World endorses George Bush then John Sullivan

[iplaw]

No one interested in bipartisanship ever runs for an office.  Holding the two positions is mutually exclusive.  If he hasn't figured that out yet, he hasn't been in politics long enough.

Bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake gets no one anywhere.  We all have points of exclusion that bipartisanship will not get us past.

I know it feels good to say bipartisanship, but we need to live in the real world.

[rwarn17588]

I could be making a leap, Hometown (correct me if I'm wrong), but I think you mean having a split legislature.

I like the idea of a split government. If you have one legislative branch that has the majority in one party and another that has the other party in the majority, that means less of a chance of ill-advised laws being passed. Even if the Democrats take both branches (very unlikely, IMO), you still have a check and balance with the president's veto power. A split government means compromise, and that's not necessarily a bad thing -- not by a long shot.

I remember MoneyTalk radio host Bob Brinker saying during the latter portion of the Clinton years: "Gridlock in Washington is good. That means there's less of a chance of the Congress messing things up."

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I could be making a leap, Hometown (correct me if I'm wrong), but I think you mean having a split legislature.

I like the idea of a split government. If you have one legislative branch that has the majority in one party and another that has the other party in the majority, that means less of a chance of ill-advised laws being passed. Even if the Democrats take both branches (very unlikely, IMO), you still have a check and balance with the president's veto power. A split government means compromise, and that's not necessarily a bad thing -- not by a long shot.

I remember MoneyTalk radio host Bob Brinker saying during the latter portion of the Clinton years: "Gridlock in Washington is good. That means there's less of a chance of the Congress messing things up."

You're right.  I meant that a split legislature would force bipartisanship.  

I don't think Sullivan intends to do a thing to help Bush find a new course.

There is also the lesser of two evils argument.

However you look at it, Alan Gentges is a vote for change.

[Conan71]

Right, and if the Democrats take the House, let me give you a little picture of what bi-partisanship will look like:

The house led by Nancy Pelosi will start a specious impeachment against President Bush, and not focus on issues that really do matter.

If they succeed in impeachment, it will go to the Senate, where they will waste time deciding whether or not to remove Bush and tie up more time.  

In the end, it will be 2008, Bush will finish his term on schedule and all we will have to show for this next Congress is a two year legislative circle-jerk, and guess who will still have the majority in both houses?

The special interests, lobbyists, and party-line politicians who don't have the b[:O]lls to step out of line and do what is really important for their constituents instead of getting involved in petty playground spite games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the GOP brought this upon themselves for ever pursuing impeachment against Clinton.  Stupid partisan games from both sides.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Right, and if the Democrats take the House, let me give you a little picture of what bi-partisanship will look like:

The house led by Nancy Pelosi will start a specious impeachment against President Bush, and not focus on issues that really do matter.

If they succeed in impeachment, it will go to the Senate, where they will waste time deciding whether or not to remove Bush and tie up more time.  

In the end, it will be 2008, Bush will finish his term on schedule and all we will have to show for this next Congress is a two year legislative circle-jerk, and guess who will still have the majority in both houses?

The special interests, lobbyists, and party-line politicians who don't have the b[:O]lls to step out of line and do what is really important for their constituents instead of getting involved in petty playground spite games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the GOP brought this upon themselves for ever pursuing impeachment against Clinton.  Stupid partisan games from both sides.

The leadership of the Democrats has stated that it is not interested in impeachment.

Here's some literature I found on Gentges and partisanship:

Gentges said he would like to offer his district an alternative, an independent voice that will question not only the Republicans but the Democrats, as well.  "I think that what I represent is an independent voice," he said.

A lifelong Democrat himself, Gentges referred to a quote by former President John F. Kennedy, saying it does not matter if the answer is from a Democrat or Republican, as long as it's the right answer.  He said he will follow that policy while in office and, hopefully, adopt good ideas from anyone that may have one.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Right, and if the Democrats take the House, let me give you a little picture of what bi-partisanship will look like:

The house led by Nancy Pelosi will start a specious impeachment against President Bush, and not focus on issues that really do matter.

If they succeed in impeachment, it will go to the Senate, where they will waste time deciding whether or not to remove Bush and tie up more time.  

In the end, it will be 2008, Bush will finish his term on schedule and all we will have to show for this next Congress is a two year legislative circle-jerk, and guess who will still have the majority in both houses?

The special interests, lobbyists, and party-line politicians who don't have the b[:O]lls to step out of line and do what is really important for their constituents instead of getting involved in petty playground spite games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the GOP brought this upon themselves for ever pursuing impeachment against Clinton.  Stupid partisan games from both sides.

The leadership of the Democrats has stated that it is not interested in impeachment.

Someone needs to communicate that to John Conyers then.

"A few months ago, when there was speculation that Democrats planned to impeach Bush if they won the House, the party's leadership moved quickly to stop the discussion. In May, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the Washington Post that Pelosi had told her fellow Democrats "impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it." But Conyers, who would likely be the single-most important person in the undertaking, was never on board. "There's no way I can predict whether there will ultimately be an impeachment proceeding underway or not," he said last week in an interview with the liberal website tpmmmuckraker.com. "The Constitution in Crisis" is Conyers's sign that, should the opportunity arise, he is ready to go."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=

So far Pelosi has only made tepid comments about impeachment:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."  May 7, 2006 WP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601336_pf.html

Pelosi has been curiously silent on this issue since May.

Further suggested reading:

http://www.democrats.com/node/10267

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Right, and if the Democrats take the House, let me give you a little picture of what bi-partisanship will look like:

The house led by Nancy Pelosi will start a specious impeachment against President Bush, and not focus on issues that really do matter.

If they succeed in impeachment, it will go to the Senate, where they will waste time deciding whether or not to remove Bush and tie up more time.  

In the end, it will be 2008, Bush will finish his term on schedule and all we will have to show for this next Congress is a two year legislative circle-jerk, and guess who will still have the majority in both houses?

The special interests, lobbyists, and party-line politicians who don't have the b[:O]lls to step out of line and do what is really important for their constituents instead of getting involved in petty playground spite games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the GOP brought this upon themselves for ever pursuing impeachment against Clinton.  Stupid partisan games from both sides.

The leadership of the Democrats has stated that it is not interested in impeachment.

Someone needs to communicate that to John Conyers then.

"A few months ago, when there was speculation that Democrats planned to impeach Bush if they won the House, the party's leadership moved quickly to stop the discussion. In May, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the Washington Post that Pelosi had told her fellow Democrats "impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it." But Conyers, who would likely be the single-most important person in the undertaking, was never on board. "There's no way I can predict whether there will ultimately be an impeachment proceeding underway or not," he said last week in an interview with the liberal website tpmmmuckraker.com. "The Constitution in Crisis" is Conyers's sign that, should the opportunity arise, he is ready to go."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=

So far Pelosi has only made tepid comments about impeachment:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."  May 7, 2006 WP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601336_pf.html

Pelosi has been curiously silent on this issue since May.

Further suggested reading:

http://www.democrats.com/node/10267

Thanks for bringing this to our attention:

Pelosi had told her fellow Democrats "impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it."

[Conan71]

Then what would the point of investigations be if there is no ultimate goal of impeachment or censure other than a complete waste of time?

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Then what would the point of investigations be if there is no ultimate goal of impeachment or censure other than a complete waste of time?

Sunshine, transparency, and balance.

Bush and his buddys like Sullivan hate sunshine.

[iplaw]

Ugh...maybe when we do actually get away from a two party system people will stop being such sloganeering partisans...

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Ugh...maybe when we do actually get away from a two party system people will stop being such sloganeering partisans...

Slogans are symbols for complex ideas.  Which Republican was it that said the facts don't matter?  Or was that the details don't matter?  It was your Reagan that showed us the power of symbols.

Sunshine, really does mean something iplaw.

I could spell it out in multiple pages but let's not kid ourselves about attention spans.

[iplaw]

Not if the slogans or symbols are faulty or lack substance...

I think the ancient egyptians beat Regan to it anyways.

[aoxamaxoa]

John Sullivan voted against every single environmental bill in 2005.

Vote for the democrat. It's about your children and grandchildren ......

[iplaw]

You're assertion is pure unadulterated bullcrap.  Repeat this:

Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend

http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=7230&congress=1092&lvl=C

Though he has more - than +; you can clearly see that he voted for some environmentally friendly bills.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You're assertion is pure unadulterated bullcrap.  Repeat this:

Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend
Google is my friend

http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=7230&congress=1092&lvl=C

Though he has more - than +; you can clearly see that he voted for some environmentally friendly bills.

Yes, he voted for big oil....and against the environmental regs affecting Green Country.

Nice try though.