Pork and the Senate: Hang Ted Stevens!

Actually the lynch mob has formed and this crook is gonna get his.

Never let it be said that Pettyfog looks around this bullsh*t because of party labels! A crook's a crook.

The issue: A proposed open database in which we could see who attached earmark spending to other bills. Stevens put a secret hold on it... and got found out.

Now it seems Robert Byrd the long-time biggest offender, and the one that all big-spend Republicans try to emulate! has done the same.

 

*cringes*

Petty's right!

*cringes some more*

At some point, maybe when Congress realized that Dubya was going to be the "I've-never-seen-a-spending-bill-I-didn't-like" President, the "Conservatives" in Congress gave up on all of their traditional conservative ideals (note the small "c" conserative here... small government, states rights, leave-us-the-heck alone attitude) and started spending like crazy.

Add in no-bid contracts, no oversight of spending projects and we have a Bridge to Nowhere!

And since we're on the subject of Ted Stevens... do you think he still gets his mails through tubes on the internets? The guy can get money for a bridge but he doesn't have the slightest idea how simple technology works... Thanks, Alaska! Thanks a million - oh wait, you don't have that many people...

 

Re: RE: Pork and the Senate: Hang Ted Stevens!

I forget..

Was that specific hearing target the secret Cheney deal attempt with the Taliban to build the Uzbekh/Afghan pipeline... or the even secreter attempt to drop sanctions against Saddam if he reneged on the Total-Fina-Elf-Chirac contract in favor of Halliburton/Gulf?

 

RE: Re: RE: Pork and the Senate: Hang Ted Stevens!

I suggest you go back to your civics class on that 'We are a Democracy' thing.
- We ARE, in a nominal sense, but the Republic was neither founded on a one-man, one vote process (or in the case of Tammany/Daley one name-one ward-one vote) paradigm NOR was it meant that all meetings on any topic of public interest MUST be immediately disclosed... and before you do a self-induced wedgie... NO government, ANYWHERE, acts that way.

The ONLY reason YOU are so enraged is the same as 'your kinds'' outrage over Dubya failing to tic off mistakes he's made:
ergo: "Mr President, here's a gun... please shoot yourself in the OTHER foot".

 

RE: Re: RE: Pork and the Senate: Hang Ted Stevens!

Back to the subject:

The TOPIC is related to undisclosed deals and lobby-pussyfooting by Congress.

IF the Executive makes wrong moves, the Congress is supposed to be there to shine a light on it.. and they certainly are... but when the Congress is, itself, subverted... then we've lost that.

I know to some of you K Street only matters when they influence the OTHER party's memebers... but my position is that, as an example, Abramoff IS the Indian Gambling faction.

 

RE: Re: RE: Pork and the Senate: Hang Ted Stevens!

Wow....you fired up ALL the drive-by howitzers on THAT one!

Damaging to whom, and why?

Because someone actually did something about something, rather than make a speech or pass a resolution or set up a negotiation?

I can answer each and every charge there..And HAVE... but your answer is always we MUST be absolutist.

Relativism only counts when it floats OUR boat! Sorta like "Oral sex is not sex"

Now, see, I have to drop back to global political realities... but I HAVE to admit I Would NEVER have expected to get into an argument like this, with someone who has a knowledge or Texas and Louisiana political history.

 

Get real... that's the first I recall you criticizing your party or anyone in it! Or are you mad at Lieberman?

And here's a little Gem, I voted for Clinton in 96! If we'd been in the same state we would have cancelled each other out... heh!

The REASON I put that subject up there is because Stevens is a hog... much on the same model as Byrd.
Now I dont criticize Byrd a damn bit for getting federal offices and functions into W Va... that is his job and the people need it.

What I criticize is the actual non-productive pork like the various Robert Byrd parkways to nowhere, and Stevens does the same.. and when a Republican does it, he deserves to be blown out of the water.

Same with Trent (those Bloggers are getting on my nerves) Lott ... where there's actual WASTE, it's time to shine a light... and it's VERY significant that Stevens and Byrd seem to be taking turns putting holds on the earmark database proposal.

But Stevens claims to be in MY party... Byrd is YOUR problem.

I have PLENTY of bones to pick with Bush, BTW. One is his stand on illegal issue.

I KNOW why he did and does it that way... but he is ignoring the real, present problem.

The second is his lack of communication skills... which he COULD have made up for by getting more Tony Snows and a long time ago.

The THIRD is his unbelievable unwillingness to come out blazing against the likes of Kennedy and Pelosi... consummate liars for effect, against whom we see no reaction!

I understand that, too.........

But what's interesting is your bringing Reagan into it.

That shows me that you are either what you accuse ME of... or in total denial.

But I think you dont like Reagan because he came after Carter.. and showed the poor little man up for what he was... a bleeding heart chump, or great humantitarian, whichever, but unfit to be president.... no matter which you believe.
- tax cuts for economy, proved right
-hard line against USSR, proved right
- SDI, being proved right
Fault: Not recognized the rise of terrorism and what it meant.

The buck stops here!
- A REAL great Dem president.

 

Patently, unequivocably UNTRUE!

Maybe you ought to actually READ or listen to them... unless the ONLY thing you care about is the WOT or Iraq war, in general.

And the same goes for conservatives whatever the degree of same... ALMOST NO ONE on the right actually considers Dubya a 'conservative'.

Which is a LARGE part of his low approval ratings... not just the left and moderate factions... it's the RIGHT that's a good 15% of the approval swing.
________________

It wasnt hard to defend Reagan... against WHOM! Putzes like BreZinski?

The NY Times? Rather? I rest my case!
________________
But consider this:

What of that you hear or read about is related to defense of Bushg against the left?

I think if you bother to parse it out... you find THAT is why you see the blogs and Fox that way.
We all have to hold our nose a lot... but right now, he's the closest thing we've got to a real Reagan conservative.

 

Back to the topic:

The 'netroots, conservative and liberal, WIN AGAIN!!

S. 2590 passes Senate unanimously... interesting, what!

Those of you who claim to want Democracy redefined.. this is it... not some change in the electoral process; we need to elect our reps the old way... but hold their feet to the fire or dump em.

Note you wont find much in the MSM on this.. they HATE it that they dropped yet another ball.. something here that NEVER would have gotten by the editorial pages 40 years ago, when they had some semblance of credibility.

I cant imagine this would have much trouble passing in the House... they have far fewer fish to lose by supporting it.

And I cant imagine Dubya not signing it... would be a real problem for him and he has enough.

The only REAL worry is implementing it, and in a reasonable time... look for attempts to delay actually putting it into the system. Will have study groups, design teams, refocus, etc.. there are tons of ways to delay actually DOING it.
Any of us ever worked on IT projects know that.

 

Well, like I said...I have no problem in bringing in Governemnts contracts which have an on-going result.

What I hate is the various road-to-nowhere, SF bay ferry terminal and Packard Museum type projects.

I suppose the 'subcontractor thing refers to stuff like Sen Reid's hi-jinks... or maybe who's paying off Trent Lott.