I'm wondering what planet Lou Dobbs has been on for the past 18 months.
Apparently Dobbs missed the widely reported fact that Obama was playing both sides of the Park 51 issue, but it's expected that he would make comments about the suit against the Arizona immigration law because, after all, this is Lou Dobbs we're talking about.
But let's not forget that this isn't a new line of attack from the conservative movement.
I'm guessing that this will pick up a little more steam as the elections draw closer. Pretty soon we'll be treated to ads from conservative candidates that connect Obama to everything from the Monica Lewinsky affair all the way to Laura Ingraham's and Sarah Palin's Fox"News" programs being a complete disaster.
A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
Showing posts with label Village Voice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Village Voice. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Majority Is The New Minority
At least when it comes to the United State Senate.
I've never read the Village Voice, and now I know why. Apparently they see Brown's win last night as not only transformational in the political sense but in the numerical sense, as their title for the linked article references a 41 Seat Majority for Republicans.
And while the article isn't too terribly written, the premise laid out in the title suggests that Republicans can have more power than Democrats no matter how many asses they have in seats in the Senate.
But just think about this - during the Bush administration, there wasn't a super-majority amongst Republican members of the Senate and that clown got EVERYTHING he wanted. Why is that? Is there some irrational fear that Senate Dems have when it comes to the legislative process? I hardly think so, but there is certainly a procedural clusterfuck that happens with every Senate action that largely favors the Republicans. That's why I say it should be a majority vote, no filibuster, no cloture vote, no excessive "debate" ( read: obstructionist tactics based on parliamentary procedure ) and just a series of 10 minute speeches with a final vote.
I've never read the Village Voice, and now I know why. Apparently they see Brown's win last night as not only transformational in the political sense but in the numerical sense, as their title for the linked article references a 41 Seat Majority for Republicans.
The election of Republican Scott Brown to replace the deceased Ted Kennedy in the Senate from Massachusetts yesterday destroys the Democrats' 60-vote super majority, widely presumed to be needed for passage of a health care bill, or so it would seem from headlines ("House Dems largely reject idea of passing Senate health care bill"), from Republicans who cheered "41!" at Brown's victory as if it were some kind of milestone, and from conservative Democrats like Evan Bayh, who portrays the election as a "wake-up call," indicating that Democrats should propose a weaker health care bill that will not piss off insurance lobbyists and other powerful Republican constituencies.
And while the article isn't too terribly written, the premise laid out in the title suggests that Republicans can have more power than Democrats no matter how many asses they have in seats in the Senate.
But just think about this - during the Bush administration, there wasn't a super-majority amongst Republican members of the Senate and that clown got EVERYTHING he wanted. Why is that? Is there some irrational fear that Senate Dems have when it comes to the legislative process? I hardly think so, but there is certainly a procedural clusterfuck that happens with every Senate action that largely favors the Republicans. That's why I say it should be a majority vote, no filibuster, no cloture vote, no excessive "debate" ( read: obstructionist tactics based on parliamentary procedure ) and just a series of 10 minute speeches with a final vote.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
As Read By Bill O'Reilly
I can't stop laughing
If you cringed when you first heard about the conversations that Andrea Mackris had allegedly taped when o'Reilly was "talking sexy" to her on the phone, you'll love these.
If you cringed when you first heard about the conversations that Andrea Mackris had allegedly taped when o'Reilly was "talking sexy" to her on the phone, you'll love these.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)