CBS's Cordes Suggests No 'Remarkable Pieces of Legislation' Because of Uncompromising Tea Party
During a roundtable discussion on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday, after asserting that in past years divided government had "produced some really remarkable pieces of legislation," correspondent Nancy Cordes blamed the presence of Tea Party Republicans for less congressional success in enacting legislation this year. (Video below)
Anchor Bob Schieffer raised the difficulty Congress has had in 2011 in making accomplishments, prompting Cordes to observe:
I think what we learned this year is that divided government, which in the past has produced some really remarkable pieces of legislation, doesn't produce the same kind of results when you have two parties that are so far apart the way that these two are right now.
After noting that, in the past, Congress had been able to procrastinate before advancing critical legislation, she continued:
It's worked in the past, but it doesn't work anymore because you have a new crop of Tea Party House Republicans who have no interest in political expediency. That's not what they ran on. They're not just going to get along. When they don't like a piece of legislation, they don't mind if it makes them look bad in the short-term. They're going to stand on the ground.
Below are video and a transcript of the relevant exchange from the Sunday, December 25, Face the Nation on CBS:
BOB SCHIEFFER: In this country, of course, Nancy, and John Dickerson, it was all about the Congress and what the Congress didn't do. I laughed one day and said, you know, it's a good thing Congress hasn't done anything this year because if they had, we wouldn't have any place to put it with all the other news that we had otherwise. But it was quite a year up there on the Hill, wasn't it?
NANCY CORDES: It was, and I think what we learned this year is that divided government, which in the past has produced some really remarkable pieces of legislation, doesn't produce the same kind of results when you have two parties that are so far apart the way that these two are right now. And, you know, the modus operandi on the Hill for so many years has been to leave legislation till the last minute, funding the government, this payroll tax cut.
It's worked in the past, but it doesn't work anymore because you have a new crop of Tea Party House Republicans who have no interest in political expediency. That's not what they ran on. They're not just going to get along. When they don't like a piece of legislation, they don't mind if it makes them look bad in the short-term. They're going to stand on the ground.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Considering some of the
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 3:21pm.
Considering some of the 'remarkable pieces of legislation' that we have had imposed on us by the Obama REGIME, I'd have to say that this is probably a 'win'.................although I'll be a lot happier when some of that 'remarkable legiclastion' is REPEALED!!
Gridlock is the best result!
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 8:04pm.
Every man's freedom, property and life are at risk while congress is in session. - A loose translation of a Mark Twain statement.
I've always been a fan of
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 9:14pm.
I've always been a fan of gridlock - Washington DC style - and you should see the look on some of my lib acquaintances when I say that!!! I'm also a big fan of Mark Twain, who runs somewhere in my family tree.........on my father's side. Actually, my Dad looked a lot like ol' Sam himself!!!
"It's worked in the past, but
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 3:28pm.
"It's worked in the past, but it doesn't work anymore because you have a new crop of Tea Party House Republicans who have no interest in political expediency. That's not what they ran on. They're not just going to get along. When they don't like a piece of legislation, they don't mind if it makes them look bad in the short-term. They're going to stand on the ground."
That's why we elected them you simpering twit. We were hoping that the days of "political expediency" would become a thing of the past and that principled Conservatives would finally stand up for ACTUAL Conservative values.
We had hoped that the days of the "gang of 14" and the other Republican "mavericks", ever eager to stab their party in the back in the name of "getting along" and "bi-partisanship" would finally fall to the way side. So if your bitching that this is what is happening then I say ......its about freaking time.
ThePickle
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 4:52pm.
Exactly - Captain obvious, she is NOT!!! She isn't even self aware enough to note that if it was the D's digging in against the R's, they'd all be falling over themselves to pat the D's on the back for "standing on principle" - as if they truly had any we mere mortals could discern!
Hey, the D's are *just* like OWS!!! Can't make head nor tails out of what they want either!!! And trust me, I really tried - I wasn't about to tar them like they did the YP!!!
Ronald Reagan
Personally, I think there's a
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 5:52pm.
Personally, I think there's a place for finding common ground and a place for compromise. But I would never turn "political expediency" into a good thing. "Political expediency" is a euphemism for "selling out"
Compromise is situational
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 5:01pm.
The so-called Tea Party politicians got elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility. Their compromise is "If you want to spend $100 million on A, you have to reduce spending elsewhere by $100 million."
To the Left, compromise is "I want to spend $100 million, you want to spend no $$$, so we spend $50 million."
And that's how we got to a $15 TRILLION national debt. We are still borrowing money to pay the interest on money we've already borrowed and spent, and the Democrats and the MSM echo chamber insist that the problem in the Congress is a group of GOP members who are trying to prevent them borrowing and spending more.
Fortunately, the American taxpayers are coming to the realization that the common ground that must be reached is a balanced budget and reducing the national debt.
Long past time to shrink the minions of sucking bureaucrats.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:02pm.
What part of growing cancer is good?
EDITED TO ADD LINK, Feds VS Private... chart: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/~/media/Images/Reports/...
Stopping gov. growth is one thing , but to actually shrink the size of bureaucrats total income, and control that I would like to see.
Maybe with the '12 surge of Taxed Enough Already politicians, we will finally see a smaller gov.
That would make a great gift to... WE THE PEOPLE, well maybe next year, by Christmas?
A headline I'd like to see:
Bureaucrat unemployment levels reach 20%, levels not seen since the 30's.
100 bucks a barrel, is a formula for O'stagflation , for ever, and ever.
You Didn't Build That.
Barack Obama's Presidency Condensed
Submitted by Retired Geek on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 3:53pm.
America's greatest peril isn't the mobs on the streets of Manhattan; it's having a President who thinks he's above the law. It's a President who advocates and supports Class Warfare and Racial Strife.
View my on-going Series on Barack Obama's Presidency Condensed.
http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/2011/12/americas-greatest-peril-isnt-mobs...
The same holds true for
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 4:25pm.
The same holds true for Holder who thinks he is above the law. Did you know that all the attorneys in the Dept of Injustice Civli Rights Div are progressive Commucrats? No wonder they are going after Sheriff Joe and the voter ID laws in the states.
And here I thought
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 3:54pm.
I thought Obambo's occupy group was the only thing that mattered. I guess the three occupiers that showed up locally didn't a crowd make ... and they were carried on all three local news channels the day before Christmas, LOL
fool
Submitted by Curly on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 3:57pm.
She's a fool. Who cares? Tea Party should NEVER cave to the leftists - but ol' Bonehead Boehner aka Rodney King - can't we just get along? NO!
The US Army defines
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 4:22pm.
The US Army defines compromise as surrender. No more surrendering.
Then thank God the US Army isn't running the country.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 4:39pm.
The Constitution was written and ratified because of a willingness to compromise, and our republic has functioned and functioned well for over 200 years because wise men and women have recognized its indispensability for effective governance.
Jer
Compromise????
Submitted by wingnut55 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 4:50pm.
Well, Jer what kind of compromise are you referring too. The kind our government did in the past where the Republicans did what the Democrats wanted, or true compromise where each side gives in a little. It seems to me that the reason not much gets done is that the Democrats don't want to give in at all. The day true compromise happens in the government will be a red letter day for all of us.
Guess which def is the Dems??
Submitted by milootoole on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 8:37pm.
com·pro·mise [kom-pruh-mahyz] Show IPA noun, verb, -mised, -mis·ing. noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.
4. an endangering, especially of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one's integrity.
You cant compromise what you dont have
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:07pm.
We are broke folks, so any additional spending should be thwarted, no question. Responsible lawmakers (witch are in short supply) should be racing to responsibly cut spending significantly.
Fact is, our Congress looks no further then their chances of re-election. The state of the Union has no bearing on any decisions they make. The current fiasco up on the hill is a perfect example.
Take a refresher course in
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 5:29pm.
Take a refresher course in history, Jer. The Constitution came about as a result of agreement -- after debates. Not compromise. The delegates were originally going to simply modify the Articles of Confederation, but soon agreed to completely write a new Constitution. Throughout the process, many tough issues were met head on and finally agreed to after much debate. There was little compromise involved at all. Even the issue of 3/5 apportioning to slaves wasn't a compromise in the Constitution -- instead, that was a compromise agreed to years earlier, and simply added to the Constitution.
There was only one "Great Compromise" in the constitution -- and that was the proportional representation of the House vs. the two Senators for each state.
You're simply parroting a favorite Dim soundbite that is historically inaccurate. There is no "great compromise" possible between a socialist government who wants to redistribute our money, and the capitalist form of government we have now. But that's what the dims would want us to belive.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
News Flash: TnT rewrites history, the Constitutional Convention,
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:33pm.
and lectures authors of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay: "You idiots are full of crap."
...This ambiguity makes the Federalist a genuine equivalent of the Constitution it interprets. In Philadelphia, Madison stated that the Convention was not confronted with "two extremes," namely, " a perfect separation and a perfect incorporation of the thirteen States." The same can be said of the authors of the Federalist. In this work Hamilton, who appears definitely as the greater nationalist, declares himself to be as little in favor of a perfect incorporation of the thirteen states as Madison, the champion of states' rights, is of a perfect separation of the states. The Constitution being a "bundle of compromises," it seems only natural if its classic commentary, the Federalist, refrains from committing itself on the nature of that law's greatest compromise, the Union. In the last number of the Federalist there can be found a reaffirmation of the idea that the Constitution is a compromise and that there is no clear-cut answer to the nature of the Union it establishes. As if he wanted to assure both the nationalists and the advocates of states' rights alike that the Constitution and its Union offered some common ground for them to meet, Hamilton states that "the compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and union, must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations.
source.
You know, TnT, I've been wondering what I should do with the box of my old Early American History college textbooks and course materials. But, I think they've found a new home where there seems to be a desperate need. Please treat them with respect. Don't doodle in the margins like I did.
Jer
What's one of the primary
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 7:48pm.
What's one of the primary goals of liberals, Jer (not necessarily you, just liberals in general)? It's to get us to disparage the Constitution. And the way they do that is to try to convince us that "it's just a bunch of compromises, no real convictions" and because of that "it really doesn't speak to us -- our founders meant for it to be a living document, so we can interpret it any way we want to meet current circumstances". That way, they can reduce its importance to our country and way of life.
Well, first of all -- it isn't a "bunch of compromises". Debate -- followed by decisions -- isn't compromise. The constitutional convention didn't occur just so our founders could write a good compromise document. Instead, there was a lot of debate, and a lot of decisions made. And the result was the best form of government this world has seen, documented in a small document called the Constitution.
So if you are still wondering what to do with all your books and stuff, I suggest an objective reading. Hopefully your margin doodling was more than simply referencing dim talking points.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Let us not pretend the
Submitted by ant on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 6:38am.
Let us not pretend the Marxist fools of today, like Pelosi or Barack, are anywhere near the caliber of the Founding Fathers, whether they completely agreed with one another or not. No one in Congress today could have put together the Nation that was formed over 230 years ago. And it doesn't change the fact that Cordes' belief, like so many others, that America demands constant legislation, is seriously flawed.
Okay...I won't pretend they approach the calibre of the Founding
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:34pm.
Fathers. But let's not pretend that Pelosi and Obama--merely by embracing a political philosophy different from yours--are either Marxists or fools.
Jer
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:45pm.
The political philosophy they are embracing and are married to is marxism. They put lipstick on a pig, kissed it passionately and married it.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:21pm.
No it's not. They haven't courted it, much less married it. The label is tossed around so carelessly and casually and attached to so much so often that it loses all meaning. If you resided in a true marxist state, you would quickly realize that it bears as much resemblance to our society and system of governance as lightning does to a lightning bug. [h/t Mark Twain]
Jer
Now it does, but wait
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:43pm.
Till we take-over a few energy Co., a few more Financial institutions, another Auto maker, put a few more restrictions on privet property, fully take over the medical fields and the education fields, continue the twisting of truth via (propaganda institutions) media.
All of these are currently in progress, the Reg's and Legislation were written to ensure Health care is single payer, so that the economy cant recover, so the Fed can swallow those to big to fail. A new death tax will ensure the Fed gets your property when you pass. And over regulation ensures when you complete all the hoops, they can find a technicality to force you into the system.
Lets not forget, Socialism isnt for the socialist, it's for the rest of us.
Bit of an overreach
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 3:11pm.
Couple of points from a Canadian eh.
1) We've had a single payer health care system for decades, and guess what, the Candian financial system is better off than the US.. Oh and in case you want to start in on wait times..my wife recently broke her wrist..it took exactly 50 minutes to have the cast on.
2)Death Tax? I don't think so. I have an iron clad will that sez the family gets everything.
Overreach much?
Really?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 3:54pm.
A broke wrist and a Will. Wow, then that settles it. Jeez
please ignore
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:00pm.
The entire medical business structure that exist along the border with Canada and in popular tourist areas to treat Canadians who are just too stupid to take advantage to the second greatest healthcare system in the world - first is Cuba.
Apparently, some folks didn't get the message...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:17pm.
The administration dumped the single-payer plan and embraced the essential structure of a market-based model along the lines proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, including an individual mandate championed by the Republicans in the 90's. Jettisoning single-payer is one reason a significant number of libs weren't particularly enamored of the Health Reform bill eventually enacted. Of course, buzzwords like "government" and "regulation" automatically make it Marxist.
Jer
jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:27pm.
I responded to the Marxist comment elsewhere on this thread. This was a reply to the correlation between implementing a national healthcare system in the US as compared to already existing system in Canada - see below for further explanation.
If ObamaCare is market based then Islam is truly a religion of peace.
I know, Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:42pm.
and my closing comment was a general observation rather than one specifically addressed to you. That said, I still disagree with your view espoused earlier that the difference in Obama's ideology and Marxism is merely semantic.
The Health Reform Act is market-based, just as our economy is market-based. Each is regulated however, the former more so than the latter.
Jer
I don't see how you can say
Submitted by ant on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:49pm.
I don't see how you can say Obamacare is market-based with a straight face. For one thing, there is no penalty awaiting me if I refuse to buy stock in Microsoft or purchase a can of Pepsi.
ant...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 5:31pm.
My face is perfectly perpendicular to my desk, the surface of which is exactly 180 degrees. Please see response to Agnostic below, with links.
Jer
sure Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:58pm.
yes, I know just some regulation. Mixed economy. Free enterprise doesn't work without regulation. Blah, blah, blah. I've heard it a thousand times so I hope you don't mind the condensed version of a response.
Yes we are mixed economy because Americans believe there needs to be certain powers granted to the government to allow for social nets and programs of specific aide. Does this mean that we are a socialist nation? No. So, it is a matter of percentages and we could debate any actual numbers until the cows came home and get nowhere.
Calling something that is 40% market and 60% government the same as economy which is approximately 30% government (can be lower depending upon how much you contribute the multiplier effect and the effects of government spending) and 70% market.
The medical field is already regulated to the point where medical institutions no longer work for the patients but for the government and now we are going to add more. And yes I have worked in non-profit, for profit and medical support facilities. It is obvious in every finance meeting who we really working for.
Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 5:34pm.
This 2003 proposal wasn't a perfect paradigm for the eventual legislation--and the Heritage Foundation has since hopped on the anti-Obamacare bandwagon--but still the comparative similarities are undeniable.
Here's an interesting lib perspective on the issue:
Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans — or at least large numbers of them — should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.
Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers. The plan before Congress does not call for a government “takeover” of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance.
Republicans always say they are against “socialized medicine.” Not only is this bill nothing like a “single-payer” health system along Canadian or British lines. It doesn’t even include the “public option” that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government. The single-payer idea fell by the wayside long ago, and supporters of the public option — sadly, from my point of view — lost out last December.
Jer
What a joke,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 6:09pm.
Since about 70% of Americans are against it, this is simply gibberish!
Get your numbers straight, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 6:48pm.
The percentage opposing it is in the 50-55% range. And probably 7-9% of that figure represents libs who oppose it because it lacks a public option.
Jer
Folks oppose it for many reasons
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 9:03pm.
But mostly because it's a liberty stealing piece of legislation. But when the votes are counted, my numbers hold up just fine.
In spite of Obama’s multi-million dollar PR efforts, CNN polls found support and opposition for Obamacare basically unchanged at its one-year anniversary and again in June 2011.
Sorry, but this Mac is giving me fits today, spent the last hour trying to provide links and info, but this piece of crap aint having it
I've been have lots of problems with Firefox, lately...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 9:52pm.
browser not responding, pages not loading, etc. Pain in the butt.
Jer
single payer
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:49am.
It is not a great leap into socialized medicine or single payer or the utopian dream of agrarian societies were no one gets sick because of the magnificence of the commune state. But your statement does demonstrate why I am not a registered Republican - that and comments like GW Bush made - We have to abandon the free market to save the free market.
So you are trying to convince me that this incremental step towards an ultimate goal that is full of pork, vote buying agreements, regulations, penalties, Allah only knows how many new government departments and the potential for a plethora of unintended consequences is somehow a free market boon because it increases the field of customers into a system that is controlled to the point where profit will be almost impossible without lowering the standards or committing fraud. It may be propped up in the style of market and competition but it is standard Congressional stranglehold mentality at its core with regulations coming from every direction (fiscal, medical, pharmacological, patient care, patient mix percentages, SNIFF requirements, Critical Care eligibility, reimbursement limitations on Quality of Life treatments, etc...)
You can believe this or not I have no way of proving it to be true: In my last meeting with the Controller we spent 20 minutes on general budget line item hot points, 30 minutes on how those numbers and others related to our Medicare/Medicaid requirements and 10 minutes on whether we would have enough money to improve existing care and patient environment. This scenario has changed little in the last 4-5 years. The medical community already views the government as their employer in many ways. With the exception of specialty hospitals (usually Children's or Cancer) most rely on Medicare/Medicaid to keep their doors open. Not that they really need Medicare/Medicaid to operate but because of the regulations for reimbursement through Medicare/Medicaid the control of the percentage of patient population and the mix of types of patients makes it where most hospitals have to choose between turning away all Medicare/Medicaid patients or working for the government.
Very funny,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:48pm.
Wow, guess all these new folks on the Roles wont be a problem then. Guess when the Health Insurers are regulated out of existence we will just chalk it up to more unintended consequences right, I mean it is unintended? But at least it will be cheaper, right? Plus the additional bonus is, Obama care will not allow for future Privet Hospitals or Clinics to open, while trying to bankrupt the existing ones. Oh, and I doubt the fact that many medical professionals will be leaving the field altogether will have much effect either.
Hey, but it free, right?
Your characterization of the
Submitted by ThePickle on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 5:26pm.
Your characterization of the Heritage Foundations stance on the individual mandate to be that Republicans 'championed an individual mandate in the 90's' is far from accurate. In 1993, for example, Heritage’s Stuart Butler testified before Congress in support of a new, “more rational” social contract under which government would provide greater assistance to those lacking health care in return for greater individual responsibility.
"This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan — one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage."
But, as you are no doubt aware, as a result of Federal and State mandates as to what MUST be covered by health care insurance offered for sale, the very idea that someone would even be able to find a policy that could be truly described as "basic health plan" is, for the most part, impossible.
In order to implement the type of health care program envisioned by the Heritage Foundation it would require that literally decades of both State and Federal legislation be repealed and if you are indeed attempting to characterize this plan as if it were a mirror to the Obama administrations plan you are simply being intellectually dishonest.
Ok, deflect if you want.
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:00pm.
Just saying that a single payer system doesn't mean the end of life as we know it..but you can wallow in your own delusions if you like.
Mandrake,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:13pm.
In all fairness you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately we are not a point along the timeline in American History where we can afford such luxuries. We can't afford our current social nets.
At least Canada will not be hurt because you will still be able to trade with China, Russia and the EU as the US continues to rack up debt. Canada has the tenth largest economy in the world with a GDP of about $1.8 trillion.
The US estimated 2011 deficit is about 1.6 Trillion - for 2011 alone. (actually I thought I remember reading that this had been revised down but I don't remember the final number)
As of February the combination of public and intragovernment debt stood at over $14 Trillion
Now is not the best time to be figuring out how to spend more. Even if all the predictions are true (not that I do but....) cost would go down in the long run - we don't have the money to implement this program now.
Good freakin grief,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:17pm.
Hey Mandrake, when the medical field in Canada is making significant inroads on serious heath issues, like the Privet sector is here in the States, then we will talk. But right now, how about you guys concentrate on acquiring as many MRI machines as the po-dunk State of Louisiana has.
Also while I am at it, when your Iron clad Will comes up for review, and the Fed decides that you love ones should pay tax on those belongings you awarded them, what do you think will happen to the Family business or Farm? But I have every confidence you have that all figured out.
So you're a 1%? Maybe your
Submitted by ant on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:05pm.
So you're a 1%? Maybe your fellow Canadians at Adbusters can fan some flames outside your house, instead of encouraging rebellious gatherings of useful idiots in ours.
If Americans wanted advice from other countries on how to run our business, we'd all still be resideing on the other side of the Atlantic. Next you'll be telling us it's cool to put people on trial for offending islam.
I'm trying to have lunch already
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:14pm.
Stop putting words in my mouth..it's full enough already!
Pelosi no Marxist
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:48pm.
I don't think Pelosi is a Marxist. Like many politicians she is self-centered and thinks she is entitled to those occasional 'bonuses' that her position affords her but in her heart she is not a Marxist. However, she does seem to be the type that would enjoy the perks that come from being a party member.
If Obama is not a Marxist it is only because of semantics. His words (speeches, books and responses to questions) and actions at best allow that he believes that some sort of free enterprise could be allowed to survive only as long as it is sufficiently controlled.
And when certain Democrat
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 5:24pm.
And when certain Democrat members of Congress stop redefining "compromise" as 'do it our way or not at all' it might convince some of us to begin to 'hope' that their are actually serious about trying to govern in a truly bi-partisan manner.
Until such time as people like President "I Won" Obama and Congresswoman Nancy "You have to pass the bill to find out whats in the bill" Pelosi and the thoroughly contemptuous Harry Reid are once and for all given the boot by We The People, I will continue to support a philosophy of complete and utter obstruction to any and all legislation that begins with the premise that assumes a necessity to either, tax more, or regulate more, or ban more as a given, and the only thing the Democrats are willing to discuss is the manner in which these things will come to pass.
To break it down I have absolutely no issue with being the "Party of No" because to be honest I am about one political step away from throwing my support behind renaming the Tea Party as the Party of " Go @&%# Yourself".
(That last bit was not was not directed at you personally but at the Democrat Party in General)
Correct, to the dimwits
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:17pm.
Compromise means, let us spend more money to buy the votes from the unproductive. Our Constitution explicitly forbids this. Does anyone here honestly believe any of the legislation that has been passed sine the dimwits took Congress was for the betterment of the Union? If so, I would love to hear the reasoning.
Big difference
Submitted by pbthinker on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:17am.
There's a big difference between what happened last week and a compromise. A comprimise would have happened in a conference committee, not with Reid sending a bill back to the House and saying that's it. There is no compromising with the Democrats, either they win or you lose and there's nothing in between.
Nope, nope, nope......
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 4:54pm.
It could never be because the Dems who got shellacked on 11/2/2010 refused to compromise on the many bills the 100%, newly elected House sent over........nope, that couldnt be it ;o)
Has this stupid woman ever
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 5:01pm.
Has this stupid woman ever reported on the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and their 75 members? They are self-declared socialists, whose goal is to destroy America.
Keith Ellison is co-chair. Between 1992 and 2000, Ellison failed to pay all or part of his income taxes in five separate years. Consequently, the IRS placed liens on his home and he eventually was forced to pay some $25,000 in back taxes. Ellison also ignored fines that he had incurred for parking tickets and moving violations so numerous that his driver's license was suspended multiple times. In 2006, Ellison ran for Congress and was fined for willful violation of Minnesota's campaign-finance-reporting law and was sued twice by the state attorney general. Shortly after being elected, on June 28, 2007, Ellison co-sponsored Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bill to impeach Republican Vice President Dick Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors"; the bill charged that Cheney had “purposefully manipulated [pre-Iraq War] intelligence” and had “fabricated a threat of weapons of mass destruction.” Other co-sponsors included William Lacy Clay, Jan Schakowsky, Yvette Clarke, Hank Johnson, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, and Maxine Waters -- all members of the CPC.
I bring this up because there is a lot of anti-American behavior within the CPC that should be brought to light by the MSM. But the MSM ignores this, and falsely attacks the Tea Party -- who are true patriots -- instead.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
If these "journalists". . .
Submitted by rick.bren on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 5:35pm.
. . . took a moment to study some of the writings of the Founding Fathers, they would find that what they are describing is exactly what was intended. Gridlock was the goal. The Founders realized the less government we had, the better off we would be. . .
Who are we kidding?
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:21pm.
Everyone knows that the Democrats were willing to compromise all over the place, but no matter how much they were willing to give up, the Republicans wouldn't budge on anything!
\sarc off
and since when is "no remarkable pieces of legislation" a BAD thing?
Why is congressional success tied to the number of new laws created?
Compromise????
Submitted by wingnut55 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:33pm.
Motherebelt, please give me one piece of legislation that the Democrats "were willing to compromise" on and I will agree with you.
wingnut...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:55pm.
I think you overlooked the /sarc off part of motherbelt's comment. Of course the Dems did compromise on Healthcare, Stimulus legislation, Consumer Financial Protection Agency director, and raising tax hike threshold from 200/250k to 1 mil, for example. All for naught. The GOP senators in the current administration have been the most obstructionist since the implementation of the modern filibuster rules.
Jer
Debates, Differences, & Compromise -- by Jer
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 8:22pm.
This is where liberals -- like Jer -- fall apart when they try to re-define the word "compromise". To them, they think that if they produce a stupid idea, then we have to meet them halfway. If we don't, then we "didn't compromise". Jer provide some examples. Let's look at 2 of them:
Health care: Dims - we want to nationalize health care and go to a system of socialized medicine. Conservatives -- no way, this will bankrupt the country and reduce the quality of care. Dims counter - ok, we'll back off a little bit but you have to meet us halfway because this is our idea, and you can't reject it else we'll call you obstructionist.
Tax Hikes: Dims - we want to tax the rich rather than reduce out of control spending. Conservatives - no way, because spending is out of control. Dims counter - ok, we'll re-define "rich" from $200K to $1M. Now you have to agree to a tax hike, else we'll call you obstructionists.
So, according to Jer -- compromise only comes about if conservatives accept most or all of the dims' stupidest ideas, no matter how impractical the dims' approach is. And that is typical. Thanks, Jer, for the object lesson. Now -- you need to work on the Constitution, as I've pointed out earlier.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Sure Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 9:13pm.
You call the republicans "obstructionists.
I call them true AMERICAN PATRIOTS.
To me, the TELL, was another trillion dollar spending bill for the idiots in DC and a $20 pay cut for ordinary Americans.
Call them what you like but defending the democrats on this issue will make you look like a blind partisan.
Sometimes Jer defends the Dems---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 9:45pm.
while besmirching the Republicans; other times he poor mouths the Republicans while defending his Democrats,
That way he sees himself as having the ability to observe all possible angles of a political issue, and then comment without even the slightest hint of irony when describing why the Party in power is frustrated by the obstructionist bastards in the other Party. :o)
MD
Excuse me, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 10:32pm.
But I'll have to deal with you later. I've been busy repackaging the Christmas presents my wife gave me so I can get an early start on exchanging them tomorrow. It's an annual ritual.
I'll be logging back on within the next day or so.
Jer
Tie??? Cologne?? Socks??? My
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 11:56pm.
Tie??? Cologne?? Socks??? My ex used to give me shirts all the time.........they're STILL hanging in my closet!!! What do I need clothes for over here anyway??? I wear T-shirts and jeans to work, and casual Aloha shirts and shorts when I'm not...........and even when I've flown to Asia, I don't take much - I DO own a few pair of 'nice' jeans and slacks, and I even own some decent shoes........but I rarely wear them.
Good evening killa
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:13am.
More likely lumps of coal, or dead fish and the like.
Hope you had a blessed Christmas and have a blessed year.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Thanks Mr. Coco, and the same
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:48am.
Thanks Mr. Coco, and the same to you!!! I guess my best Christmas present was - aside from being with my two sons AND my grandson for the first time together in our lives, and also visiting my Mother, so that she was sitting there as the Queen of FOUR generations of handsome men (myself excluded, of course!!) - that I got the 'wave of the day' when I was surfing earlier,and that assessment came from the 'young guns'!!!! So I felt pretty good about that - on a beautiful, sunny, warm, tropical day here on an outer island in Hawaii.
That would be, "attempt" to deal with me later, Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:03am.
two years, three months and counting, now, and you haven't been successful yet. :o)
Have you maybe considered giving your wife a "wish" list prior to her going shopping for your Christmas gifts?
If the presents continue to disappoint, you can at least surmise that is what was planned.
A word of advice, though; stick with surmising - don't speak out loud of your concerns, cuz that way lies danger.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:15am.
It doesn't matter how carefully I prescribe the gift parameters. She still gives me what she thinks I ought to like--including material, style, color and size.
Jer
Well, my husband always tells me he has to look at my hair
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:33am.
So he should decide the length, style, etc. Maybe your wife is thinking the same thing about your clothes...
Ms. Rad - I've been
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:43am.
Ms. Rad - I've been 'studying' women for basically my whole life (hey, I started early!!!)..........and even though I think I know something, I'm probably being delusional. But.............I'm gonna keep 'studying' them until further notice, because I think they are superior creatures!!! (Well, MOST of them...................I'm sure there ARE exceptions to the rule!!) In a world filled with mayhem, chaos, confusion, tumult, unpredictability, unease, and uncertainty - and with my own day to day responsibilities, struggles, pleasures AND hardships, heartbreaks and heart-highs, and everything else that can be defined as 'life'................there is ALWAYS room in my little peabrain for some kind of thought regarding WOMEN!!!!!
I guess so, Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 12:57am.
and she is a sweetheart, but the poor dear just has abysmal taste.
Jer
Her
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:57am.
Abysmal taste? She did marry you, what does that say about her taste? :-)
jer
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:01am.
This comment was truly snort worthy for it's lack of self awareness
Ronald Reagan
Which one, amy....
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:06am.
I make a lot of comments that fall into that category.
Jer
jer
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:30am.
"It doesn't matter how carefully I prescribe the gift parameters. She still gives me what she thinks I ought to like--including material, style, color and size.
Jer"
Ronald Reagan
Oh, well that's true.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:46am.
I wasn't kidding about that.
Jer
oh Ms Amy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:07am.
NB needs a like button
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:12am.
My strong suit is judging others--not myself.
Jer
Yes Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:15am.
THAT we know...;-)
Y'all know I'm just kidding around, right?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:27am.
She really does have pretty bad taste, but I always pretend it's exactly what I wanted. And then I just stick it in the back of the closet. I might wear it when the in-laws come over.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:33am.
Your poor dear wife has "abysmal taste".......in men.
Wonder if she hides YOU in the closet when the in-laws come to visit?
edit: ;-)
'tis the season
No, because my job is to keep
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:44am.
fetchin' cocktails.
Jer
LOL Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:51am.
It seems Ms Jer has established her own "parameters"...LOL
Yeah, and that's the one area where her parameters
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:03am.
are extremely liberal.
Jer
Jer, you've got THREE women
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:09am.
Jer, you've got THREE women on your case right now.............so take a little advice from the ol' Killa......and zip it up!!! It's called 'damage control'!!!
killa, you said earlier you've been studying women your
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:21am.
whole life....help me out here, buddy!
Jer
Erase everything that you
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 3:05am.
Erase everything that you wrote and said, admit to being wrong, zip your lip, and maybe they will all forgive you!!!
Maybe if I say something really, really bad
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 3:13am.
about El Rushbo, Matt Sheffield will zap the whole thread.
Otherwise, I think some serious groveling may be in order.
Jer
Don't expect Matt to rescue
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 3:50am.
Don't expect Matt to rescue you, Jer............you're on your own here!!! Some serious groveling may help - women like to see men on their knees!!!
killa...being that you're the resident expert
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 4:17am.
on women, I think I'm just going to take your word for that one.
Jer
Anyway...gonna sleep on it.
Aloha!
No no no no no Jer!!! I said
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:30am.
No no no no no Jer!!! I said I've been STUDYING women my whole life!!! That does NOT make me an expert - either resident or illegal alien - by ANY stretch of the imagination!!!
Well, Jeringo
Submitted by gfrrman on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:50am.
YOU should feel right at home and happy with that concept, ("She still gives me what 'she' thinks I 'ought' to like--including material, style, color and size.")....it's right out of the playbook of the Democrat Party!!!
g
Jer
Submitted by ant on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 6:46am.
You mean to say you're rejecting some of your 'gifts' because you don't like them? Couldn't you just compromise? You're an obstructionist.
Jeeeeeeeez,
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:28am.
Jeeeeeeeez, ant.............KABOOM!!! Ol' Jer is gettin' it (Obamaspeak) from all sides!!!
Let me get this straight the
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:23pm.
Let me get this straight the tea party passed twenty pieces of legislation and a budget and sent them to the Senate which refused to consider any of those pieces of legislation but killed them on arrival, but the Tea Party "refuses to compromise"?
What utter bs. In order to compromise, there has to be some movement on the other side. That has not happened with the democraps and President. When it does, I'm sure the Tea Party will take appropriate and responsible action.
Let me get this straight...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:15pm.
When a minority of GOP senators have virtually from the day this president was sworn into office acted to filibuster every piece of legislation possible unless prevented by rule, announced that all senate business would be conducted under the continuing threat of filibuster, placed secret holds on and blocked presidential nominees in unprecedented numbers, jammed up bills in committee or disfigured or destroyed them with dilatory and frivolous amendments, you honestly expect this Democratic administration and the Democratic senate majority to simply ignore those tactics, dump their own initiatives, and instead bring the Republican tea party agenda to the floor? Are you serious?
Jer
No Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:27pm.
You are absolutely right - why those mean Representatives should just lay down and not do the job they were elected to do in the largest changing of the guards in our history because they are getting in the way of spending tax money and we have so much we need to borrow, print and spend as a nation. We can't wait for these people to understand the utopia that Obama has in store for the nation; nay, the world. They must stand down and prostrate themselves on the WH steps for daring to do what they promised to do when elected.
After all, when the Democrats controlled Congress for the most part of 70 years it was all open doors and the cats and mice played together in the harmony of golden sunshine while the tax payers were rewarded for their loyalty with the gift of giving. /sarc off
Jer, you have admitted to being old enough to remember what Congress was like when the Democrats held their stranglehold on all of DC for decade after decade via the strength of the social programs. And in fairness, they are correct - if Obamacare gets implemented it will be another several years before Republicans will hold the house due to the fear of killing the sick and starving the children.
No Difference
Submitted by IrateNate on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:47pm.
Many who oppose the Tea Party see their actions as "obstructionist." I disagree; standing firmly by their beliefs, regardless of popularity, is no different than the actions of that small minority of America's population identifying themselves as "liberal."
While only 20% of the population, liberals are quite successful in foisting their destructive policies upon the remaining 80%. The reason for their success is their tenacity, their refusal to give in to the "popular" view.
Is this not just the thing you would begrudge these Tea Party freshmen? If anything, we should be pleased that we have a group of elected representatives which adheres to principal over popularity, rather than the usual collection of thieves and con-men.
Hogwash
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:06am.
"virtually from the day this president was sworn into office acted to filibuster every piece of legislation possible unless prevented by rule"
And what rule might that be? The Cloture rule?
How does one conduct or attempt to conduct a filibuster of any sort in the United States Senate if ones party does not have 41 votes? It appears that YOU failed to notice the Democrats, almost without interruption, from the day Obama was sworn in until Scott Brown was seated, had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Let me remind you what these people you call Democrat Senators were doing when they were in the minority during the first 6 years of the Bush 43 administration : They were, under the leadership of Chuck Schumer, threatening to filibuster Bush Judicial appointees, and since they actually did have the 41+ votes to do this, made good use of this threat, blocking many fine candidates not because they were ethically or professionally unqualified, but because these Senators did not like the political convictions of the nominees. Some people think it is unconstitutional to allow a Senate rule to change the number of votes required to confirm a Presidential appointment from a simple majority to a super majority.
"These people (I) call Democrat Senators"
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 3:40am.
As a mattter of fact, I didn't call them that. But, what do YOU call them? Mysterious insect-like creatures from the planet Zargon?
Sheesh! I just checked in for a moment. I'll deal with your silliness later.
Jer
If you had any effective reply
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:31pm.
to my post, you would have already made it. Think on it all you want, and do remember to explain clearly how the Republicans were able to threaten a filibuster on any issue prior to the seating of Senator Scott Brown. In the meantime, I think somebody just burned your dirty shorts while you were still wearing them.
I call them, these Democrat Senators, dishonorable men and women. They took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Yet we see them spend enormous time, energy and our tax money subverting and evading the Constitution. Extra-Constitutionally changing the vote needed for confirmation of Presidential appointments is only one tiny facet of their collective dishonor.
Since when is "no remarkable
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:24pm.
Since when is "no remarkable pieces of legislation" a BAD thing?
And her point is?
Submitted by River City on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 10:25pm.
"Since when is "no remarkable pieces of legislation" a BAD thing?"
Amen.
Since we don't control the senate or the executive branch obstruction is our most powerful tool.
Until 2012.
"Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind." Ayn Rand
BTW the Ryan Health Care
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:24pm.
BTW the Ryan Health Care Plan, the Ryan Balanced Budget Amendment were remarkable pieces of legislation. It's only a craven democrap Senate that has failed to pass a budget in 1,000 days, that is standing in the way of progress.
Disgraceful
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 7:05pm.
This blatant demonizing of her political foes goes against the tenets of professional journalism. It's worse than that; by peddling base propaganda on a presumably neutral network, she is attempting to recruit votes for Democrats. That is theft, unethically obtaining power, which is a thing of value. Literally criminal minded.
They never say what these
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 8:08pm.
They never say what these "remarkable" pieces of legislation are....
It's just like when they say..."Some sources have said"
Total garbage.
On the Sunday evening news
Submitted by billb on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 8:30pm.
On the Sunday evening news tonite, NBC ran a feel good piece on the vast improvements in public education in Louisiana. Must have been an over sight, but the name JINDAL never came up!
The Unspoken Assumption
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 9:37pm.
Implicit in these comments is the notion that it is somehow the duty of the Legislative Branch to pass more and more far-reaching legislation. But is it? Or is it instead the proper role of Congress to pass only that legislation that is truly both necessary AND proper to carrying out the delegated powers found in the Constitution? If one takes the latter view, the proper measure of a Congress is not how many "remarkable pieces of legislation" get passed, but rather how intact the liberties of the American people after that Congress has run its course.
Remarkable pieces of legislation
Submitted by Ruckweiler on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 10:16pm.
We're $15+ trillion dollars in debt and these clowns want more? We need to shrink the government waaay down. The Founding Fathers created a legislative branch that was meant to stifle just this sort of activity (as an example, the Senate is supposed to be the "cooling saucer"). Mark Twain was correct about life and property not being safe while Congress was in session. He also said that Congress was the only true, native American criminal class. Too much government is killing the American miracle and the devotees of Marx and Keynes are still not satisfied?
Divided government? As when
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 11:38pm.
Divided government?
As when the Democrats had supermajorities in both houses and a Democrat in the White house and were able to ram through anything they wished?
Or divided government with a Republican House and a Democrat Senate whose leader won't even entertain most anything the House sends over for a vote?
Absolutely no intellectual honesty or objectivity on these shows and they dare call themselves journalists.
Compromise is only possible if ....
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:25am.
both sides share some common ground. The Democrats have gone hard left. They no longer share common ground with the Constitution.
what I want to know is,
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:52am.
What is the obsession with measuring a Congress by the amount of legislation it produces? First of all, much of it is universally ignored; take immigration law for example. Or tax law. I think it might be more appropriate to judge the Congress by their deeds; especially the ones they're constitutionally mandated to produce and yet haven't -- in nearly 1000 days, like a budget.
Maybe this partisan should take a harder look at the leader of the Senate for the reason things aren't getting done.
Well, Bob
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:01am.
The legislation they're talking about is anything that suborns the position of the citizen in favor of the state.
Nancy Cordes, incredibly ignorant!!!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 6:17am.
Nothing remarkable? She has honestly missed the copious remarks thus far concerning Obama's healthcare bill? Isn't that the ultimate DEFINITION of "remarkable"?
Is Cordes honestly trying to say the signature piece of legislation coming from the Obama Administration is unremarkable?
She must indeed be daft.
"No 'Remarkable Pieces of
Submitted by mattm on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 5:10pm.
"No 'Remarkable Pieces of Legislation' Because of Uncompromising Tea Party"
That's a good thing.
The last "remarkable" piece of legislation was the disaster know as Obamacare, which is going to destroy this country if it's not repealed.
Romney sas he won't get rid of it. I will not vote for anyone who is not devoted to reversing that remarkable piece of ***.
parsing 'Progressive' code
Submitted by kono on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 7:00pm.
By "remarkable legislation", Cordes naturally meant a bill that increased the size, reach, and cost of government in some manner. In the eyes of the Left, nothing is good that does not closely involve the government.