down? Fuck no. Same with your bullshit “increase supply” scheme. Demand will always outpace supply unless you want to nuke China and India. This is an irrefutable fact but right wing dipshits such as yourself seem to have a problem with irrefutable facts.
Here is some simple math for your simple brain: If I add five barrels of oil, but a chinese person buys ten barrels of oil because they don’t pay the actual cost of oil (because it is subsidized by the govt) then HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT BRING THE PRICE DOWN FOR US?!
Do us all a favor and just shoot yourself in the head please.
The post that resulted in the above comment was about how Democrats really have offered no solutions to the energy problem but in an effort to appear as if they were doing something called for a pork ladened bill to provide more public transportation. I called the bill a do-nothing crock of shit bill . And it is. This was not an attack on a person but rather my feelings on a bill that was being proposed. Yet look at the reaction it drew from this person with whom my only disagreement with is over policies. This person told me I should kill myself, among other various insults. Why the hatred? What was my crime? It was a crime of disagreement. A policy or political disagreement, but because I disagree with this liberal I should shoot myself in the head.
This comment has made me ask myself, why is the left so hateful? How did the left get to the point where a person who disagrees with them is a fucking moron and should put a gun to their head and shoot themselves? This does not sound like somebody who is supposed to be so understanding and caring of other people. The left wants us to believe that they are caring and compassionate while the right is full of bigotry and hatred, yet disagree with them politically and you are nothing but a numbnuts, a simpleton , and a cretin. We just don’t understand how smart they are so we should just shoot ourselves. The world would be better off without our hatred according to the left. Yet the left is apparently intolerant of the right’s opinions. It is the left who is full of hatred with this type of comment.
I will be the first to admit that sometimes my posts get heated and I use harsh words, but my posts are never personal. My posts deal with my opinions on issues and the candidates positions on the issues. I have strong opinions and I express them here, I find this a great forum for debate. Debate is what makes America great. The fact that people can have differing opinions on issues and we can elect representation based on those issues is a basic and most important fact and right on the founding of America.
But then you get the comment from Fuck You who is more interested in personal attacks just because my opinion differs from his. He offers nothing but insults. So again I ask, why is the left so hateful?
Why is the party that is all caring, and tolerant of other people so intolerant of an opinion? It appears that they are accepting of all behaviors but if you have a differing opinion from them than you should just kill yourself. Does anybody else see the hypocrisy of this?
California Becomes the First State to Ban Trans Fats
By Mr.Pink Eyes
California has officially become the first state to ban trans fats. Rino Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law last week. Arnold, who had no problem putting steroids into his body, has decided that he is smarter than the average American and as such has the right to tell his constituents what they can put into theirs.
The Nanny staters are taking hold and gaining momentum, it has become accepted by Americans that the government knows what is best for us. We willingly fall in line as we are told what we can eat, smoke, and drink. We fall in line as we are told we have to wear seat belts and helmets. The government is gaining more and more control over common sense issues. People like Arnold Schwarzenegger are emboldened to tell us how to live our lives.
What is becoming more and more evident is the fact that Republicans are turning to the left on issues such as this and are now no different than Democrats when it comes to regulating (controlling) personal behaviors. The party as a whole, or mostly whole, is shifting. Arnold is no Republican, neither is John McCain. In an effort to distance themselves from the president, Republicans are aligning themselves with Democrats, that will appeal to the base, huh?
I don’t have a problem with a private business banning smoking or drinking, as a business owner it is well within their rights. I don’t have a problem with a private business doing away with trans fats, what I do have a problem with is the government telling a private business how they should operate.
If I want to participate in an unhealthy behavior like smoking, drinking, or eating greasy foods that is my decision and mine alone. It is not up to the government to regulate these behaviors for the good of the people. I am a big boy, I can take responsibility for my actions. That’s what all these nanny state regulations seem to be about, removing personal responsibility and replacing it with Big Brother type legislation. What are we left with when a person is not held accountable for his actions? What are we left with when the government dictates common sense? We are left with a mindless nation of people, just the kind of people the nanny staters want.
https://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/california-becomes-the-first-state-to-ban-trans-fats/
Is Bush Derangement Syndrome Over?
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
By Mr.Pink Eyes
I read this interesting article this morning about Bush Derangement Syndrome and it’s effects on the upcoming election. The article is about New Hampshire Senator John Sununu and his rebound in the polls against Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. The theory (at least the one put forth by Republicans) is that with President Bush clearly in a lame duck situation, and the emergence and popularity of President Obama and his rival John McCain, that Bush Derangement Syndrome will be a non factor in the election. President Bush is in the distance somewhere, a non issue. The theory is that people will no longer be voting against Bush the way they did in 2006. and for their candidate. Voters will be looking more closely at the issues than they did in 2006. That is a huge difference.
It’s too early to say with certainty, but political analysts are seeing signs that the “Bush effect” may be fading, and Republican candidates — particularly John Sununu — might be shedding the albatross of the unpopular President.
Two years ago, Democrats swept to victory in New Hampshire and much of the nation by exploiting voter frustration with President George W. Bush. With the war in Iraq going poorly, Granite State voters, in a historic election, ousted two incumbent U.S. House members, replaced them with Democrats, and awarded Democrats with control of the state House and Senate, as well as the Executive Council.
Today, Democrats are banking on a replay.
But that replay may be happen.
the 2008 presidential election has taken over the national political spotlight. National news reports are consumed by Barack Obama and John McCain. Bush, a lame duck with five months left in his tenure, has been relegated to a less conspicuous place on the national political scene.
President Bush is an afterthought in the minds of many voters, a thing of the past. As Stephen King wrote in the Dark Tower series, “The world has moved on.”
“I do think that at some level, given the shape that Bush is in as a lame-duck President and the intense focus on the (Obama-McCain) election, there is a tendency for the incumbent to get pushed to the side. Bush still has low approval, but it may be that the visceral reaction that voters had to him in 2006 has been somewhat muted by their pre-occupation with McCain and Obama.”
With Bush close to the end of his term and the presidential race front and center, Republican voters are reawakening, said UNH poll director Andrew Smith.
This “reawakening” is what Republicans are clinging to (not guns or religion) with the (audacity of) hope that maybe the slaughter in November won’t be as bad as previously predicted. Republicans who stayed home last election to teach Republican politicians a lesson, and there were many of them here in New Hampshire, in theory are going to turn out in this election. This will vastly change the outlook for Republicans in the senate and house races.
While the article that I linked to was about New Hampshire politics, and John Sununu in particular, it could be symbolic of races around the country. John Sununu has been able to come back from a 16 point polling deficit to come into a statistical tie with his opponent, much of this considered to be because of the irrelevance of the president as an issue. Sununu is considered to be the most vulnerable senator in this upcoming election. If the ties that Democrats are trying to make between he and the president are a non issue in such a vulnerable seat than the prospects look better for other Republicans across the country hoping to hold onto their seats. That is why this affects more than New Hampshire, if Bush Derangement Syndrome has been replaced by the “Bush Irrelevancy Factor” than the upcoming election may not turn out to be the huge Democrat victory once expected.
I am not sure I buy into this theory though. The far left still harbors this hatred for the president and have been so anxious to get to the polls for so long that the “Bush Irrelevancy factor” is a non issue to them. Perhaps the vitriolic language has died down to some extent, but there is still enough anti-Bush sentiment out there, I think, to draw people to the polls to vote against him. Hell, Russ Feingold is still trying to bring articles of impeachment forth much to the delight of left wing bloggers.
The presidency is lost no matter who wins in November so the focus must be on the elections in the house and senate. While I can’t judge the sentiment in other state elections, if the latest polls in New Hampshire are accurate than a feeling that I have been getting recently may not be ill founded after all. I sense the beginning of a turn around in New Hampshire, a slight shift back to the right. In 2006 a “blue wave” swept over New Hampshire and changed the landscape dramatically, now New Hampshire may be ready for a “red tide”, (that description is likely to bring unflattering remarks from the left but you get the point). Or at least the beginning of one.
This may be more than just an end to Bush Derangement Syndrome, but perhaps it plays a part in it. The “reawakening” of Republicans in the state may be attributed to and end to Bush Derangement Syndrome, or the “Bush irrelevance factor”, but it goes beyond that. It goes to the issues, and the direction the state has gone in two short years. That has what has really “reawakened” Republicans in New Hampshire. That is of course if they are truly energized at all, it is too hard to tell from just one poll. But I am beginning to see a shift and I am beginning to have (the audacity of) hope that New Hampshire may be ready to correct the mistake of 2006.
If it can happen in New Hampshire, it can happen all across the country. Bush Derangement Syndrome a thing of the past? We will just have to wait and see.
Media Donations Favor Democrats 100-1
Not that this comes as any surprise but the media is decidedly biased. You need to look no further than the coverage that President Obama is getting on his whirlwind global tour or the New York Times refusal to run John McCain’s editorial to see it in full force. But exactly how many liberals are there in the media? The number is staggering. “Journalists” who have made political donations have donated to Democrats at a rate of 100 to 1.
Just look at the chart to the right to see how outnumbered the Republicans are in donations made by
people in the media. Even Fox News, the organization that is the scourge of the far left who believe the network is biased toward conservatives, gives more money to Democrats than Republicans. As a matter of fact Republicans have received no money from anyone at Fox News. The interesting part of this whole campaign is how the media has given up at even trying to pretend that they are non partisan. They are so confident that President Obama is a sure thing that they are not even trying to hide their biases anymore. You need to look no farther than Chris Matthews who said during the Democrat primary season after hearing President Obama speak, “ My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.”
President Obama has the media all a-flutter and they can’t contain themselves, that was the perception before seeing these numbers. After seeing the numbers we see that in this case perception is reality.
President Bush Flip-Flops on Mortgage Bailout Bill
By Mr.Pink Eyes
President Bush has flip-flopped on the mortgage bailout bill and will now sign this burden on the taxpayers into law if it reaches his desk. He has been threatening to veto this legislation but is now clearly in public relations mode. He wants to try to raise his approval ratings before he leaves office and he thinks that this is a means to do so.
He is now prepared to bail out people who bought houses that they couldn’t afford and he is ready to make us pay for it. President Bush is desperate, he needs to get something accomplished before he leaves office so he has decided to capitulate to the Democrats during his final months. Will it end here, or is he so wanting of approval in his last days that he will bend over and take whatever the Democrats give him? What other Democrat bills is he willing to sign on to in order to improve is record low approval rating in time to gather donations for his presidential library?
President Bush is no conservative. Remember he is a “compassionate conservative” and now he is showing us his compassion by ramming this legislation down the throats of ordinary tax paying Americans who work hard to keep their families in their homes.
I haven’t written or talked about this until now but I have become ever more bitter (maybe dissappointed is a better word) towards the president in recent weeks, and this just tops it all off. He spends too much money, is for amnesty, and worked with Ted Kennedy on the education bill. The one issue that I thought would be his defining moment were his nominations to the supreme court. But the recent Washington DC verdict on the handgun ban has made me re-think that success. Sure the verdict was a victory for the second amendment, but is was a close call. President Obama will easily be able to overcome President Bush’s supreme court appointees because he will have at least two nominees of his own. Throw that Bush victory out the window. Normally I would say that it isn’t his fault that President Obama will have the chance to appoint supreme court judges that will reverse the good that Alito and Roberts have done, but it is his fault.
President Bush has done one thing better than anything else, he has energized the Democrat base and there is no stopping the slaughter that is going to take place in November. He has killed the national Republican party and it now has to be built from the ground up. It is going to be a long process but we have President Bush to thank for it. This bill is just another reason why conservatives will stay home in November.
Conservatives stayed home in 2006 to teach Republicans a lesson but it seems like the Republicans didn’t understand the lesson. Learning is done through repetition, and in November the lesson of 2006 will be repeated. Will they learn then?
Latest Poll Irks New Hampshire Democrats
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
I have to say it has been a very interesting few days to watch and read about New Hampshire politics. First we had the story about the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition who are making great gains in getting tax cap legislation on to the November ballots in several key cities. Their efforts appear to be paying off. I think this is a sign that residents are growing weary of the tax and spend drunkenness of our governor.
Next came “THE POLL.” What is “THE POLL?” It is the poll that came out yesterday that showed Republicans either in a dead heat or ahead of Democrats in key senate and house races.
And then today we get this article that writes about how some Democrats naturally believe “THE POLL” was rigged and are questioning it’s legitimacy. This is the most enjoyable part of the last week. Democrats are angered that a UNH poll has to have been fixed, how else could Republicans be even close to Democrats in the polls? The arrogance of these people is astounding.
The liberal blog, Blue Hampshire is in denial. They have been claiming that this poll has to have been fixed through the sampling of voters by UNH and that it therefore can’t be accurate.
Let me get this straight, we are to believe that UNH, a university run by leftists with the goal of indoctrinating young people into the thoughts and ideology of the left, would for some reason want to skew the polls to show Republicans making gains in the state? Why would this be? Unless the UNH poll is designed to make Republicans so cocky that some of them stay home on election day because they figure Republicans are going to win anyway, I see no reason why they would want to skew the poll results. Needless to say that is an extremely unlikely position for the pollsters to take.
So it comes down to the arrogance of the left. It can’t possibly be fact that Republicans can’t be left for dead in New Hampshire just yet. There has to be some conspiracy here, or ulterior motive, some nefariousplot to bring down the Democrats. They are beginning to see that air of invincibility be whittled down a little bit and they are getting a little nervous.
It has been a fun couple of days, I don’t know how long it will last but I will enjoy every second of it.
John McCain’s Rejected New York Times Editorial
Last week the New York Times ran an editorial written by President Obama about the Iraq war in which he criticized John McCain. Naturally John McCain wrote a rebuttal for the New York Times, but they refused to print it. They told McCain that he should rewrite it so that it “mirrored” President Obama’s editorial.
Today the New Hampshire Union Leader printedJohn McCain’s editorial in it’s entirely and here it is:
IN JANUARY 2007, when Gen. David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Sen. Barack Obamawas an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on Jan. 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Sen. Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Sen. Obama’sdetermination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech last week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obamatimetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Sen. Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Sen. Obamasuggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Sen. Obamacharges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Sen. Obama.
Sen. Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by al-Qaida and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq.
Sen. Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as President. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
One has to wonder why the New York Times would refuse to give both candidates equal time. I think we know the answer.
Perhaps that is why their profits are down 82%, although they blame everything from the price of oil to the housing market, to the economy for their problems. They claim that McCain’s article should “mirror” President Obama’s, yet they are the ones who should be looking in the mirror.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
I really am trying to curb my enthusiasm over the latest New Hampshire poll results in the Shaheen?Sununu race and the Bradley/Stephen/Shea-Porter races. It is hard though.
John Sununu according to this poll only trails Shaheen by four points, he has shaved off eight points of her lead since the last poll. The Democrats consider John Sununu as one of the most vulnerable senators up for re-election this years. Shaheen’s big lead is now gone and this poll is within the margin of error.
In my district Jeb Bradley now has a six point lead over Carol Shea-Porter. However Shea-Porter holds a six point lead over Bradley’s primary opponent John Stephens. This can be attributed to lack of name recognition. I have to believe that if Stephen come out ahead of Bradley in the primary that he will have no problem in getting Jeb Bradley’s votes so I feel he will also be ahead of Shea-Porter once the primary is held.
It does appear as though Paul Hodes in the second district is in no trouble, he hold big leads at the moment, but he does have two primary opponent so who knows.
This looks like possible good news come November, news desperately needed in this state, however only 22% surveyed are firmly behind their candidate. I would normally consider this bad news for an incumbent, especially one as vulnerable as Sununu but if he is so vulnerable why are Shaheen’s number of committed voters higher?
This latest poll offers us a glimmer of hope in New Hampshire but I am trying to hold down my enthusiasm. It is hard though because I keep thinking that if many Republicans show up to vote for Sununu and Bradley/Stephen that maybe, just maybe they will also vote for Joe Kenney and help rid our state of the fiscally irresponsible tax and spend Governor John Lynch.
Can happy days be here again? I can dream, can’t I?
