The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

Yeah, it's sad that Republicans feel the need to sell their votes to support what should have been easily passed months ago.

 

Because Democrats aren't for sale?

[lostfan]

Yes but that's a false equivalence, Democrats haven't been the ones holding up routine business in the past year, holding no appointments, linking unrelated bills and refusing to do anything else, voting against bills they support because the president isn't in their party, etc. (the entire concept of strategic arms reduction is Reagan's legacy, ironically)

[Balta1701]

I think Jon Stewart just won.

[StrangeSox]

I think Jon Stewart just won.

 

If the Democrats could have passed the landslide they've gotten through recently back in September or October, they'd probably have done much better in November. Of course, Republicans were well aware of this and were not going to let that happen, instead banking on the public forgetting legislation from 2 years ago in 2012.

[Balta1701]

If the Democrats could have passed the landslide they've gotten through recently back in September or October, they'd probably have done much better in November. Of course, Republicans were well aware of this and were not going to let that happen, instead banking on the public forgetting legislation from 2 years ago in 2012.

Some commentary on that topic I read this morning:

But it wasn't really Harry Reid who ate their lunch (and how much better would that quote have been if Graham had said, "Harry Reid drank our milkshake"?). It was the Republicans. DADT repeal passed because Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Scott Brown voted with the Democrats. The tax deal went through because a host of Republicans voted with the Democrats. Same for START, the food-safety bill and the DoD authorization. If the bill helping 9/11 responders get medical benefits passes, that too will be because of Republican support.

 

The question is why the Republicans didn't just drag their feet and let things expire and then come back to everything in 2011, when they'll have more allies in the Senate and control of the House? As Graham said, "with a new group of Republicans coming in, we could get a better deal on almost everything."

 

The answer, I think, is that there are plenty of Senate Republicans who aren't too comfortable with the class of conservatives who got elected in 2010. These legislators knew they had to stick with McConnell before the election, as you can't win back the majority by handing the president lots of legislative accomplishments. But now that the election was over, the bills that had piled up were, in many cases, good bills, and if they didn't pass now, it wasn't clear that they'd be able to pass later.

 

The incumbent -- and the outgoing -- Republicans know that the fact that Republicans will have more power in 2011 doesn't necessarily mean that they'll use that power to pass sensible legislation. So those of them who wanted to pass sensible legislation decided to get it all done now, even if that meant handing Reid and Obama a slew of apparent victories in the lame-duck session.

[Steve9347]

I think Jon Stewart just won.

Excellent.

[Balta1701]

The Senate passed the 9/11 health care bill with a unanimous voice vote.

 

Since it was edited, it has to go back to the House now, which is expected to pass it today.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Senate passed the 9/11 health care bill with a unanimous voice vote.

 

Since it was edited, it has to go back to the House now, which is expected to pass it today.

I can't find a good article anywhere that tells me what the edits were. Anyone have that info?

 

[Balta1701]

The Senate has passed Start 3, by a 71-26 vote.

[Balta1701]

I can't find a good article anywhere that tells me what the edits were. Anyone have that info?

They pared the amount the government would spend back by about $2 billion by cutting the period covered to the next 6 years rather than the next 10 years. There were a few more stringent CBO reporting requirements included, and a clause capping lawyers fees at 10% of whatever the lawyers are getting paid for (I have no idea what that refers to).

[StrangeSox]

The Senate has passed Start 3, by a 71-26 vote.

 

The Beginning of the End of this Great Country!

 

(sorry, I saw that img somewhere and had to use it)

 

[lostfan]

The Senate has passed Start 3, by a 71-26 vote.

That took waaaaaaaaaay too f***ing long.

[mr_genius]

 

[StrangeSox]

this needs to be an official ST smilie.

[Balta1701]

Some of the people calling the "Norad tracks Santa" phone line wound up with the First Lady on the other end.

[HuskyCaucasian]

LOL

Latest Right-Wing Freak-Out: Obama Wants To Give Manhattan Back To Native Americans

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL

Latest Right-Wing Freak-Out: Obama Wants To Give Manhattan Back To Native Americans

I'd actually agree that it is probably a mistake to sign onto this resolution. As stated in the piece, Article 26 states:

 

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

 

Now of course, this won't be truly binding... but what it does do is give a legal avenue for AmerInd tribes or individuals to pursue, and that will cause costly litigation for them and the US.

 

I despise John Bolton and he's generally full of s***, but I agree with him here:

 

Former Ambassador John Bolton was more concerned that the resolution would result in new legal claims. "It's a kind of feel-good document that has so many unclear phrases in it that nobody's really sure what it means when you agree to it," he told FoxNews.com. "It's wrong and potentially dangerous to sign onto a document that you don't fully understand the implications of."

 

He's right, unfortunately.

 

The more feel-good parts about recognizing and respecting culture, and trying to provide better cohesion into society and better access to education and health care... nothing wrong with that at all. But that Article 26 is problematic, and its just not a good idea to sign onto that aspect at this time. No matter how s***ty a situation we put these native groups in (and we did - one of the two worst things in the country's history IMO), this is not a path that will help anyone.

 

ETA: Not that this excuses the laughable outrage from some of these hyper-conservative talking heads, which is all pointless of course.

 

[kapkomet]

This is yet another symbolic political fail. Imagine that.

[bmags]

more insightful analysis from kap.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is yet another symbolic political fail. Imagine that.

Eh? The symbolic part is the one part that seems a success. Some of the push for other programs might be too. The problem is in the details.

 

[kapkomet]

Eh? The symbolic part is the one part that seems a success. Some of the push for other programs might be too. The problem is in the details.

 

 

Isn't that the point? I mean, gees, think about it.

[Balta1701]

Isn't that the point? I mean, gees, think about it.

See Kap, the issue here is that some of us believe things like the horrendous poverty currently found on a variety of Native American reservations to be a bad thing in this country, something that might deserve correction.

[kapkomet]

See Kap, the issue here is that some of us believe things like the horrendous poverty currently found on a variety of Native American reservations to be a bad thing in this country, something that might deserve correction.

 

You see, Balta, get rid of the current system the way that it is by actually making sure the details match what it is you're trying to actually do. No one has a problem with the nature of it, just don't be ignorant about the details. Kind of like passing a bill so we know what's in it? It's not about what the issue is, it's about doing things right, something that no one seems to be able to recognize anymore.

[Balta1701]

You see, Balta, get rid of the current system the way that it is by actually making sure the details match what it is you're trying to actually do. No one has a problem with the nature of it, just don't be ignorant about the details. Kind of like passing a bill so we know what's in it? It's not about what the issue is, it's about doing things right, something that no one seems to be able to recognize anymore.

The benefit of an international treaty is that other signatories also are obligated by the treaty to solve what are, in many cases, serious problems with their treatment of indigenous peoples.

[kapkomet]

The benefit of an international treaty is that other signatories also are obligated by the treaty to solve what are, in many cases, serious problems with their treatment of indigenous peoples.

 

 

I don't disagree with that. Again, it's the lack of knowledge of the details of things that just get glossed over... it used to matter. Now, everything's just token BS... it's okay, it's what I intended... I kind of think that is what got us where we are now.