July 1, 2007

Senatorial Karma's Gonna Get You (Democrats)

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have come under tremendous pressure to start achieving the ambitious goals they set for the 110th Congress after winning control for the first time in 12 years. However, the two Democrats find themselves looking foolish as this Congress has done less in its first five months than any in recent memory -- and both Reid and Pelosi blame the Republicans for obstructionism in the Senate. They seem to forget that the two of them played the same exact game for their own political advantage over the past few years of Republican control (via Memeorandum):

Pelosi sounded more apologetic than celebratory Friday when she announced with her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' list of accomplishments six months after they seized control of Capitol Hill and promised "a new direction" in Washington.

"I'm not happy with Congress, either," Pelosi, of San Francisco, conceded.

She pinned the blame on "the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate." ...

"The Republicans are doing what the Democrats did," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs scholar at Boston University. "They're using the power of the Senate filibuster, and the power in the House when you have narrow majorities, to make a do-nothing Congress -- even when there's a lot of issues on the table, even when there's a lot of interest in accomplishing things."

The Democrats in their years in the minority made a filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority -- rather than a 51-vote simple majority -- the threshold needed to pass any legislation in the Senate. Democrats routinely blocked all but the most noncontroversial bills. They created a Senate crisis in 2005 by filibustering Bush's judicial nominees, provoking Republican leaders to threaten to do away with the filibuster. That showdown was averted only by the intervention of a dozen moderates in both parties.

Payback is a ... bummer. Having set the precedent, now Pelosi and Reid want to complain about its use against them. Both Democrats proved that the strategy works in making the majority party look incompetent, and the GOP have just decided to follow their playbook against them.

Is this wise? Not in the long run. We have serious problems that require cooperation and compromise. However, listening to Harry Reid complain about Senate obstructionism is somewhat akin to hearing a small child complain to his mother that his sibling hit him back.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senatorial Karma's Gonna Get You (Democrats):

» Video: Dems Celebrate 6 Months of Failure as Congressional Leaders from Webloggin
Democrats haven’t delivered on much of anything other than increasing minimum wage. The failed immigration reform bill is simply the exclamation point that caps off 6 months of failure and empty promises. What better way to celebrate this lack of acc... [Read More]

» Senator Reid and the 101st Senator from FND Blog
Sen. Harry Reid continues his lamentable habit of blaming President Bush for the failure of last week's Immigration Reform bill. While the media enjoys echoing this, the loud people point to a sterilized Mr. Reid and his powerlessness to reign-in [Read More]

Comments (35)

Posted by Fight4TheRight | July 1, 2007 11:56 AM

Nice snapshot of this Cap'n Ed.

A few points I'd like to make:

1. I don't think at anytime watching the Congress have I seen this line quoted more by Democratic Senators and Congressmen - " The people sent us here to get things done, to get bills passed." Oh? Is that the measurement of a good Congress - to pass 20 bills a month? How about you don't pass anything and execute and streamline the boat load of crap that's been passed the past 4 years?

2. Term Limits. One term for Senators and two terms for Reps. I cannot name more than 4 Senators that I would regret having to leave the Senate and I can think of 30 Senators I'd love to see packing their bags tomorrow.

3. Lack of Leadership. The Dems found themselves in a tough spot - they had chosen Reid when they were in the minority because Reid was a rat terrier and had no visible care about his own career - they put him on top as an antaganizer. Then they found themselves in a narrow majority and nobody's had the balls to say he doesn't fit this role. And Pelosi, well....she's in over her head and Steny Hoyer knows it.

Posted by Bennett | July 1, 2007 11:59 AM

I think this is what we wanted. I don't think we really want these yahoos being able to accomplish anything because so far what they seem to want to do isn't in the country's best interest. So good that they are bogged down and stalemated and ineffective.

I also think that perhaps the Democrats are learning that no one really wanted them and their agenda, the voters just didn't like the way the Republican majority was running things either.

Posted by MarkJ | July 1, 2007 12:53 PM

Nine words that the MoveGoners, et. al. must be now muttering to themselves:

"Rove, you magnificent bastard, you read the Donks' playbook!"

Posted by Lew | July 1, 2007 12:55 PM

Time and time again, both Democrats and Republicans go off to Washington with their precious little "mandate" firmly grasped in their sweaty little hands and keep playing the same old games, in the same old way, with the same old machinery, and getting the same old results. We've been watching this farcical dance all of our lives and we all understand the arcane rules as well as we know all the penalty calls in a football game. In fact for some of us, its become our favorite spectator sport and the primary way we grasp at relevance in our lives as we live out our vicarious crusades.

The Republicans just got bounced out because they eventually turned out to be just a different wrapping on the same old package, and now the Democrats are whining because they aren't getting what they want by keeping the same old game in motion.

The world is too small and the walls are too transparent, but the people we elect keep playing the same old game because they just can't think past the borders of their blighted experience. At some point, somebody is going to have to take the scariest option of all and step back from the table long enough to ask the question that's been begged for almost 230 years; Maybe we need a different game? D'ya think???

Posted by Rose | July 1, 2007 12:56 PM

Is this wise? Not in the long run. We have serious problems that require cooperation and compromise.

However, for the time being, it is infinitely wise, as far too many Senators, Dims and Rinos, are heavily into destroying America, no matter what.

ANYTHING IT TAKES to block them if VITALLY in our interests.

The only kind of "COMPROMISE" they are accepting THESE DAYS, remains purely on a FATAL level, for the USA.


We do NOT need their compromise - at least NOT BEFORE we have a total overhaul of hte MEMBERSHIP of the Senate, and remove the ones who are TRAITORS to the USA.

Yes, I know - calling them "TRAITORS" or raising the word "TREASON" isn't "HELPFUL" in developing "cooperation".

Neither is laying one's head down cooperatively on a CHOPPING BLOCK.

I'm just a little bit more concerned with stopping lunatics from smashing this ship of state into a whole field of iceburgs, than I am in "sharing the steering wheel" "fairly", these days.



THIS is a Constitutional rule of government BY THE PEOPLE - AND NOT BY CONSTITUTIONALLY APPOINTED PARTY FACTIONS who must form alliances - as most European governments do.





Yet they have kept the IMMEDIATE withdrawal of our troops as THEIR primary goal.


NOTHING in the Constitution gives them ANY QUARTER on that issue - YET THEY ARE STILL GOING TO TRY TO SLIP IT IN THE BACK DOOR - and it appears Bush may try to help them, based on MSM SLANTED POLLS that do NOT ask the right questions about WHY people are unhappy with the war on Terror.

Compromise at this time is extremely DANGEROUS, and we are entitled to use ANY means to prevent them from FURTHER CIRCUMVENTING THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY in order to destroy this nation FURTHER.


The Senate has forgotten that, for the time being - so this is a time when it is vitally necessary that those in a minority in the Senate - BUT HAVE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AS THEIR MANDATE - must fight as hard as they can to HOLD TO THE COURSE CHOSEN BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Posted by inmypajamas | July 1, 2007 1:29 PM

Rose - You have covered a lot of valid points and I agree with a lot of what you have written. I just have one suggestion - tone down the excessive use of all caps. All caps is the internet equivalent of shouting at the top of your lungs. It detracts from your otherwise solid message. Try using italics if you want to emphasize your points.

/internet etiquette granny off

Posted by Jim C | July 1, 2007 1:53 PM


I'm assuming when you say it might be time for a different game your talking about our form of government. What other "game" would you suggest? Monarchy, Socialism, Communism? Sorry, not in my country.

Jim C

Posted by Carol Herman | July 1, 2007 2:29 PM


The bets were laid down early!

First, Bush happens to like secrets. So he pulled in Lott and Mitch McConnell. He got McCain, here, to go along. In January. After the November elections should have been absorbed better.

But Nancy's "rag" hung over Bush's eyeballs. And, he so wants to have a legacy, too. That what went on, WHEN ON IN SECRET. Again, Bush loves secrets. (Which also costs him a lot. in terms of wasting his public capital.)

Ah, I think I de-coded the immigration bill, too.

Bush thought he'd halp McCain become a front-runner, in what was turning out to be a big field of candidates.

No. It didn't go down that way!

But that doesnt change the HOW this all just happened. Lott? And, the other senators? They were sure that the "senators ruled." And, whatever they came up with, nothing the public could do, would stop them. FOOLS!

Still, we had our scares. Drudge scared me a few weeks ago, when he said the senate was gonna pass this sucker on its first go-round. He said the senators were making fun of the phone calls. And, then they said, the phone calls from angry constituents stopped coming in.

The second time the bill was brought back from the dead, I thought Drudge had used up all his ammunition. Nothing would stop it, now.

But I was wrong. Michelle Malkin did a turn-around on "Muchias Gracias." And, anyone with a Net connection was able to link to this 30-second spot on the Internet. I think, actually, it was this spot that did the trick.

And, it upset the applecart. Because in the senate not every seated kiester is suicidal. The real rebellion happened in the cloakroom.

Bush bet the ranch that he'd have a legacy! He bet the ranch that by pushing a McCain sponsored bill forward, he'd be responsible for picking McCain as the GOP nominee. You want to talk reality to Bush? Right now he's making nice to putin; and the russians are probably stealing barbara's silverware and towels. Not that I care.

But I'm no longer confused on the WHY and the HOW things came along to kill the Immigration Bill. While Bush didn't even know Bill was sick.

I'll also bet, that in the back rooms of politics, there are changes being made. The only way the current office holders can begin to survive elections ... (where, to use Lindsay Graham's philosophy, the GOP can hide contendahs during primaries) ... the NEW NEW RULES will give advantages to 3rd party candidates; should the GOP continue to be foolish enough to allow itself driven by Bush-league'rs.

Things actually do change under out noses. And, on top of our heads. There's no other way, for instance, to describe my grey hairs. Why, just yesterday, I was young.

Up ahead? The way the senate does busy; and by that I mean, keeping all the newcomers in line, with office assignments and committee chairs ... They're just old rules.

If your old timers go for a fling. And, hit the wall. The likelihood that the business continues, unabated, doesn't take into consideration what just happened here.

WE GOT TO INDEPENDENCE DAY! In spite of the elected clowns.

And, lots of people are rip roaring mad.

Posted by Lightwave | July 1, 2007 3:30 PM

Ed, we don't have to look very far to see examples of legislation that had to be blocked, amnesty bill anyone?

The GOP needs to follow this up with the second half of the "playbook": pointing out that because the Dems are now the majority in both houses, Democrats decide which legislation is brought up for vote. Not Bush. Not the Supreme Court. Nancy and Harry.

The GOP will win this battle by telling the truth: the Dems have yet to bring up any real solutions to be voted on to America's problems. All they want to do is engage in Bush Derangement Syndrome. Ask yourself why Democrats aren't proposing bills to secure the borders, but seem to have plenty of time to waste holding hearings about what Alberto Gonzales might have been thinking.

The GOP isn't at fault here. They don't have the power to bring up legislation to be voted on anymore. 100% of the blame for this, the worst Do-Nothing Congress of all time, falls squarely on the shoulders or Harry and Nancy.

Posted by J. Ewing | July 1, 2007 3:39 PM

It's axiomatic: There is no problem that a Congressional majority cannot make worse.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 1, 2007 3:45 PM

Hairy and NancyGirl are being led around on a leash by the far left - perhaps 3% of the country at best, but the people who call the shots for the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.

They can't possibly win. Reid and Pelosi are not going to be able to persuade anyone beyond that 3% to support the far left agenda of their masters.

The Democrat Congress is a miserable failure, and turning out Reid and Pelosi will do no good either.

The Donkey Party has a broken leg and needs to be out of its (and our) misery.

Posted by coldoc | July 1, 2007 4:00 PM

In 1994 the Republicans ran on a "Contract with America" that was the result of careful polling of the PEOPLE, not the party heirarchy. They took the identified issues and made solid proposals on how to fix the problems, not some vague promise to "do better" or "end the culture of corruption". In my lifetime, I cannot remember another time when congress critters ever went out up front and asked the PEOPLE what their issues were, then proposed solutions based on those findings prior to an election. Like him or not, Newt did the right thing in this case.

Today we are seeing Pelosi's and Reid's strawman "problems" and their "solutions". It often seems that the "problems" are created in order to fit the pre-selected "solutions" that are derived solely from Bush hatred. What a bass-ackwards way of doing things. The post-Newt Republicans did the same thing just based on Clinton hatred.

Let the PEOPLE drive the Congress, not a party caucus! When we begin to think we have a say, then maybe their approval ratings will start to increase, and maybe they will again be able to earn some respect.

Posted by Charles Ives | July 1, 2007 4:12 PM

Term limits are absolutely essential and should be the single biggest priority for the citizens of this country.

We must end this insane careerism in DC.

Posted by Carol Herman | July 1, 2007 4:24 PM

Term limits are not about to happen. If anything, politics may pull the other way? You just can't bet on the future.

One thing I do think,, though, is that Immigration Bill died because some GOP senators, "below" the rank of the leadership. Went into revolt.

By the way, one of the reasons capitalism fairs well, is that it allows the market place to make lots of decisions.

And, the same rule will apply, sooner, rather than later, up on capitol hill.

Because? In the past the perks went to a few. Like Dole calling out his dibs in 1996. And, then calling in his chips so his wife could run for a senate seat. These are old time "graft" and "go" policies.

And, because the network was something Bush thought he could control, he somehow got involved in this Immigration Bill disasters. But, I think, only for the purpose of providing McCain with the "Dole seat of 1996.)

Well, Dubya guessed wrong.

Not the first time.

But all of this was done back in January. After the GOP took a beating in November 2006.

Bush grabbed this idea, with the idea of his own, that he'd be creating "legacy." (My how he puts the cart before the horse, time and again.)

McCain bought in, because he was showing "Maverick Leadership." While his new bus has been renamed The Double-Talk Express.

In political life, either your star is rising. Or you're heading into the garbage heap of "has been."

The other thing I notice is that Jeb Bush doesn't have a Chinaman's chance of becoming presidential timber. GONE. Because Dubya let the log roll away. This is a good thing.

Too many aristocratic families feel entitled.

But we've done best with the men the people adore.

As to what's ahead? If another candidate even breathes that he'd put McCain into a cabinet chair? Their popularity goes downhill, like Brownback's.

Oh, yeah. There were losers.

And, from where I sit, the Internet, again, proves to be a better place to share ideas, than to think the pundits on martha's vineyard got what ta sell.

The Internet's got everything. Including citizen participation. World doesn't get better than that.

Posted by Bitter Pill | July 1, 2007 5:17 PM

What Carol? No House of Saud rambling? I'm shocked!

Posted by Lew | July 1, 2007 6:16 PM

No Jim C., I'm not talking about a different form of government, I'm talking about a different way of operating the one we have. One that more accurately reflects the confidence that was placed in us all those many years ago when the Constitution and the Declaration were fresh in our minds.

Right now part of the game is to confiscate my neighbor's wealth to buy my vote, and as long as I continue to reward that kind of money-laundering scheme with guaranteed incumbency then the same old game will go on. Federal spending will never be under control and the Federal government will continue to grow with increasing centralization and increasing opaqueness and increasing arrogance.

Another part of the game is to "promise them anything" to get elected, and then do whatever you want to do when you get to Washington. This part of the game is falling apart, thanks to the growing transparency and immediacy of modern communications and the rise of multiple new information sources, but our little elected darlings can't quite figure out how to save it. After all, its really tough to be a member of an elite ruling class when the damned peons keep whipping you silly whenever you try to pull a fast one bye them.

A third part of the game is to concentrate on "Looking Good" no matter what you're doing or even if you aren't doing anything at all. Waving and bragging and shouting about all the problems you've solved by passing all these laws, and then quietly defunding those very same "solutions" when you're sure nobody is watching. Once again, this little game is getting harder and harder because we're watching closer and closer.

And the game goes on and on and on Jim, and its been going on for over a hundred years in one form or another. I could mention a dozen more ways this little game goes on, but you get the point.

No, I don't want a new form of government Jim, I want desperately to see this one work because in spite of the way its so cynically abused, I'm still convinced that it really is "the last best hope" for all of us!

Posted by MattHelm | July 1, 2007 6:40 PM

The biggest problem we have is the career politician as was vividly displayed in Sean Hannity's interview with Senator Voinovitch in which the senator stressed his forty years of experience. The House and Senate were never intended to be filled by career legislators. The entire purpose was for citizens to serve a term or two as a public service and then return home to their jobs and careers.

Originally, only those with sufficient private incomes could afford not only to run in office, but also to serve their terms as the financial rewards for serving in Congress weren't that great; but, in a well meaning effort to widen the pool of legislators beyond the elites and wealthy, pay for legislators was increased. However, this ended up backfiring, giving us the system we have today: professional legislators, who no longer really feel connected to their communities because they spend so much time in Washington and are instead beholden to the special interests and activist groups who keep them in power.

Term limits laws in the past weren't necessary because of the ideology of the private doing his/her public service and then retiring. But with that notion of citizenship virtue having gone, along with so many other civic virtues, I've since come around to the point of view that we do need term limits to protect us from the professional legislator.

Posted by richard mcenroe | July 1, 2007 7:21 PM

Maybe we can point Al Qaeda at K Street,,,

Posted by Monkei | July 1, 2007 7:48 PM

well captain, it would appear that Senator Lugar lost his GOP playbook along the way ...

Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 1, 2007 8:03 PM

Charles Ives said

"Term limits are absolutely essential and should be the single biggest priority for the citizens of this country.

We must end this insane careerism in DC."

Problem is, many politicians promised to serve one or two terms and then quit. However, many of them then got seduced by DC and change their minds.

Usually, the only examples of this that get "reported" are when GOP pols break the promise. But it should be noted that one of the most powerful Dems in Congress, Marty Meehan (D-MA) also broke his promise to abide by term limits.

Posted by SkyWatch | July 1, 2007 8:42 PM

asking the people in office to agree to term limits will not work. The only ones to honor the limits are the honest ones we don't want to leave in the first place.

Posted by Neo | July 1, 2007 9:34 PM

I looked throughout the whole piece for a mention about oil/energy. Folks out in the hinterland are pissed about gas prices.

When the Repubs controlled Congress, the Democrats railed about price being too high and all that, but now that the Dems own the House and Senate, there is NOTHING.

All that old talk about high prices is gone, replaced with how the federal government can get "their cut' of the profits with new "profits" taxes. What does this do to get the price of gas down ? NOTHING.

Posted by LouisianaLightning | July 1, 2007 9:52 PM

Since we will never (probably) have term limits, how about eliminating retirement benefits? You can serve as long as you want BUT, don't expect anything pension-wise after you leave. This should discourage career pols.

Just thinking outside the box.

Posted by Carol Herman | July 1, 2007 9:58 PM

New technologies have come along and saved many a day. All the way back to the 19th century; when capital and men's investments built the railroads.

It's not really government. Most of the time, government just gets in the way.

Even during WW2, it's an example of American muscle and industry.

And, again, in the late 1980's, when it looked like we were gonna go economically kaput; the new-new toy on the block proved to be what computers could do. This is still true. Though the toys coming at us are always changing.

Why, way back in the "dark ages" of the 1990's, who was using Usenet? Huh? Who foresaw this thing, that we have now? Where people can communicate with one another; sans the drivel from the talking heads? And, that going on the ropes, instead, are the old media? You knew?

I didn't.

But I can see, just in the events of yesterday, and the day before that. How easy it was to get news from the Internet. And, to comment, to boot.

Including the miracles that it could'a been worse in London. And, Glasgow. Instead? We saw the nicest people in the world, not panicked at all. And, ordinary people who were heroes. Like the man who grabbed an extinquisher and didn't fear for himself; while he put out the burning terrorist.

You think the terrorists got "film at 11" that will work at recruiting more? (One of those terrorists, by the way, is a licensed physician, working in England, who was born in Pakistan.) Not quite the same story as the Pakistani doctor who got to date Diana.

I think, too, the police have a pretty good handle on the cell that produced this "show."

And, this is a good time to remember that hitler didn't win, either. All he managed to do, really, was to bring infamy to germany. In other words? He quite successfully did what WW1 didn't do, which was flush german accomplishment down the toilet.

So. Yes. We are at war. And, our senators are as incompetent as the first group, was. Way back in 1776. When the arabs had a field day at sea. Capturing our ships. (Where trade was the number #1 factor in helping our treasury grow.) And, it took 40 years. Four presidents, before James Monroe, in his second term, FINALLY decided not to pay the yearly tribute. And, our navy and marines sunk the arabs' ship at sea. END OF PROBLEM.

This is what I mean. The early congress critters didn't want a navy. But, then? Even when Thomas Jefferson decided to pay tribute; going behind the backs of the men who wanted to fight.

We EVENTUALLY did the right thing.

Dubya? Had the opportunity to do better. But he blew it!

Americans will vote. I'm not so sure the Bonkeys' have the advantage. If anything? The INDEPENDENT VOTER may just pick INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES. There's nothing that got twisted over, in the senate; but the old applecart. And, the guy who CAN win, (like Arbaham Lincoln in 1860), may not be a favorite son. But he has the ability to WIN. You'd be surprised how that grabs the attention of politicians.

While, as I said. The real strenghts are in the techonologies. And, these are where the opportunities out there continue to amaze us.

I'm not talking about the iPhone.

Posted by Rose | July 1, 2007 10:48 PM

Rose - You have covered a lot of valid points and I agree with a lot of what you have written. I just have one suggestion - tone down the excessive use of all caps. All caps is the internet equivalent of shouting at the top of your lungs. It detracts from your otherwise solid message. Try using italics if you want to emphasize your points.

/internet etiquette granny off

Posted by: inmypajamas at July 1, 2007 1:29 PM

Thanks for noticing I was only trying to emphasize my points.

Don't worry about turning granny etiquette off for my sake. SO LOL! oops.

Anyway, folks have been trying to get me to stop "shouting" in internet posts for 8 years - but using italics to emphasize my points simply never occurred to me.

I'll try hard. I think that sounds like a great idea. :)

Posted by Rose | July 1, 2007 10:59 PM

Term limits are absolutely essential and should be the single biggest priority for the citizens of this country.

We must end this insane careerism in DC.

Posted by: Charles Ives at July 1, 2007 4:12 PM

Sounds like a FABULOUS way to get perpetual lines of newbies to hand the reins over to their staffers and make unelected,Congressional staffers who have to answer to nobody whatsoever the absolute entrenched power sources of Washington D.C.

What a real winner that would be.

So not!

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

Posted by Rose | July 1, 2007 11:10 PM

The other thing I notice is that Jeb Bush doesn't have a Chinaman's chance of becoming presidential timber. GONE. Because Dubya let the log roll away. This is a good thing.


Surprised you didn 't notice - JEB's timber dissolved in a puddle over the Terri Schivao fiasco. And his do-nothing ineptitude wasn't helped by his declaration that if folks from both sides were angry at him, "he could know that he was doing something right" - that couldn't have been more false to the timber of a stateman.

No really good answer, but he might have tried, say, standing on those nursing home steps and calling for Michale to allow him to go in and see her himself, and then the ball would have been in the other court. What if he had stood a vigil with Hannity for a while.

But that is definitely where the corner turned on Jeb's career options. Office holders have tough calls to make - Jeb couldn't do it.
That was his testing ground.

Posted by Rose | July 1, 2007 11:15 PM

Since we will never (probably) have term limits, how about eliminating retirement benefits?

That is a fabulous idea, LL. A great idea - always close to my heart!

Posted by KJBtruth | July 2, 2007 12:32 AM

It seems to me that since they cannot tolerate defeat in government, the Democrats will do the one thing they can do to end "Republican obstructionism."

Change the rules, and dispose of that nasty filibuster. I'm actually a bit surprised they didn't this time around.

Posted by karen | July 2, 2007 3:22 AM

Carol, where do you get the impression the Dubya is trying to help McCain get the nomination? Why would Dubya try to help McCain when McCain has done everything possible to derail ANYTHING Dubya tried to accomplish, except for the war on terror?

Also, we don't want term limits. We put those in while I lived in California and it caused the state to go down the tubes faster. What heppened was the lobbyists out there are now all writing the bills and the elected folks are voting for things they have no idea are in the bills. So, while Californians put in term limits to get Willy Brown out of Sacramento (totally necessary), the long term consequences of such actions are as bad as the object that they were trying to boot out of the Speaker position.

I hope the Republicans continue to be ballsy now that they found their balls again (the ones who derailed this immigration thing). The more we don't let the Dems ruin our country, the better. In fact, Congress is becoming quite entertaining by their ineptitude.

This 2008 election is by no means in the bag for the libs.

Posted by swabjockey05 | July 2, 2007 4:15 AM


“Ask yourself why Democrats aren't proposing bills to secure the borders…”

“The GOP isn't at fault here. They don't have the power to bring up legislation to be voted on anymore. 100% of the blame for this, the worst Do-Nothing Congress of all time, falls squarely on the shoulders or Harry and Nancy.”

You’re right. But you’re also a little bit wrong. Your Repubs had how many years to “secure the borders”?

Tell me again what your Repubs did to secure the borders?

This non-Republican initially voted for some of those same Republicans…I will always have a little place in my heart where I’ll store the CONTEMPT I have for each of the Repubs that got my vote. They screwed away their golden opportunity to actually do something important.

Posted by paul a'barge | July 2, 2007 5:14 AM

Pelosi is not in the Senate.

Posted by PB | July 2, 2007 5:16 AM

Compromise to the public means blending polar ideas into a solution that advances an issue for the good of the country. Compromise to our politicians (like the immigration bill) is an effort to lard up both poles to a level where one can hold their nose while voting for their pole.

The failure of the immigration bill is a wonderful demonstration of this dynamic. To me, it says the pols are voting their pocketbook not the goal of advancing the country. For this reason I think we need to look at their comp package instead of term limits, i.e. they make to much $ and gain too much influence. Their motivations are no longer 'pure'. Choke off the sugar and the ants go away.

Posted by Adjoran | July 2, 2007 6:05 AM

The Founders deliberately set up a system which would not enact laws easily. The Senate was designed - without any consideration of filibuster - as a body which would move slowly, and fully in keeping with the interests of the States who appointed them.

An old tale has Jefferson challenging Washington on the need for a bicameral legislature, the Senate in particular. Washington replies, "For the same reason I stir sugar in my coffee, sir: to cool it. And so we need the Senate!"

[Incidentally, for many decades I wondered if the Father of our country might not be a bit daft over the above line. We add sugar to SWEETEN our coffee (if we are heathens), not to COOL it, right? Then I was reading a book on colonial times, and it covered several areas of etiquette. One was that it was considered quite rude to blow on your coffee or stir it with a spoon to cool it. However, it was allowed to stir it to add sugar, so the custom became to dip one's spoon into the sugar bowl, capturing only a few grains if any at all, and then stir one's coffee - perfectly socially acceptable. So Washington knew what he was talking about].

Unfortunately, the tale is apocryphal. During the years when the Constitution was being written and debated, Jefferson was in Paris serving as our Ambassador to France. He had no role in drafting it, nor did he participate in any substantive debates about it (insofar as recorded history can prove).

Still, the Senate did come into being at least in part for this reason. Getting nothing done is not a bad thing when government is concerned. Their failures are expensive, but seem like bargains compared to their "successes."

This is why the financial markets are so fond of divided government: gridlock is a good thing. No new schemes enacted is a good thing.

If we want to "send a message" to Congress, I nominate Ronald Reagan's preference: "Don't just do something - stand there!"

Posted by Immolate | July 2, 2007 10:38 AM

Government governs best which governs least. I wish that principal would also produce gridlock on earmarks, but hey, you can't have everything.