So I went to http://thomas.loc.gov and found all the bills that have been signed into law so far this year on this page http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas. 130 bills passed into law, 60 of which name federal buildings, including one bill that increased the allowable public debt to increase from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion.

Questions for debate:

Is this the productivity that we expect from our elected officials?

More importantly, what the hell has the 110th congress gotten done this year?

Edited to add:I appologize for the link not working. I have copied and pasted several times, but to no avail. To to http://thomas.loc.gov and do an advanced search with the dates of 01/01/2007-11/30/2007 for bills signed by president to find the information for this post.

Questions for debate:

Is this the productivity that we expect from our elected officials?

No.

More importantly, what the hell has the 110th congress gotten done this year?

Well, you can't totally blame Congress. They did manage to increase the minimum wage, but Bush has threatened vetoes on a number of other issues.

So, the problem isn't all Congress or the Democrats, but the inability of the two parties to work together. Further it is the inability of the legislative and executive branches to work together. You must also blame the pigheaded president for much of this gridlock.

Now that you’ve presented this thread and Zack has started a couple that are similar, I would suggest we have a new genera of threads called "eye poking." I suspect this type thread is a born of the frustration and anger Republicans and conservatives feel at losing both houses of Congress, having an unpopular president, having six sitting Republican Senators retiring and the likelihood that they will lose the White House in 2008.

BTW: Historically, this type of gridlock is not unknown.

What the hell has the 110th congress gotten done this year?
Filibustering, filibustering, and filibustering some more. In July McClatchy wrote:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

In October Politico wrote:

The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000 votes on the House floor in 2007.

Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison, the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in 1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn't on pace to break any records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.

I give props to Democrats for trying to pass good legislation, but fault them for passing bad legislation in the hopes that Republicans would reciprocate. They should have helped the GOP break the filibuster record by keeping terrible law like the last FISA amendment they're now trying to overturn with the Restore Act amendment in committee and refused to pass any "emergency" supplemental for the war without a withdrawal attached or let funding run out, which is Congress' prerogative.

Interesting response, BoF, no where did I mention anything about democrats or republicans. your response shows me that you feel guilty about your party, finding blame in all areas other than with your own party.

I went back and searched for all bills that had been "Cleared for White House", "Presented to President", "Signed by President", and "Vetoed by President". There are only nine more bills included. If you want to make it a partisan issue, we can. I do find it interesting that when the republicans were in the majority, even during the Clinton years, they were called a do nothing congress by the opposition without any responsibility being held by the democrats. That was even one of the promises that the dems made during the 2006 elections-that they would get things done in Washington. Now that the democrats are in control, they get even less done. Ok, they raised the minimum wage, which I am against such feel good laws, but if that makes you feel funny inside, I won't make a stink about it. Anything else in the eleven months that they have been in control?

Heck, even Murtha is saying that the surge is working. Yes, he did go on the say the Iraqis need to start taking more control, but according to this, seven provinces in Iraq are under Iraqi control, and seven more are lead by Iraqi forces. In the Baghdad province, much of it is under Iraqi lead. This appears to be exactly what Murtha is suggesting. What else needs to be done?

Back to the discussion as I posed it, why do we allow our elected officials to get so little done and waste so many tax dollars?

Let's get something straight scubatim. I was a Democrat before you were kicking the slats out of your crib. I don't feel guilty about a damned thing. Got it? Take your cyber couch and diagnose someone else as "feeling guilt."

We have classic gridlock in Washington because the two parties can't agree. Read Lesly's post about filibuster. That's part of the gridlock. I would think you coluld figure all this out without asking.

So last year when the dems were busy with the filibuster, it was ok, but now that the republicans are doing it, it is a problem?

By the way, I don't care how long you have been in the blue, and quit barking orders at people, you don't impress anyone! Got it?

So, since this discussion is about "Is this the productivity that we expect from our elected officials?" and not who is to blame, get off the blame game and discuss the questions. So far, the two liberals that have responded have done so only with attacks to Bush and the republicans. What happened to the promises of transparity and getting the job done without the partisan bickering?

Like I said, scubatim we have gridlock in Washington. That tends to happen when neither party has a working majority in Congress.



I didn't know I was barking orders, but you can't speak for anyone but scubatim.

"Take your cyber couch and diagnose someone else as "feeling guilt."" isn't barking orders? Telling me what to do qualifies as barking orders.

So, what has congress done this year that they promised to get done?

You are a riot. If responding to questions with facts about the unprecedented filibustering going on this year and faulting the Democrats for not calling the GOP's bluff is an attack on Bush and the GOP and serves as an example of more partisan bickering, I'm afraid all I have is attacks and partisan bickering. C'est la partisan vie.

This is a loaded question and you know it. Given the gridlock in Washington, something inherent when neither party has a working majority, I think a better question might be what has the congress been able to do that they promised, given the obstacles. Increasing, the minimum wage is one thing.

Overriding Bush's veto on the water bill was another.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/08/congress.water/



Until January of this year Bush had a working majority in Congress. Bill Frist stopped a filibuster by threatening the "nuclear option" to free some of Bush's judicial appointments. John Bolton received a recess appointment. The scenario was a bit different.

If you want to play this game, then go back and blame Bill Clinton for everything from the common cold to diarrhea.

Geezzzz..... What a bunch of crybaby liberals we have here. Bit defensive are y'all? In thread after thread around here we have some in this forum that insist on turning every debate into a Bush/Reagan/Religion/Conservative/American bashing blog. And now, we hear complaints over "leading questions" about Congress? Give me a fricking break. At least Scubatim had the courage to post his thread in a place where all could engage in the debate. Unlike others here who post garbage like the following in a Democrat only forum.......



And yet the liberals are offended by this debate? Pulleeeezzze.... Care for a little cheese with that whine?

On to the questions.... (Get your little liberal hankies ready folks, you ain't gonna like my answers.....)

Is this the productivity that we expect from our elected officials?

It is precisely the "productivity" or lack of same I would expect from a Democrat controlled Congress. But hey, that's not all bad. As long as they aren't doing anything, at least they're keeping their hands the hell out of my pocket. It's kind of like when an armed robber takes a vacation. It's kind of a vacation for the liquor store owner as well.


More importantly, what the hell has the 110th congress gotten done this year?

Well, according to Politico, they've requested over one MILLION documents from the White House and launched 300 separate investigations. Most of them no doubt by Henry (Mr Nosehair) Waxman who apparently has lost his gig as Porky Pig because of the WGA strike. So, they're doing a whole lotta reading and subpoena writin'. I guess we could call this the 110th Congress' 'Full employment for beltway lawyers act". Maybe not a bad thing though. As long as those lawyers are busy harassing the White House, they're not suing average Americans just trying to make a living. That and the hearings give CSPAN something to do other than talk about people's latest books and the 24/7 news channels something other than Stacey Peterson and OJ SImpson. Not bad I guess for a bunch of Democrats. They could do worse, and they have.


Aquilla

So, nothing then?


I don't play that game as the liberals do with Bush. Now that congress is controlled by the democrats, the lack of activity in congress is because of the lack of the republicans bowing down to the dems? The lack of partisan cooperation is because of the republicans and because Bush? Why was the republican congress the "do nothing congress"? Is is because of the democrats?

You don't seem to understand the concept of gridlock scubatim. Maybe you need to take Government 101 again. But, hey, at least Aquilla seems to be comfortable with things being gridlocked.

Since you are the master of government, please educate the class, I obviously don't understand......Share your endless knowledge, please.

If you will go back and read, I have been talking about the concept of gridlock all through this thread. Why should I sit here and repeat myself?



I am sure you can offer something better than calling Henry Waxman, "Mr. Nosehair," Aquilla. Please try?

You know someone is sooooo right when they type like thiiiiis. Ellipses are so cool..... count the dots and be awed by my acerbic wit.....

Geeeez Aquilla. Who you calling a crybaby? Would pointing out that personal attacks and name-calling are against the rules improve your game, or am I beeeeeeing a cryyyyy babyyy again? Gah. You don't have to epitomize what you accuse others of being just to stick up for a team member, y'know?

So I went back through your posts, here is what I found:

Nothing but blaming Bush for the vetoes and republicans not getting along with democrats. So what has congress done this year?

And I will ask you again, since you keep repeating the question, "what can they do without a working majority?" Obviously Republicans and Democrats will have to meet each oither half way, but I don't think that's likely to happen from either side. That's gridlock.

Here's an article to get you started.

Gridlock

But the democrats promised a working majority. They promised transparity. The promised ethics. They promised they would get things done in congress and work with the President. So what happened to this leadership?

This is a two-way street scubatim.

Bush also promised to cooperate with congress, but I haven't seem much of that.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20061109-3.html

BTW: You are not Perry Mason and I'm not on trial here, so try stopping this barrage rapid-fire, inane, repetitive questions. You already have your questions for debate posted.

Getting past all the childish name-calling and bickering, let's look at a few facts, kids.

The Democrats have a ONE VOTE majority and for the longest time Senator Tim Johnson was hospitalized and not voting at all. While independent Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats, he is solidly with the GOP on most issues regarding the war in Iraq and has made it clear he might consider crossing over to the Republican side of the aisle in the Dems push through any mandatory timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq or defund the war.

More importantly, Republican obstructionism in the Senate has effectively stalled Democratic initiatives:

* Senate Republicans have obstructed almost every bill in the Senate - even ones with wide bipartisan support.

* So far, in the first half of the first session of the 110th Congress, there have been THIRTEEN cloture votes on motions to proceed - each one wasting days of Senate time. (110th Congress, Roll Call Votes #44, 51, 53, 74, 129, 132, 133, 162, 173, 207, 208, 227, and 228)
* In comparison, in the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were a total of FOUR cloture votes on motions to proceed.

EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation

* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts ( Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act ( Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)

FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated

* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote

* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. ( Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference

* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform ( 6/26/07)

link

The Republican strategy in the Senate is to deliberately block Democratic proposals knowing that they won't be blamed for the lack of progress---the Democrats will and the media will play up this "do-nothing Congress" line.

Political scholar Norman Ornstein explains how this works:

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.

...Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.

The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.

The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.

Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed--according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened. link2

Lott understands that the Republicans don't need a majority in order to delay, block and kill Democratic bills they don't like. A lazy and complicit media is all too happy to join in and bash Harry Reid for ineffectual leadership. The GOP will flip the script in 2008 and promise to "get things done" if voters put them back in control of the Senate and (less likely) the House of Representatives.

The problem for the GOP is the Democrats have a massive advantage in raising money for their candidates in 2008 and the Republicans have to defend 23 seats in the Senate with Democrats defending 12. Trent Lott became the sixth Republican to retire from the Senate this year. Lott's seat looks safe, but it means the GOP will now have to spend money to hold onto it and that diverts scarce resources from other races.

The solution for the "do-nothing" Democrats may very well come in 2008 if there are fewer Republicans in the Senate gumming up the works.

Just responding to your barrage rapid-fire, inane, repetitive questions. I have asked the same questions that I asked in the opening post. You have asked questions other than those.



For those of you that want the Cliff's Notes version: It's the republican's fault! The democrats can do no wrong.

Well, you're right about who's at fault. Both parties are capable of doing great harm. That's kind of what happens when you can't do much of anything at all, Scub. Democrats were blamed by the GOP for keeping Bush's most controversial court appointments in committee and the media wasn't shy about reporting this obstruction two years ago, right?

Personally, I don't mind gridlock. I prefer Mexican standoffs where legislatures are concerned, but there's a war going on that needs defunding.

Speaking of being "inane," your smarmy response scubatim certainly qualifies. Sorry if you don't like the truth about how the Republicans are only offering partisan obstructionism, but those are the facts. Refute them if you can because you sure
haven't done anything else but engage in mindless bashing of the Democrats.

Obstructionism is a crutch for small-minded political hacks who have no agenda of their own so they engage in petty little games to block those who do. Just another reason to put more Republicans out to early retirement along with all the others whom have already bolted for the "EXIT" sign.

Well if that isn't partisian bashing.....

Anyway, back to the discussion in the thread.

Ok, so 13 roll call votes....out of 1122. This is your reason nothing has gotten done in congress this year? And your link to a liberal site, creates all the credibility in my eye.

13 roll call votes out of 1122 is only a small reason why congress has done nothing.

I have to believe that the democrats are not more aggressive this session, and won't be next session because of the 2008 Presidential election. They will then provide statistics such as the ones nighttimer here has without pointing out the fact that those 13 votes represent only 1.2% of all of the votes.

The republicans are doing their part so that they can point out the 'do nothing democratically controlled congress'. In my opinion, the argument that has come so far bring more responsibility on the majority and not the minority. Especially since those that opposed the surge in Iraq that are now giving credit where credit is due, are eating their words. Iraq is quickly leaving the headlines and the discussions from the democratic side. Why is that?

All in all, everyone is involved in the legislative process and needs to take responsibility. Neither party is playing well with others, however the Democrats are in control. The Senate may only have a one vote majority, but the House has 233 Democrats and 199 Republicans. Seems pretty much an overwhelming control to me, how about everyone else?Link. (scroll down to the bottom)

Edited to add: Hows that for an ""inane," your smarmy response?"

Well how do you respond to this one. The democrats run on the banner of change in Iraq, they get massive amounts of vote and subsequent positions on such. This is the same democratic voice that voted in bush the second time around right? So basically after this the democrats had a charge, to represent the political will of the people in a democracy that had voted. The vote was to change Iraq, it had little to do I think with colors basically. So what is the response of say bush and the GOP on that, its not really blocking the democrats if you think about it to any extent, its blocking what the nations wants, at least that’s how I view it. I mean what else gave the democrats the position they currently hold? What should the democrats do to live up to this, simply deny funding? I hardly doubt that would end the war overnight, and that certainly would be highly partisan. So if the democrats do or don’t, they pretty much lose either way with Iraq. My hope is they will pull the funding plug, but who can say what the future will bring. IF they don’t its easy to say hey, they did not represent the public in a democracy right, well would it not be the same for bush who also cares little to none for that same voice of democracy that is so important to theme in all of his speeches? I think I remember a discussion aired with that monster rumsfeld, who fled into hiding of course post voting fallout. He said Iraq is all backwards because it has a minority running the majority, and that democracy would fix this, well if we cant have this justice back at home as he would frame it, does this either make him and idiot or a liar or both. The bias is so think you actually need a laser to cut it anymore(pew-pew).

It makes not any sense, all of this is rather inane partisan manure, and well its nice to see though that one issue the GOP wont budge on also is anything environmental. I just had to add that one in there in case anyone has not noticed yet. I mean if we bow down to evil facts, who knows what that would mean for the future, the horribly reality of a rational society must be stopped at all costs for inane insanity.

Looking for an "attaboy," scubatim? I knew if sufficiently prodded you could step up your game and bring something more to the party than lame one-liners. Thanks for exceeding my low expectations. As far the "partisan bashing" goes, I didn't start it: you did. I'm just trying to keep up.

Now, getting back to the actual debate, I would like to ask some of our resident Republican apologists how they interpret Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott's previously quoted remarks:

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us."

Gee, that sure doesn't sound very bipartisan to me. It looks like a deliberate strategy of gridlock and opposition against the change the American voters demanded in 2006 by the political party thrown out of power.

What's it look like to you, scubatim?

The problem it seems to me is that to a liberal democrat, the word "compromise" and "bi-partisan" means in reality, "You agree with me." A President has two choices with a bill presented to him. He can either sign it, or veto it. Congress has infinite choices with what kind of bill to present to the President, and if they were truly interested in reaching an agreement on a bill, they would work with the White House in crafting one that is acceptable to both sides. Where I come from that's called compromise, but in whackib-land, it's called "caving". And, every time the democrat Congress does something that Moveon, or the Daily Kos disagrees with, they catch hell for it. They run around and demonstrate outside of Pelosi's house or hold some sort of a freakshow march. Scares the hell out of liberal Democrats because that's their base. Now if this seems somewhat harsh to the tender ears of my liberal friends here, I am really sorry for hurting your feelings. Sometimes the truth hurts. Perhaps you'll feel better if you just consider it "tough love".


Aquilla

More importantly, what the hell has the 110th congress gotten done this year?

They managed to spend about $2.7 trillion dollars, expand the deficit another $430 billion, push the national debt over $9.1 trillion, do nothing to curb the impeding crisis of health care spending , and do nothing to address the economic issues we're facing.

I couldn't agree more with Will Roger's famous statement: "Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for". Imagine how much they might have managed to spend had they tried to accomplish something!

Thanks for the big, sloppy puppy dog kiss, Aquilla, but I really think you should save your "tough love" for yourself as your Republicannibals presidential candidates keeping taking turns trying to convince prospective voters each one of is more Ronald Reagan Redux than the other.

What is even more funny is how guys like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee have suddenly come out of nowhere to make their better known and supposedly bona-fide Hillary smashers, like feeble Fred Thompson look like second stringers.

Haven't seen you "hoisting one for Fred!" much lately Aquilla? Why is that? Been looking at Feeble Fred's polling numbers lately?

Well, don't fret. Maybe if Huckabee wins he'll make Fred the Secretary of the Interior or something similarly obscure and harmless.



Oh, you mean like a unfunded mandate like "No Child Left Behind" or a new government entitlement program like a prescription drug plan for seniors or a billion-dollars-a-week War in Iraq, like the Republicans gave us when THEY were running Congress?

Yep, guess we're lucky the Repubs didn't leave any money in the treasury for the Dems to spend. Good strategy there.

Not that this is on topic particularly, but yeah, I have been disappointed in the Thompson campaign thus far and as I posted in the Republican area, quite impressed with Huckabee. I think he has a legitimate shot at the nomination, and I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. Perhaps the GOP Restaurant should consider a 'Huckabee Hoist"or something along those lines?

Aquilla

Well, don't tell anybody, but I like Mike Huckabee too. I watched and more importantly, listened to the man when he appeared at the debate moderated by Tavis Smiley (the one Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson skipped) and he came across as reasonable, thoughtful and not at all what I had expected. That's not to say I'd vote for him next year, but the Repubs could do a LOT worse than Huckabee somewhere on their ticket next year.

He's poised to upset Romney in Iowa and drawing considerable fire from the other campaigns. How is Mr. Mike handling the slings and arrows?

"When they're kicking you in the rear, it's just proving you're still out front." ~Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee

Now back to our regularly scheduled "Congress ain't worth spit" confab.

I think the reason so little gets done is because the leadership of the House has brought almost every bill to the floor on a closed rule and often don't even offer the minority the option of the motion to recommit. Under these closed rules legislation reflects the views of only 20 to 30 members of the House membership, this causes really impossible to correct legislation to move forward to the Senate. Of course when the basic legislation is unrepairable by the Senate minority there will be obstruction to return the bill to the House for repair.

The House leadership offered a change from the closing out of the minority, openness and transparency, no earmarks without connection to the person offering the earmark and so on. Well, that didn't last a day before everything went behind closed doors. The SCHIP bill wasn't even created in a committee, the select few of the leadership wrote the Bill and then presented it to the House with no chance for amendments or recommit.

The Energy Bill was written by special interests and contains no energy. The members from both parties are upset with the legislation because of the unfair way it is written. When legislation is the product of a select few and doesn't represent the "republic" process then it will be rejected by the minority in the Senate and the President. It is a silly game of the Republicans or obstructionists when the truth is that 20 or 30 folks from the leadership desire to have absolute power over all legislation.

If we were referring to facts, you would notice that BoF started the partisan bashing:

But if you want to blame me that is ok, we understand.


Haha, republican apologist, I love that lable, as if you aren't a democrat apologist? I noted in a previous post that both sides are only playing partisan politics to bash each other in next years election. The republicans will lable the democratically controlled congress as a do nothing congress, and the democrats will say the republicans refuse to work with their opposition. Both will be right, and both are wrong for doing it. The only thing these these people care about is votes in the next election. Just another reason we should have term limits for congress. So since I can find fault with both parties, am I still a republican apologist? Just curious...


Show me how your democrats have been bipartisan, please.



And to think they thought we wouldn't figure it out! Compromise has always meant as long as you agree with me. I love the democrats campaign commercials claiming that they are going to bring republicans and democrats together to work to solve all the world's problems.

I think you knew, as did Zack when he started a couple of similar threads, that they would turn partisan. I have repeatedly said that cooperation is a two way street.

I will stick by my description of Bush as pigheaded. Even when his own party was in power, Bush didn't have much respect for congress. Do you remember all those signing statements?

Here's an article from 2006 when Republicans were in control.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ndreds_of_laws/

What evidence do you have that Bush is offering as much or more cooperation than congress?



This response to nighttimer's thorough, well-thought-out post tells us a lot about your approach scubatim, and it's not good.

Really? Did nighttimer do anything except blame the republicans? Please share any claims that the democrats hold any responsibility at all in that post. I am simply pointing out that nighttimer only blamed the republicans. Did you get anything else from his post? Your assessment of my approach being not good makes no difference at all. I have specifically pointed out where both parties are wrong. Where have either of you done that. Simply saying that it is a two way street is a blanket statement. You can't be specific, can you?

When it comes to me supposedly knowing that it would become a partisan debate, you were the first one to throw stones instead of trying to come up with reasons other than 'it's the republican's fault'. I am the one that is pointing out the faults and reasons I believe both parties are responsible.

I have said essentially the same thing on a number of occasions in this thread. See highlighed portion.



I guess you missed that. I'm not going to get into repeating myself. There are othe instances where I said something similar, but if you want to read them go look.

What evidence do you have that Bush has cooperated with Congress?

I haven't missed anything. What specifically has the democrats done to cause nothing to get done? I have pointed out that the repulicans are forcing this years congress on some occassions to be a do nothing congress for political gain. You have made the safe statement that it is a two way street while pointing out the faults of one party and not the other. You further go on to change the subject to Bush not cooperating with congress. I pointed out that if you include all the bills that were sent to the President's Desk, you would have a total of 139 bills. Wasn't it 60 of which were to designate some federal building named after someone? That is more than 43% of the bills. What has congress been doing if it can only send 79 bills that don't relate to naming a building to the president? Raised the minimum wage? That is the only thing I have heard any liberal come up with. It takes an entire year to pass one piece of controversial legislation? I think you, BoF are the one that missed something. I have looked and looked for you pointing out the faults of both parties, but for some reason, other than your two-way street comment, you don't assign any specific blame, which is the safe way to blame everyone while you only point out the republican's faults. As far as evidence Bush has cooperated with congress...only nine bills (6.4%) weren't signed into law. Pretty good percentage if you ask me. That means he signed nearly 94% of the bills that were sent to him into law. Of course that isn't the topic of this thread. If you would like to debate that point, please start a new thread.

So, you're content with the current Congress doing nothing at all about any of the critical issues facing our country that I mentioned? Is it really the Democratic strategy to do nothing, and simply bring up the ills of past Congresses? Hmmm...good strategy there. I would have thought you would have expected (demanded, even?) more, but apparently not--which goes a long way to explaining exactly why nothing was done. Is that really the mindset of Democrats... happy wiith doing nothing while playing the political game over past history? How small minded. So much for that whole 'Progressive Party' nonsence, eh?

Exactly when did Democrats become against education, entitlement programs, and seniors, anyway?

If the information I and others have posted doesn't satisfy why don't you post evidence of Republicans cooperating with Democrats to end filibusters, etc.? You can do some leg work if you want to defend Republicans. Perhaps there's scant evidence to support the claim that congressional Republicans worked with Democrats to get legislation passed, but it will make your job that much easier.

Wow, maybe my posts are reading on other people's computers differently than what I am writing, so I will say it again. The republicans aren't working with democrats for political purposes. I haven't even begun to try to defend anyone. I have placed blame on the republicans and the democrats equally for their lack of cooperation. But it seems that those of you that find fault in only the republicans (I know, BoF, you said it's a two-way street, but that doesn't really satisfy assigning blame) and not assigning any blame to the majority of those in congress.

What you haven't posted that satisfys, Lesly is how you only blame the republicans. At what point do you start to point blame on the democrats, or are they not to blame at all?

You obviously think Republicans need defending or you wouldn't complain about one-sided responses.


Really? How do you think Democrats failed to cooperate, by not proposing more conservative legislation?


Should I blame the group that is not holding up bills? If yes, why?


I reiterate I blame the Democrats for not doing enough, and Republicans for not letting them do more. That may not be the kind of criticism you want to hear, but it is criticism. I've gone as far as declaring no party affiliation and have told off Democratic volunteers asking for money since I dropped the label until they got the point and stopped calling. That seems more critical to me than whining about conservatives not acting as conservatives but still affiliating myself with the conservative party. I don't know what other criteria I'm supposed to satisfy in this thread.

You obviously think you know what the hell I think since you make that assumption above, but you don't know Jack! I just find it humorous when people blame the minority for nothing getting done in congress, and let the majority get off exempt.


For starters, resubmitting the same bill that got the big "V" from Bush without the number of votes to override, on the SCHIP and military funding bills for starters....submitting bills to get the veto pen is one thing, but to submit the bills multiple times is a waste.


Yes, see above!


What more do you think the democrats could have done? I ask out of curiosity, not hostility.

Maybe you need to start defending Republicans, with something more substantial than Cliff Notes. I'll make you a deal, I'll make the case against Bush and you do the research to prove it wrong.

Bush has gone out of his way to pick fights with congress. In fact, he has taken his show on the road to places like Arkansas, Indiana and Pennsylvania. to blast Congress. He even insists on getting the opposition party name correct. It’s Democratic Party not Democrat. Bush knows this and it’s a slur