U.S. Politics, 16

[Shryke]

Shryke,

"Outraged" is certainly the wrong word to apply. I'm not "outraged". It's simply interesting to me to see how much legislation has been passed largely by men and women who are about to be replaced and who are not going to have to worry about public reaction to the bills they've passed in this lame duck session of Congress. This is not to say I don't support any of the bills they've passed. The repeal of DADT is certainly a good thing in my opinion. I just think passing them after loosing their bids for re-election is troubling at best. As I said before it's not like they don't have the authority to do what they've done. It's perfectly within their power as legislators to pass these bills. It just seems like thumbing their noses at the people who've chosen to remove them from office to pass the bills after losing their respective elections.

Except, again Scot, they were already trying to pass this stuff before the election and it's the party that is gaining seats in the election that changed it's stance so that this stuff could pass. Your characterization of the situation doesn't make sense.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

You're missing my point. Yes, they were trying to pass this stuff before the election. The election they lost. Pushing this stuff through after being rejected by the electorate is what I find problematic. If they didn't win on this agenda why should they have the authority to push it through after it has been rejected by their constituents?

[Ormond]

Shryke,

You're missing my point. Yes, they were trying to pass this stuff before the election. The election they lost. Pushing this stuff through after being rejected by the electorate is what I find problematic. If they didn't win on this agenda why should they have the authority to push it through after it has been rejected by their constituents?

You are confusing rejection of the re-election of some specific legislators with rejection of particular bills.

I really don't want my legislators to decide their votes solely on the basis of Gallup Polls, whether it's in the regular session or the lame duck. I do dislike the idea that people may not have the courage of their convictions before the election because of having that re-election as their first priority. But I prefer having legislators who vote for policies they truly believe are best for the country. It might have been better for them to do that before the lame duck, but I still think "better late than never."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

I cetianly understand that perspective. As I said what I find troubling is discovering a spine only after they have nothing left to lose and their prior choices have been rejected by the electorate.

[BloodRider]

Shryke,

You're missing my point. Yes, they were trying to pass this stuff before the election. The election they lost. Pushing this stuff through after being rejected by the electorate is what I find problematic. If they didn't win on this agenda why should they have the authority to push it through after it has been rejected by their constituents?

Pure post-hoc fallacy here Scott. You presume to know why they were not reelected? Could it not be because they did not purse their agenda hard enough? If this is true then they are doing exactly what this election is telling them to do.

[Guy Kilmore]

Ormond,

I cetianly understand that perspective. As I said what I find troubling is discovering a spine only after they have nothing left to lose and their prior choices have been rejected by the electorate.

Ser Scott

Why did the Republicans in the Senate stop fillibustering these bills, which they were doing prior to the election, during the lame duck session?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Okay, if these people were not re-elected because they were not pushing hard enough on their agenda why didn't the election results show more leftist candidates being put into Congress?

Guy,

I have no idea.

[awesome possum]

The argument is that they intentionally ducked controversial votes before the election, because they didn't want the voters to make a informed decision based on those votes. If legislators are going to vote on something controversial, then they should be willing to be judged by the voters for those votes.

Running for election while keeping secret one's position on matters of public import, and only casting key votes after you've been reelected, is slimy.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong. But hey, the best Republican asset is to ignore the truth and make up one that fits the reality you prefer.

For anyone who cares, more discussion of my favorite 2012 GOP (possible) contender, Mitch Daniels:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2010/12/10/the_mitch_daniels_dilemma/page/full/

Read elsewhere that he's going to make a decision/announcement by May at the latest.

Please oh please let that douchebag run. He's a terrible governor and I hope Obama crushes him like the piece of shit that he is!

Shryke,

You're missing my point. Yes, they were trying to pass this stuff before the election. The election they lost. Pushing this stuff through after being rejected by the electorate is what I find problematic. If they didn't win on this agenda why should they have the authority to push it through after it has been rejected by their constituents?

Scot, you're missing the point. Big time. I think you know it too.

Ormond,

I cetianly understand that perspective. As I said what I find troubling is discovering a spine only after they have nothing left to lose and their prior choices have been rejected by the electorate.

Discovering a spine has nothing to do with it. Democrats brought up these pieces of legislation, several of which (START, DADT repeal, 9/11 Responders Bill) had overwhelming Republican support. Republicans, however, being the purely political beasts that they have become (interested only in winning elections rather than actually governing or, you know, helping the country) rejected these bills and threatened to filibuster. All so that Democrats wouldn't be able to show recent legislative victories that had bipartisan support right before the elections.

Now, which party is slimy and spineless again? Hmm?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

A fair point.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ser Scott

Why did the Republicans in the Senate stop fillibustering these bills, which they were doing prior to the election, during the lame duck session?

Because some of those Republicans were running for reelection, and filibustered those bills before the election because they knew they'd take a hit from many of their supporters if they didn't. But after the election, some of them felt free to move further left because they no longer had to worry about voters. Murkowski is a perfect example of that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You're wrong and you know you're wrong.

Wrong on both counts. I'd explain more, except there wasn't any substance to your post to which I can respond.

Discovering a spine has nothing to do with it. Democrats brought up these pieces of legislation, several of which (START, DADT repeal, 9/11 Responders Bill) had overwhelming Republican support.

Do you have any evidence other than your own ramblings that START, DADT repeal, and the 9/11 responders bill had "overwhelming Republican support?"

[Yagathai]

Do you have any evidence other than your own ramblings that START, DADT repeal, and the 9/11 responders bill had "overwhelming Republican support?"

Well, they didn't filibuster them, did th-

Oh, wait.

[TerraPrime]

I'm not seeing the controversy of the lame duck sessions. Honestly, you're hired to do a job from say Jan 1 to Dec 31, and if the new guy to replace you is hired on Nov 28, does that mean you ought not to do anything of substance for a month? Really?

Don't blame the legislators for doing their jobs. They do it preciously rare as it is. These "how dare they make laws while in lame-duck session" rants should instead "boy aren't we the dumb ones to create a substantial lame duck session" rants.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Another fair point about lame-duck sessions.

[awesome possum]

Wrong on both counts. I'd explain more, except there wasn't any substance to your post to which I can respond.

Doesn't need to be any substance. You were and are wrong on this one. That's it.

Do you have any evidence other than your own ramblings that START, DADT repeal, and the 9/11 responders bill had "overwhelming Republican support?"

START passed 71-26

DADT passed 63-33

Zadroga Bill passed with unanimous consent in the senate and 206-60 vote in the House.

Are you saying the Republicans who voted for these suddenly changed their minds? Or that the Republicans who have, in the past, supported these measures have changed their minds because they suddenly don't believe in them anymore (as opposed to trying to capitulate to their bigoted, idiotic base)?

[Stego]

START passed 71-26

DADT passed 63-33

Zadroga Bill passed with unanimous consent in the senate and 206-60 vote in the House.

Are you saying the Republicans who voted for these suddenly changed their minds? Or that the Republicans who have, in the past, supported these measures have changed their minds because they suddenly don't believe in them anymore (as opposed to trying to capitulate to their bigoted, idiotic base)?

Nah, dude, don't hit me with facts! I watch FOX News!

[Shael]

Compared to Newt impeaching the President during his lame duck, I don't think this session has been very noteworthy. Certainly not worthy of any Republican, "ohhh but why can't you just act defeated?" panties-bunching angst.

If anything, you should be pissed off at all the Republicans who inexplicably changed their stance on DADT, START, ect right when they should be holding their ground, awaiting reinforcements. Credit where credit is due.

[The Progressive]

As I said what I find troubling is discovering a spine only after they have nothing left to lose and their prior choices have been rejected by the electorate.

Which particular bill or bills passed during the lame duck sessions have been rejected earlier by the electorate, Scot?

I find it troubling that you're confusing Republican filibustering with electorate approval.

[The Progressive]

Do you have any evidence other than your own ramblings that START, DADT repeal, and the 9/11 responders bill had "overwhelming Republican support?"

Have you even counted the votes?

I'm guessing no, lol.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://i.imgur.com/GFLo9.jpg

Fun infographic about how many issues the country absolutely can not achieve consensus on.