I've been watching Crossfire today, and a major portion of it was dedicated to the issue of the ethics (lack of) by House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay. There are some serious allegations against Rep. DeLay, but what has he and his Republican surrogates done? Avoid, label this as yet another farce by the liberal media. Yet they do not recall that DeLay was admonished three times last year by a bipartisan Ethics Committee (each admonishment was unanimous). In fact, the committee was so harsh on DeLay, that the House of Representatives, dominated by Republicans, decided to restructure the rules and name a new chairman for the committee. This is ridiculous; DeLay is hiding something and running behind a liberal media smoke screen will not be sufficient.

Congressional ethics are abused by the majority party. They were under Democrats and Republicans. We don't need to reform ethics laws, we need to enforce them. We need leaders who are willing to hit on a suspected congressman, even if they are within their own party. What we do not need are leaders who decide to divert, distract, or avoid.

It's time for DeLay to go.

What exactly did Tom Delay do, anyway? I googled him and found a bunch of stuff that insinuated everyone KNOWS what he did, but nothing that actually said what it was.

Wake me up when he commits perjury in front of a Grand Jury in order to avoid being held responsible for sexually harrassing a state employee, then orchestrates a character assassination on the guy HE appointed to investigate his money laundering and shady land deals.

Or when the intern he's having an affair with turns up dead in a DC park.

Or when he hires his gay Israeli lover as his Homeland Security advisor.

Vrai, this isn't about Clinton, McGreevey, or Condit...this is about Tom DeLay...

Here's some information, condensed style...

He offered a retiring Republican congressman his support for the congressman's son in the upcoming primary for the seat if he voted for the Prescription Drug Benefit

He called the Department of Homeland Security to track an airplane used by Texas Democrats who fled the state legislature to stall redistricting

He created an appearance of creating special access for donors to his campaign on pending energy legislation

Three DeLay associates and eight corporations have been indicted by a Texas grand jury for campaign fundraising problems involving the 2002 state legislature elections in Texas

Multiple, expensive foreign travel arrangements have been paid for DeLay and his aides by non-profit organizations that front for lobbyists

This is all developing and the media is covering it has new information is learned...I would keep up with it; this guy's been in power too long.

Good heavens, Raley - you just named 99% of Congress! :lmao:

Why is it so important now that it's Delay? I mean, I'm no big fan of the guy anyway, especially after the Terri Schiavo crap, but please. This stuff is so routine it's a cliche.

Oh...right...this isn't about Nancy Pelosi or Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Carol Mosely Braun or Robert Byrd or John Kerry or Harry Reid. It's about Tom Delay. :lol:

Vrai, the difference between that list of Democrats and Tom DeLay is that those Democrats (save Pelosi and Reid, of whom no credible allegations have been made) have all been investigated by the Congress. DeLay has not been put under the same scrutiny.

On edit: sorry, but neither Kerry nor Byrd was investigated either (once again no credible allegations; skeleton in Byrd's closet is that he was once a member of the KKK)

Vrai, this isn't about Clinton, McGreevey, or Condit...this is about Tom DeLay...

Here's some information, condensed style...
Good grief Trent Lott utters a praise of an old man and he is ridden out on a rail, Ted Kennedy kills someone and he is still sitting in the Senate sweating ready to croak, Barney Frank fingers some pages.....well we get the idea but deLay is a horrible monster?

He offered a retiring Republican congressman his support for the congressman's son in the upcoming primary for the seat if he voted for the Prescription Drug BenefitDone all the time.


He called the Department of Homeland Security to track an airplane used by Texas Democrats who fled the state legislature to stall redistrictingThat is slightly inappropriate but so is fleeing the state to avoid voting and getting beat by the majority.


He created an appearance of creating special access for donors to his campaign on pending energy legislation
Last time I saw an "appearance" was not against any law or the rules of the Senate.

Three DeLay associates and eight corporations have been indicted by a Texas grand jury for campaign fundraising problems involving the 2002 state legislature elections in TexasBut DeLay himself has not been indicted. Guilt by association works in Columbia, Cambodia and Cuba but not here.


Multiple, expensive foreign travel arrangements have been paid for DeLay and his aides by non-profit organizations that front for lobbyists99% of congress does this. Braun went on a huge junket to Africa at taxpayer expense. I would rather lobbyists pay than us.


This is all developing and the media is covering it has new information is learned...I would keep up with it; this guy's been in power too long. He is the target of the year. They pick out the weak one from the herd and run them down until they are exhausted.

I am reminded of a confirmation hearing for Sec. Def. the nominee was John Tower and I believe it was under Bush I. He was defeated in the Senate because he was a dirty low down scoundrel, drunk womanizing loser. Funny thing is he had just retired from the Senate and all those who voted against him were chasing women and drinking right along with him. Politics, he was fine when he was there, but was murdered in the press and the Sentate for political reasons. Asking these people to police themselves is a laugh. It is all about politics, Delay is just the target right now. The simple fact remains he was legaly elected and short of being convicted of a felony they can only smear the mans reputation in hopes they wil strike a nerve and force him to quit.

There's nothing that DeLay has done that isn't done by every other member of Congress, and they are not against the laws (either real laws or Congressional laws.) The tracking of the airplane may have made folks mad, but there was nothing illegal about it.

How could DeLay have been admonished three times if there was no investigations???

Lastly, the rule changes that you talk about deal with new requirements to allow a Congressmen under investigation to choose his/her own lawyer; to be informed when there is an investigation underway; and allow an investigation to be stopped with a majority vote. I think that the first two changes are needed without discussion.

As for the last one, this change was brought about to put an end to needless investigations being initiated by one or two Congressmen/women for political purposes. Since there is a 50/50 mix of Republicans and Democrats all of the members of one party can't vote to stop an investigation. At least one member of the opposition party must also agree that the investigation is not warranted. This is by no means an effort to prevent DeLay getting investigated as there's little chance any Dem on the committee, but it will hopefully put an end to one or two people staging bogus investigations on other people.

What exactly did Tom Delay do, anyway? I googled him and found a bunch of stuff that insinuated everyone KNOWS what he did, but nothing that actually said what it was.



Who cares what he did?

The guy has an {R} after his name, and that's good enough for me. You just KNOW he's up to no effing good.


LYNCH THE S.O.B.

Toxick, this has nothing to do with DeLay's status as a Republican.

The GOP is so concerned about DeLay's ethical history that they changed House rules so that leaders indicted during their service are not required to resign that leadership post. Disgusting. Democrats did that in 1993 to protect the former chairman of the Approrpriations committee, and Republicans had a field day. Now they do the same thing. Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

Poor ethics transcends party lines, right now power is being abused by the party in power, so its time for a new order.

Poor ethics transcends party lines, right now power is being abused by the party in power, so its time for a new order.
So going by your others posts, democrat abuse is better than republican abuse :confused:

No Smalltown, what I am suggesting is that after a certain amount of time, change in leadership is needed to check the spread of poor ethics. The GOP was pretty good ethically for the couple of cycles after 94, and besides Gingrich, who resigned, has remained pretty solid. It is not until this DeLay Congress that it has gotten out of hand.

Who cares what he did?

The guy has an {R} after his name, and that's good enough for me. You just KNOW he's up to no effing good.


LYNCH THE S.O.B.


This is the Democrats' vengence for Frist compaigning against Daschle in South Dakota. That's it!

When did politicians get ethics?

The tracking of the airplane may have made folks mad, but there was nothing illegal about it.
I don't see why we shouldn't track planes.

... that they changed House rules ...
Isn't that their Constitutional prerogative?

DeLay Congress

So now it's not just Delay, it's 'his' entire Congress.

RR, you need to do your homework and quit reading your talking points. When you do your homework you will find that the charges against Delay are silly at best.

Say this out loud: "My team wants Delay out because he's kicking our butts."

As of about a week ago, my side was LIVID with Delay for his outrageous handling of the Terri case. So, instead of letting us handle OUR problem Democrats, once again, get in their own way.

You're too young to hold accountable for Clinton but to be scolded by any Democrat about ethics is to be lectured by a drug addict about the perils of caffeine. Your side sat on its collective hands for 8 years while crime after crime after crime was commited by the Clintons and your guys made excuse after excuse after excuse.

So now, instead of focusing on Delay and the over the top manner in which he went charging after the Constitution and judges, my side is forced by Democrat attacks to reassess our guy and notice that a great many of the screamers on your side went right along with Tom's assault on Michael Schiavo. That maybe instead of holding Tom accountable, we now notice that a great many of his detractors have done similarly 'iffy' things with travel and constituent favors.

So, if Delay survives this, and I'm starting to think he should, he'll owe this pathetic little "Get Tom" scheme a great thanks.

Isn't that their Constitutional prerogative?Democrats think that only THEY can exercise their majority. When Republicans are in power, they cry and scream about how the Rs are "partisan" and demand that they do what Democrats say. Unfortunately, Republicans fall for this tantrum-throwing every time and temper their agenda or abandon it completely.

Maybe RR will start yelling about how Senate Democrats changed the rules about using proposed fillibusters to stall votes on judges.

Maybe RR will start yelling about how Senate Democrats changed the rules about using proposed fillibusters to stall votes on judges.Dream on. The talking points are already out on that one. Harry Reid says that it's a fundamental responsibility of the government to filibuster judicial nominees and it's the most patriotic thing you can do, as a Congressman. He and Nancy Pelosi went on and on about it. They didn't say WHY it was so patriotic, just dodged that question and kept to their script.

On a side note, I agree with Bob Dole, the NRA, and Harry Reid that the Senate filibuster should be maintained as is and that to go to the nuclear option would spark a brand new, even harsher time of partisanship than before.

Back to the matter at hand, this has nothing to do with "talking points." This has to do with calling a spade a spade. When there are serious, substantial allegations against the majority leader, they should be investigated. What should not happen is a changing of the rules so that that investigation can be halted. This has nothing to do with the Schiavo case (which pissed the hell out of me, on a side note), because this was going on long before that. Many were suggesting that DeLay came out so hardcore on that issue to get his negative news off the front pages and to rally conservatives behind him.

Look, there have been admonishments, indictments, and questions about ethics...shouldn't it be looked into, not avoided? We know what many within the GOP have decided to say about this (save Chris Shays and some others who hold ethics above partisanship), and if they don't decide to change their ways, then we should consider getting them out of power in this country in that chamber.

Plus, if you look at the whole story of the changes made in the 1970s on the filibuster, there were more details to that than what the GOP has sent out in its "talking points." I think that it was smart to reduce the number needed for a filibuster from 66 to 60. Look, if Bush wants his judges approved (all but 10 have been), then nominate more moderate ones, simple.

Dream on. The talking points are already out on that one. Harry Reid says that it's a fundamental responsibility of the government to filibuster judicial nominees and it's the most patriotic thing you can do, as a Congressman. He and Nancy Pelosi went on and on about it. They didn't say WHY it was so patriotic, just dodged that question and kept to their script.

That line of reasoning doesn't make sense...plain and simple. What does make sense is to state that the filibuster is an institution that protects the ability of the minority to have a greater say in the legislative process. The Senate is a deliberative body, and it should be maintained that way. Furthermore, voting for a filibuster just for the sake of a filibuster is misguided and Reid does indeed do that (he's pro-life, but he votes against anti-abortion jurists). A filibuster should be used only when a jurist's views are seen as far too outside of the mainstream and for many of the ten judge nominees at hand, that is the case.

If the minority was supposed to be able to stop a vote, why didn't they just make the voting rules more than a simple majority wins? Perhaps something like 2/3 needed to pass anything?

It Didn't Start With Tom DeLay (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/politics/main690917.shtml)

I think they need to disallow any privately funded trips. Have them do travel like any other government employee including per diem allowances for food and lodging. If it's for official government business, I have no problem with taxpayers paying for the trip under those rules. If it's not for government business, pay for it yourself.

I see that the network spin miesters are hard at work again. They were reporting how the trips that were in question for DeLay were paid for by using the credit card of a registered lobbyist, which is against House rules. Further study shows that the lobbyist in question is an officer of the non-profit group that DeLay said funded the trip, and that house rules allow the lobbyist to use his credit card as he is an officer of the non-profit. Funny how that additional information seemed to have gotten lost in the translations.

Plus, if you look at the whole story of the changes made in the 1970s on the filibuster, there were more details to that than what the GOP has sent out in its "talking points." I think that it was smart to reduce the number needed for a filibuster from 66 to 60. Look, if Bush wants his judges approved (all but 10 have been), then nominate more moderate ones, simple.You miss the point. Many of the majority voted the way they did in the election because they want more conservative judges. I for one and very tired of judicial legislation. It is not in the judicial branch's purview to legislate but they do it all the time.

Bush's nominees deserve an up or down vote. If I were in the Republican leadership, I would hold the Democrats to strict filibuster rules. You want to filibuster? Great. Do it 24/7 because as soon as you give up the floor, we are having a vote on the nominee. Nothing else will get done? Too bad. Quit filibustering. The government will come to a halt. That is probably a good thing.

2A, people voted for their senators because they wanted conservative judges? That's a new one to me. I suppose you didn't see the Washington Post poll that showed 66% of the people opposing a rules change in the Senate on this matter. If the Senate was just meant to reflect popular opinion, then I suppose they shouldn't change the filibuster?

Furthermore, 2A, why don't you stand with the NRA on this issue. They called the filibuster the "greatest aid in the defense of gun rights." Also, if you believe that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote then why did so many Clinton judiical appointees not even receive a committee hearing? Inquiring minds want to know.

And do not confuse activist with liberal. There are plenty of conservative jurists on the bench who take an activist approach to decision-making.

2A, people voted for their senators because they wanted conservative judges? That's a new one to me. They don't teach you who confirms judges in school anymore????

I have a question (that I may have already asked before):


What is the purpose of a filibuster?

It seems to me that an issue goes on the table, members have a set amount of time to plead their case, then you take a vote. Simple. What's the point of dragging it on and on and on and on? That is simply obstruction and shouldn't be allowed in a legislative session - if some lawyer tried that in a courtroom, the judge would hand him his hat.

I can't find a damned thing wrong with any of the stuff mentioned earlier. If I have a complaint about DeLay, it's probably about the money paid to his wife and daughter. Nepotism aside, there's gotta be something that forbids that kind of thing.

But heck - one of the points raised was that associates of DeLay were indicted. WTF? By that measure, Clinton's butt should have been in jail for 6 years by now. A man isn't guilty, or even suspected of guilt, by the company they keep.

Lately, the raising of spurious allegation seems to be the favorite tactic of Democrats, and I'm damned sick of it. As of this moment, they don't actually have to PROVE a damned thing, just so long as they give the appearance of foul play - character assassination is an effective political ploy.

(Quite honestly, tracking a plane where a bunch of state senators illegally bailed out of Dodge to avoid a vote they didn't want ought to warrant expulsion from the Texas legislature).

2A, people voted for their senators because they wanted conservative judges? That's a new one to me. I suppose you didn't see the Washington Post poll that showed 66% of the people opposing a rules change in the Senate on this matter. If the Senate was just meant to reflect popular opinion, then I suppose they shouldn't change the filibuster?

Furthermore, 2A, why don't you stand with the NRA on this issue. They called the filibuster the "greatest aid in the defense of gun rights." Also, if you believe that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote then why did so many Clinton judiical appointees not even receive a committee hearing? Inquiring minds want to know.

And do not confuse activist with liberal. There are plenty of conservative jurists on the bench who take an activist approach to decision-making.There are lots of issues I don't stand with the NRA on. Often their position is too wimpy for me. I prefer the GOA.

I should believe a Washington Post poll? :killingmeIt is one of the most liberal rags in the entire country. I think not.

As for Clinton nominees, two wrongs do not make a right. I don't care if it is a liberal or conservative that is abusing the power of government, it is wrong.

Well, 2A since you throw away the Washington Post's (a paper, despite its left leaning editorial page, has a sterling reputation for journalistic excellence, a major part of which is objectivity of coverage) poll that was conducted by an outside polling organization...here are some others. The Wall Street Journal, a conservative rag, ran a poll that showed opposition to doing away with the filibuster at a margin of 50-40 while Newsweek puts it at 57 to 32.

At least you are consistent, 2A. I, myself, agree with the filibuster no matter who the minority is.

(a paper, despite its left leaning editorial page, has a sterling reputation for journalistic excellence, a major part of which is objectivity of coverage) You are brainwashed. They don't even pretend to be objective - their Ombudsman says so every week, practically. Every single headline - liberal slant. Every single editorial - liberal slant. A good 90% of thier columnists - liberal slant. Their friggin' comics page, for God's sake - liberal slant.

Where are you seeing objectivity?????

Brainwashed? No, I think that blindly accepting the Washington Post as a liberal rag is brainwashed. I see all publications as basically objective...it's when you read the editorial page that it isn't.

Brainwashed? No, I think that blindly accepting the Washington Post as a liberal rag is brainwashed. I see all publications as basically objective...it's when you read the editorial page that it isn't.


...the Post?

Today, front page, Top:

Filibuster Rule Change Opposed: 66% in Poll Reject Senate GOP Plan to Ease Confirmation of Bushs judicial Nominee

Then we read the story, 'a STRONG percentage of AMERICANS oppose changing rules that would make it easier for Bush to get his way.'

Then we read it's a Wash Post/ABC poll.

There's no mention of the word 'filibuster' in the poll question. Now, we can move on to A5, Col 1 for perhaps some more detail goop or we can breeze the front page as the vast majority of people do and accept the FACT that the VAST majority of AMERICANS reject changing the Senate filibuster rules.

So, we also know this is VERY important because it is at the TOP of the FRONT page.

Now, does the poll ask what percetage of these 'Americans' know what the word 'filibuster' means? Does the poll ask how this vast majority of Americans felt about 'filibusters' when the GOP was using them to thwart Clinton?

Who is this VAST majority of Americans who so STRONGLY agree on one arcane issue in this suppossed 'purple' land?

Then Young RR, in dawns on you that the Washington Post, in all their journalistic glory and reporters dogged desire to get out the 'truth' have chosen to give the reader this front page, top, story about....A POLL.

THEIR POLL.

News? Reporting?


Further Front Page Integrity:

DeLay Woes Prompt Rush to Refile Forms; Law makers Fear Ripples Over Ethics

Law makers fear ripple over ethics? What the hell does that mean? Oh, that ethics challenged guy, DeLay, that must be it!

On we go: 'members of Congress are RUSHING to amend their travel and campaign records FEARING that the CONTROVERSY over TOM DESATAN will trigger and ethics WAR that will bring greater scrutiny over their own travel and official activities.'

So there we have MORE FRONT PAGE NEWS! What Tom DeLay DID is SO BAD nobody even wants a whiff of inpropriety to come their way.

Or could it have read 'Fumbing DeLay witch hunt now has Congress at a standstill invloved in a 'Holier Than Thou' race over things they all do that are all legal and all not a very big deal. Members are also trying to brush up on their 'filibuster' knowledge as VAST MAJORITIES OF AMERICANS are entrhalled with the minutiae of Senate rules."

Shall we go to yesterday?

RR, do you think you'd know 'bias', really, if it jumped up and bit you in the azz?

I think that if you look at a publication without a predisposition towards an opinion, you won't come out with that sort of conclusion.

You can find proof in the Washington Post to prove or disprove anything.

I think that if you look at a publication without a predisposition towards an opinion, you won't come out with that sort of conclusion.

You can find proof in the Washington Post to prove or disprove anything.

As one of your professors entrusted with your development, I am not about to let you off with that sort of lame, ham handed dreck.

Someone said:

I see all publications as basically objective...it's when you read the editorial page that it isn't.

Well, my examples are NOT the editorial page. You want to tell me that the person(s) who crafted those stories and those who approved them and those like them, day after day, wanna tell me they don't have a dog in the race?

The DeLay story doesn't fit with your argument...Capitol Hill is covering their tracks...they did a piece on InsidePolitics about it.

As for the poll...66% seems to me that a vast majority oppose ending the filibuster. What's wrong with saying that? Plus, this is the biggest political event in the nation right now, it should be in the upper right hand corner of the paper.

The Post is known for its political coverage and that shows just why it holds such prestige. It actually covers it.

Let me see...hmmm...OK. Here, let's try this:

The DeLay story doesn't fit with your argument

What IS my argument in regards to DeLay?



Next:

As for the poll...66% seems to me that a vast majority oppose ending the filibuster.

And why, do you suppose, they oppose? Did they feel the same way 7 years ago? What changed their mind?

Go hang out in "Chit Chat' (the equivalent of a Post/ABC group) and ask what 'filibuster' means. Condict a poll.



Plus, this is the biggest political event in the nation right now

Yes, yes, dinner tables across American (at least according to a Post/ABC poll) are abuzz with the great 'filibuster' debate.

Not Social Security? Not Iraq? Not MJ? Not the cool spring that gave DC the greatest Cherry Blossoms in recent memory? Not all these kids dissapearing here lately? Filibuster???

If I was Catholic I'd crack your knuckles with my ruler.

Plus, if you look at the whole story of the changes made in the 1970s on the filibuster, there were more details to that than what the GOP has sent out in its "talking points." I think that it was smart to reduce the number needed for a filibuster from 66 to 60. Look, if Bush wants his judges approved (all but 10 have been), then nominate more moderate ones, simple.

It was better to move to 60 from 66? That number was just because its what they needed. How is that different?

It was better to move to 60 from 66? That number was just because its what they needed. How is that different?


Professor Texas has arrived!

I see all publications as basically objective...it's when you read the editorial page that it isn't.:killingme

Professor Texas has arrived!

I'm just wondering how Byrd's preferred majority rule in the 70s is so different than now, or the Democrats cries of straight up or down votes being the democratic way during the Clinton years for nominees, or what about when it was okay to block the fillibuster because it was for civil rights legislation, or why 66 is better than 60 or 51 by the Constitution, or heck, what exactly leads to interpretation of "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" can be interpreted to be more than a majority vote or a 66 vote or a 60 vote; or why all of this is such a historical disaster over any other political move of the past 200+ years?

Am I wondering too much?

I'm just wondering how Byrd's preferred majority rule in the 70s is so different than now, or the Democrats cries of straight up or down votes being the democratic way during the Clinton years for nominees, or what about when it was okay to block the fillibuster because it was for civil rights legislation, or why 66 is better than 60 or 51 by the Constitution, or heck, what exactly leads to interpretation of "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" can be interpreted to be more than a majority vote or a 66 vote or a 60 vote; or why all of this is such a historical disaster over any other political move of the past 200+ years?

Am I wondering too much?


...you're not wondering too much.

the judiciary, with it's life time appointments, is THE modern battleground for the wings of both parties. It becomes more acute on the left with the fact that more often than not, in the modern era, the President is most likely going to be a Republican.

As you know this all began with Bork. After the war over his nomination, which never got a Senate vote BTW, the left started screaming 'you must send us judges we can ALL agree on'.

Now, that's not what the Constitution says but it sounds good. Pressed further, they wanted people with American Bar Association ratings of such a number or better signifying that if the Bar liked them then they'd be more broadly agreeable. There were also other group signings off they offered as evidence of an acceptable candidate.

Well, the what, 10 or so, Bush nominees who have not gotten their vote, including several women and minorities, ALL of them have sterling reputations and pass with flying colors all of the 'compromise' requirements the left has launched.

So now it's all personal and it's all playing to extremists on the left. These nominees are acceptable by just about everyone.

Frist should pull the trigger and toss the filibuster option on Judicial nominees. There is a Constitutional allowance for 'advice and consent' of the Senate which is expressed through a vote. The Constitution does not lay out a Super Majority requirement in the nomination of judges.

Simple.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601295.html


...is this a step in the right direction?

Their friggin' comics page, for God's sake - liberal slant.
The Post recently added "Prickly City" as a sop to conservatives. To my knowledge, this strip and "Mallard Fillmore" (which is not in the Post) are the only two right-leaning comic strips. Problem is, these comics are just not funny or clever. Their tone is very indignant and self-righteous, almost like conservative versions of Michael Moore.

On the left, "Boondocks" has the same problem these days. This comic started out with some good gags but quickly descended into stridency.

Vrai, other than "Doonesbury," what comics do you see as lefty? "Opus" and "Non Sequiter" make jokes about GWB, but I see these both as somewhat neutral politically. "Non Sequiter" makes some great observations about political correctness and modern litigiousness. Now, if the cartoonist would just get rid of Danae's damn pony...

Now, if the cartoonist would just get rid of Danae's damn pony...A comics reader! :huggy:

Doonesbury, in particular, incited my wrath when Alex was going to join the Army because he compared military service with having your kid do drugs, get pregnant and get a bunch of tattoos. He toned that storyline down after he got 6 bazillion objections from people like yours truly.

Boondocks is the be-all-end-all but they all have gone lib at one time or another. Even Cathy has taken the opportunity to bust on Bush's Social Security plan.

Prickly City isn't a conservative comic - they alternate back and forth. But they are the most fair in that they will actually present the conservative argument in a positive light.

It's just reinforcement, that's all. Mallard Fillmore is much funnier than either Garfield or Family Circus, but notice the Post doesn't carry it? The message throughout the whole WashPost is that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. How anyone can fail to see that is beyond me.

Mallard Fillmore is much funnier than either Garfield or Family Circus, but notice the Post doesn't carry it? The message throughout the whole WashPost is that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. How anyone can fail to see that is beyond me.
Good point about Garfield and Family Circus. Family Circus used to be funnier and more true-to-life, with the kids actually getting angry at each other. Now the comic is the dead-tree version of glurge. I thnk the dead-grandparents stuff comes across as creepy. Liberty Meadows once compared it to The Sixth Sense.

If the Post was really interested in balance, it would pick up Fillmore and run all the political comics in a special box in the comics or on the editorial page.

As for the poll...66% seems to me that a vast majority oppose ending the filibuster. 66% of whom? What was the sample? Downtown Washingtonians and New Yorkers? Did anyone ask someone from Frederick? How about Leonardtown? Atlanta? Birmingham, AL? Nome, AK? It makes a big difference.

66% of whom? What was the sample? Downtown Washingtonians and New Yorkers? Did anyone ask someone from Frederick? How about Leonardtown? Atlanta? Birmingham, AL? Nome, AK? It makes a big difference.

And more importanly... what was the question? 42 is just the answer. *Sorry, 42 is a reference to something I will be seeing Friday that I am so happy someone made a movie to*

If the Post was really interested in balanceYeah, well......

I'm still waiting for some pro-filibuster person to come on and tell me why this is such a great and patriotic thing and what it accomplishes other than to obstruct the legislative process.

I'm still waiting for some pro-filibuster person to come on and tell me why this is such a great and patriotic thing and what it accomplishes other than to obstruct the legislative process.
Before our time, Southern segregationists like Ol' Strom used the filibuster to prevent Congress from enacting civil rights legislation. Can you imagine if C-SPAN had been around in 1957?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html

Before our time, Southern segregationists like Ol' Strom used the filibuster to prevent Congress from enacting civil rights legislation. But what's the point? Speak your piece, then take the damn vote.

Congressmen are supposed to be there to represent us, not futz around with stupid crap like this. Their Congressional votes are supposed to reflect the best interests of their state and the people who elected them. It's annoying when Senators and Representatives get to Washington and start goofing around with party politics instead of doing their damn job - the job WE pay them for.

And Democrats are THE WORST offenders. Tom Daschle - great example of someone who got so caught up in party bullcrap rather than the will of his constituents that he got his walking papers in the next election. And then they have the nerve to bawl and pule about how Republicans should have to respect the minority party and meet them halfway - Hello, boneheads??? If we wanted it your way, you wouldn't be the minority party!!!

But what's the point? Speak your piece, then take the damn vote.

Congressmen are supposed to be there to represent us, not futz around with stupid crap like this. Their Congressional votes are supposed to reflect the best interests of their state and the people who elected them. It's annoying when Senators and Representatives get to Washington and start goofing around with party politics instead of doing their damn job - the job WE pay them for.

Exactly. The filibuster is just an obstructionist maneuver.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601295.html


...is this a step in the right direction?
Absolutely, Speaker Hastert deserves some congrats on that.

Let's hope that the GOP and the Democratic Party never decide to circumvent the ethics process again.

I agree that the filibuster is an obstructionist tactic, but obstruction is the name of governmental action in America. The House's purpose is to represent the people to a t, the Senate's purpose is to be deliberative. The sixty-vote cloture motion should necessitate that members compromise and find real solutions rather than advance bankrupt political ideologies.

Sure, the majority rules...but that majority must act moderately and the filibuster ensures that.

Absolutely, Speaker Hastert deserves some congrats on that.

Let's hope that the GOP and the Democratic Party never decide to circumvent the ethics process again.

I agree that the filibuster is an obstructionist tactic, but obstruction is the name of governmental action in America. The House's purpose is to represent the people to a t, the Senate's purpose is to be deliberative. The sixty-vote cloture motion should necessitate that members compromise and find real solutions rather than advance bankrupt political ideologies.

Sure, the majority rules...but that majority must act moderately and the filibuster ensures that.

Wrong. There is no need for a fillibuster since the already existing Constitutional framework sees that representation of the whole already exists... especially in legislation.

The Senate gives every state equal representation in one house. The Representative gives population representation (of a sort). The president may veto. Neither house can pass any legislation without both houses and the approval of the President (unless they have a super majority to override). Add in judicial review, executive power of the purse, mandated input from any interested party in all legislation (i.e. public hearings, etc...), concept of federalism, etc.... and all bases are covered to represent all groups. The framers of the Constitution were... genius!

The fillibuster is a tactic to delay until the wind blows your way.