[art_director]

From the StarTribune:


Most Americans won't have noticed, or cared much, that Congress adjourned last week and left the federal budget in a shambles. Ten of the 12 spending bills that fund annual government operations remain unfinished -- even though the new fiscal year started on Saturday -- and the required budget blueprint for fiscal 2007 never got past the negotiation stage.

But now that incumbents are home and campaigning for reelection, voters should ask about this sorry performance, for these are the symptoms of a dysfunctional and irresponsible Congress.

True, federal agencies will keep functioning even without the appropriations bills, thanks to a "continuing resolution" that lawmakers passed on Friday. But that's no solution. More than a dozen governors, for example, are ! preparing to cut off health insurance to thousands of children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program because they lack a commitment from Congress for next year's funding. Farmers will finish the fall harvest without knowing the fate of crucial conservation programs next spring.

Worse, Americans will go to the polls without knowing how their representatives would have voted on some of Washington's toughest funding choices on health, education and transportation. Those matters are now left for a "lame duck" November session, where they will be decided, in part, by lawmakers who are no longer accountable to voters.

You can't blame partisan gridlock for this budgetary breakdown. Republicans control both chambers of Congress by solid majorities, and they were working off a budget draft submitted by a Republican president. Nor can you blame a heavy workload. This Congress passed less legislation and held fewer hearings than any in the memory of Was! hington experts and worked, on average, just two days per week! in 2006 .

Rather, it reflects ideological rigidity taken to new extremes. As a financial matter, this meant that a GOP majority kept passing tax cuts while waging an expensive war in Iraq -- $2 billion a week -- thus leaving itself with a huge federal deficit and impossible fiscal choices.

As a governance matter, it meant that it spent so much time casting symbolic votes on symbolic issues -- gay marriage, flag-burning, gay marriage again -- that it ran out of time to resolve the issues of the day: immigration policy, entitlement spending, global warming, military modernization, lobbying reform.

Voters should not assume that this is par for the course. A Democratic Congress in the 1980s passed difficult and important changes to Social Security and immigration law. A GOP Congress in the 1990s helped balance the federal budget. Norman Ornstein, a conservative congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, calls this Congress the "broken branch.! " In the next five weeks voters should be asking how candidates will mend it.

[Big Mac]

The article is based on the false premise that Congress always gets a budget done. More often than not, Congress fails to do so. The rest of the piece is just Republican bashing.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by art_director

You can't blame partisan gridlock for this budgetary breakdown. Republicans control both chambers of Congress by solid majorities...

Not as solid as you might think, actually. In the case of the Senate, no majority is truly "solid" until it's large enough to stop a filibuster, as the Democrats have been only too keen to demonstrate over the course of the last six years. In the case of the House, it's important to note that Republicans are not at all in agreement on some rather important economic issues, and no faction has the majority as far as this goes.

Voters should not assume that this is par for the course. A Democratic Congress in the 1980s passed difficult and important changes to Social Security and immigration law. A GOP Congress in the 1990s helped balance the federal budget.

If the GOP managed this, then how exactly is "Republican control of Congress" a "train wreck"? If indeed a train wreck is taking place, then by your own definitions it has to be something else, and this whole debate would be far better served by pinpointing exactly what that is rather than setting up a strawman that you yourself disprove.

[Dakar]

I seem to recall a ton of gridlock between Clinton & the GOP congress, specifically in '95.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I seem to recall a ton of gridlock between Clinton & the GOP congress, specifically in '95.

Way to be impartial.

[Dakar]

Well, it is essentially the only one I can recall. I think they ended up having to extend government worker pay three times because it dragged out so long.

[davesimondotcom]

Considering that many of the things that are considered the achievements of the Clinton Administration started as ideas in the Contract with America and a GOP controlled Congress, calling it a train wreck is hyperbole.

I think that the Democrats are making three major mistakes this campaign that could come back and bite them:

* Thinking, acting and talking as if they are definitely going to take over Congress. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

* Not understanding the basic principle of politics - it's an election between two people, not two parties. The entire nation doesn't vote as one for who should be in control of Congress. "All politics is local." Run stronger candidates, you win. It's that simple, usually.

* Still pounding away at the Bush Administration and the war, but without bringing a plan to the table. You can't continually say "We'd do better" without saying "and this is how..." followed by details. People see right through it.

Personally, I'm unlikely to vote for Senator in Montana this election. I don't care for Republican Conrad Burns, but I haven't been so impressed by Democrat John Tester that I'm willing to vote for him.

Neither has earned my vote, yet. We'll see.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Thinking, acting and talking as if they are definitely going to take over Congress. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

This always irritates me, though I don't think I've actually heard politicians claim this, just some of the more partisan people on the boards.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Dakar

This always irritates me, though I don't think I've actually heard politicians claim this, just some of the more partisan people on the boards.

Well, considering some Democrats have already started calling Nancy Pelosi "Speaker," I'd say that there are definitely some out there who think it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Considering that many of the things that are considered the achievements of the Clinton Administration started as ideas in the Contract with America and a GOP controlled Congress, calling it a train wreck is hyperbole.

I think that the Democrats are making three major mistakes this campaign that could come back and bite them:

* Thinking, acting and talking as if they are definitely going to take over Congress. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

* Not understanding the basic principle of politics - it's an election between two people, not two parties. The entire nation doesn't vote as one for who should be in control of Congress. "All politics is local." Run stronger candidates, you win. It's that simple, usually.

* Still pounding away at the Bush Administration and the war, but without bringing a plan to the table. You can't continually say "We'd do better" without saying "and this is how..." followed by details. People see right through it.

Personally, I'm unlikely to vote for Senator in Montana this election. I don't care for Republican Conrad Burns, but I haven't been so impressed by Democrat John Tester that I'm willing to vote for him.

Neither has earned my vote, yet. We'll see.

The Democrats exist only to destroy themselves. If they win the House next month it won't be the result of a tangible plan for anything. It will be because the Republicans have screwed themselves hard.

At this point I'm looking at the MN race and trying to decide who to vote for. The Reps are off my list, period. Now I need to decide between crappy Democrats or an independents who likely won't win. Which, I hope, would send a signal to the rank and file of both major parties.

The reason I've eliminated Republicans from my consideration set is because the ones we have in MN are rubber stamping everything Bush proposes. I want my representatives to think for themselves. I want representatives who put the interests of my state before the interests of their party. We won't get that from our Reps, probably not from the Dems either. At least giving control to the Dems would neutralize the madman in the White House.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Well, considering some Democrats have already started calling Nancy Pelosi "Speaker," I'd say that there are definitely some out there who think it.

Ignoring the obvious 'don't count your chickens before they're hatched' I think its dumb because it broadcasts worthless bluster to your opponents (therefore energizing them) and misleading confidence and comfort to your supporters (leading to perhaps less voter turnout?).

So in essence, sheer stupidity.

[marden]

Rush calls her, "San Fran 'Nan.'"

[itai195]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

* Thinking, acting and talking as if they are definitely going to take over Congress. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

I agree, could be setting up for a major disappointment. I don't see anything that's changed since they lost in 2004...

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Rush calls her, "San Fran 'Nan.'"

Who actually pays attention to his pharmaceutical-induced ramblings?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by itai195

I agree, could be setting up for a major disappointment. I don't see anything that's changed since they lost in 2004...

Do they even know they lost in 2004?

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

Who actually pays attention to his pharmaceutical-induced ramblings?

Millions and millions do.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Millions and millions do.

Millions and millions also listened to and believed in the Nazis. Did make them right, now did it.

Limbaugh is the biggest hypocrite on the planet. For years he spouted about jailing anyone on drugs. Then, as luck would have it, Rush's little secret / addiction came out. Twice. Such a fool.

For the record, I dislike Rush immensely and view him, in many respects, as the Hillary Clinton of the right.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden

Millions and millions do.

Same people who voted for the alcohol-induced ramblings.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

Millions and millions also listened to and believed in the Nazis. Did make them right, now did it.

Limbaugh is the biggest hypocrite on the planet. For years he spouted about jailing anyone on drugs. Then, as luck would have it, Rush's little secret / addiction came out. Twice. Such a fool.

For the record, I dislike Rush immensely and view him, in many respects, as the Hillary Clinton of the right.

He makes more sense than SOME people.

[marden]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Same people who voted for the alcohol-induced ramblings.

NOVEMBER 2004 BALLOT

(CHECK ONE)

BUSH _____

KERRY _____

ALCOHOL-INDUCED RAMBLINGS _____

I voted for Bush.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden

He makes more sense than SOME people.

Sort of. He's more like the Best Buy guy trying to sell a computer to someone who didn't know they needed one.

"It has 20GB of pumped synergy modules, 4GBs of active-matrix PCI parallels, and AOL. Macs suck."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden

I voted for Bush.

No wonder he won, he's listed twice on the ballot.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Sort of. He's more like the Best Buy guy trying to sell a computer to someone who didn't know they needed one.

"It has 20GB of pumped synergy modules, 4GBs of active-matrix PCI parallels, and AOL. Macs suck."

Quite possibly the funniest, and most accurate, description of Rush I've heard.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

No wonder he won, he's listed twice on the ballot.

The ballot? Everyone knows the ballots are a sham. So long as we use Diebold voting machines our elections will not be fair and true.


Freedom to Tinker » Blog Archive » “Hotel Minibar” Keys Open Diebold Voting Machines

[marden]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Sort of. He's more like the Best Buy guy trying to sell a computer to someone who didn't know they needed one.

"It has 20GB of pumped synergy modules, 4GBs of active-matrix PCI parallels, and AOL. Macs suck."

Shows how little you know. No one will pay attention to you now. You are talking out of your hat and you have no cattle.

Rush owns and loves Macs.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

Quite possibly the funniest, and most accurate, description of Rush I've heard.

You are clueless to? Rush loves Macs. EVERYBODY knows that!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by art_director

Quite possibly the funniest, and most accurate, description of Rush I've heard.

I'm curious how many people on here have actually listened to Rush Limbaugh for an entire three hour program and how many just spit back what they think they are supposed to think of him.

I think he's an egotistical, opinionated blowhard, but I find him very entertaining at times. He has a good sense of humor.

He's been assigned these particular keywords by the left: racist, sexist, fat, stupid, hateful, hypocrite.

Yet, even though I've listened on and off to him for over 20 years, I've never heard him truly use any racist, sexist or hateful speech. And I guarantee his BMI is healthier than Michael Moore's.

The truth is, he's an entertainer who caters to a particular audience. I find him most entertaining when he's talking about non-political things like NFL football during open line Friday.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden

Shows how little you know. No one will pay attention to you now. You are talking out of your hat and you have no cattle.

Rush owns and loves Macs.

OK, you missed the entire part about this being an anology of a Best Buy salesman.

[davesimondotcom]

Back on topic. I guess the question this November is whether we want to trade this train wreck for the other train that is heading straight for the wreckage at breakneck speed.

I'm thinking maybe we should try another form of transportation.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I'm curious how many people on here have actually listened to Rush Limbaugh for an entire three hour program and how many just spit back what they think they are supposed to think of him.

I listened to him for about 3 or 4 years because I loved to disagree with him, even tried to call a few times but never got through. After 9/11 when he went off about how we need to attack Iraq, I switched it off. The guy is a complete tool (and I mean that in a litteral sense.) Any intelligent person could see what was going on with Iraq and 9/11. I know Rush Limbaugh is a very intelligent man, as you stated, he's acatually enjoyable to listen to on topics other than politics; but despite that, he trumpeted the bullsh*t that was coming out of the Bush Administration.

He sells sh*t to clueless people, and they eat it up. It wouldn't surprise me if he sits at home and reflects on the show, "How stupid can these people be?" Then the next day he brings up more crap and people sniff it like roses. I doubt very much he actually believes a lot of the stuff he's spewing out, it's just to get his audience more polarized and get more listeners.

[smacintush]

You guys do realize that Rush himself says that he is an entertainer right? I mean, he's not claiming to be an impartial journalist or anything.

And no matter how much you might want it to be true, he's the most successful radio personality in history, has won numerous awards, and he is in the radio hall of fame. That doesn't happen by JUST being an ignorant blowhard.

And there's a big difference between being a pothead or a cokehead and becoming addicted to prescription medication which you had a legitimate prescription for. It happens to many people, including my parents. The rest of the alleged illegal activity by Rush was never proven.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Back on topic. I guess the question this November is whether we want to trade this train wreck for the other train that is heading straight for the wreckage at breakneck speed.

I'm thinking maybe we should try another form of transportation.

Rocket Skates from ACME didn't work too well in the 60s.

[smacintush]

"Train wreck".

Election year hyperbole.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I'm thinking maybe we should try another form of transportation.

Big effing BINGO.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

He sells sh*t to clueless people, and they eat it up. It wouldn't surprise me if he sits at home and reflects on the show, "How stupid can these people be?" Then the next day he brings up more crap and people sniff it like roses. I doubt very much he actually believes a lot of the stuff he's spewing out, it's just to get his audience more polarized and get more listeners.

I think it's a mistake the left often makes to assume that someone who agrees with Rush is just a stupid lemming. That's where the term "Dittohead" originated - that people were assumed to be robots who just "dittoed" everything he said. So it's a sarcastic term.

I would say that his audience is most likely higher educated and/or more intelligent than you think.

I wouldn't assume that those who listen to Air America are stupid. They just have different opinions.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I think it's a mistake the left often makes to assume that someone who agrees with Rush is just a stupid lemming. That's where the term "Dittohead" originated - that people were assumed to be robots who just "dittoed" everything he said. So it's a sarcastic term.

That's actually not correct. When callers would call they would all say "Rush, I love your show, listened to you for years, etc., etc., then Rush would thank them etc. They started using "dittos" as a shortened way to get the pleasantries out of the way. That where it came from.

It's Rush's critics that twisted its meaning to what you said.