You ARE just kidding Kate, right?

Where are the moderate demoncrats? To the demoncrats compromise means agreeing with them because, as is obvious, they have only the best interests of their constituency, I mean the country, at heart doncha know.

This fanciful letter illustrates the utter arrogance and hubris of the left wingers. They are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Yep, the model of moderation, I'd say.

In fact, this letter should be rewritten, replacing republican with demoncrat, to be more factual.

Brava, Kate. Brava!

Ideological thinking and demogaugory are all too present and influential on both sides of the aisle, anyone who cannot see that is blinded by such.

You only need to look at congressional voting records when politically charged issues are brought up for a vote on a particular bill. More often than not, the voting is split right down party lines.

Unfortunately this is what we've come to expect from our politicians. They stand up and proclaim their own virtues and greatness while pointing the finger of blame and failure at the other party.

If you can not see this then you're simply blinded by the same ideological thinking and demogaugory that you so abhorrently decry.

I agree, mjf.

And KD, my response would be the same should one substitute Democrat for Republican.

Wow, not only is this letter poorly written but the content is devoid of any self-reflection or logical conclusions based in reality. The fact the this letter was chosen by the PG Editors as fit to publish shows their sheer idiocy and lack of critical thinking.

It is the democrats who chose to abandon their blue-collar middle class voting base in favor of pitting Americans against each other based on their class, gender and race. It is the democrats that would rather accuse their political opponents of "racism" rather than dealing with the hard truth of 46 million Americans on food stamps or a black unemployment rate of 13.6% (38.5% for teens). It was Barack Obama that presented a budget that refused to deal with the long term deficit and debt, in fact it was so embarrassing that his own party voted against it in a 97-0 vote in 2011.

So please, spare me the "like you" nonsense because you don't give a damn about what I want. You only care about what you want. Unfortunately, it does not appear that you even know what you want, except for anyone with a D next to their name to win in the next election.

written by KDHunter, February 13, 2012 - 12:16 PM

You ARE just kidding Kate, right?

Where are the moderate demoncrats? To the demoncrats compromise means agreeing with them because, as is obvious, they have only the best interests of their constituency, I mean the country, at heart doncha know.

You are kidding, right, KD?

Where are the moderate Democrats? They are all over the place, unfortunately. They are called reagan Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, conservdems. Many elected Democrats consider themselves conservative: Casey, Critz, Altmire, here in PA, among others.

There are zero liberal republicans - such a animal doesn't exist - and there are barely any moderate republicans having been pushed out by extreme right wing tea party candidates.

It was the Democrats who agreed to spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy in an attempt to reach a compromise. The republicans wouldn't compromise on tax increases on their protected wealthy.

As for compromise - it wasn't the Democrats who held the country hostage over the debt deal - that would be the tea party economic terrorists.

Jim DeMint, throwing red meat to the CPAC convention, outright rejected compromise.

So your attempts to re-write the facts fails on all accounts.

written by williamkerr, February 13, 2012 - 02:18 PM

Wow, not only is this letter poorly written but the content is devoid of any self-reflection or logical conclusions based in reality. The fact the this letter was chosen by the PG Editors as fit to publish shows their sheer idiocy and lack of critical thinking.

It is the democrats who chose to abandon their blue-collar middle class voting base in favor of pitting Americans against each other based on their class, gender and race. It is the democrats that would rather accuse their political opponents of "racism" rather than dealing with the hard truth of 46 million Americans on food stamps or a black unemployment rate of 13.6% (38.5% for teens). It was Barack Obama that presented a budget that refused to deal with the long term deficit and debt, in fact it was so embarrassing that his own party voted against it in a 97-0 vote in 2011.

Now you are a English teacher Mr. Kerr. I suggest you read the Elements of Style by E.B. White.
Next you should review just who divided America and continues to do so today. Hint-the GOP/Tea Party. Trying to divide people over contraception, religion and class.

Sally, Go research how the monstrosity known as Dodd Frank was passed. Sen Scott Brown (R! Mass.) voted yea.

As did Sen Susan Collins(R Maine) and Sen Olympia Snowe also R (maine).

It would have never passed without these three turncoat republicans.

"Now you are a[n] English teacher Mr. Kerr." Tsk,tsk Deke.
The Catholic Church just wants to be able to continue to teach morality, as it has for 2000 years.
They teach that your body is not yours to do as you wish with.
1 Corinthians 6:13c-15a.17-20
"Brothers and sisters:
The body is not for immorality, but for the Lord,
and the Lord is for the body;
God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
Whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
Avoid immorality.
Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,
but the immoral person sins against his own body.
Do you not know that your body
is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you,
whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
For you have been purchased at a price.
Therefore glorify God in your body."

After 2000 years they see no reason to change, and I must confess that looking at my imperfect life, neither do I.

There are zero liberal republicans

Until he became a turncoat - Arlen Specter.

The Catholic Church just wants to be able to continue to teach morality, as it has for 2000 years.
All the while sweeping the pedophile problem under the rug. Having secret out of court settlements in several states and moving the offending priests to California, etc.
Every four years these Bishops parade around in their clerical robes and try to say that liberals are anti religious. For example, John Kerry was to be denied Holy Communion by one Bishop who just happened to be a good sweeper under the rug.

...
written by Ironman, February 13, 2012 - 03:43 PM


There are zero liberal republicans


Until he became a turncoat - Arlen Specter.

He was never considered a liberal republican - he was considered a moderate republican, which just shows how little you know.

Coincidentally, The Onion has a related story up today.

New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct

WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.

According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-breeding-program-aimed-at-keeping-moderate-rep,27371/

Speaking of how little someone knows-

When Barack the magnificent calls the repubs "the party of NO!" Why doesn't he ever mention the cooperation he got on Dodd Frank?

Is he lying to the folks, sally? or it just slips his memory?

He was never considered a liberal republican - he was considered a moderate republican, which just shows how little you know.

He was no moderate. He was a liberal, voted against the party time and time again, which just shows how little you know.

Iron, a footnote about Specter, you may recall.

In the summer of 2009.
A country club in suburban philadelphia extended an invitation to an inner city school (read black) to come swim at the club.
The pool had a capacity of 75, the bus brought 125+ kids, making a safety hazard.
The kids were subsequently disinvited- or not invited back, because of the safety hazard.

According to media reports of the disinvitation, you'd have thought a lynching occurred.

Enter our hero Arlen, who I kid you not, stood at a microphone and yammered the words "hate crime" and "justice dept investigation".

I knew then I'd never vote for a D again, as they were clearly INSANE.

Wolfie - I haven't voted D since Clinton moved the section 8 folk out to the burbs, right on my street. There went the neighborhood along with the skool district. I packed up and moved out. Likewise, if the hood or pol didn't want to play along, the DOJ threatened them with a lawsuit.

Yeah Iron, I don't think these limo-libs even realize what a marxist system implies.

Specifically, the right to private property doesn't exist. Share the wealth, everybody's entitled.

I hope the commissars show up at gorilla's south side pad with 20 junkies, and tell him-let them stay with you, it'll save energy with 20 people in the house, share the wealth!

Kate, there are no moderate Republicans left. All the sane ones have long since registered as Democrats. All that's left is the tin-foil hat brigade aka tea-baggers and the 1% of plutocrats who love to rile up these yahoos and ding-a-lings by all means necessary in order to get them to vote against their own interests so that they, the 1%, can maintain their tax cuts and other privileges.

John, that's wonderful if you don't want to sin against your own body.

However, other people have very different beliefs about what constitutes sin. One person's grave sin is unremarkable behavior to others. Perhaps we should leave the definition of what precisely constitutes sin to the churches and not try to impose it by force of law upon nonbelievers.

When Barack the magnificent calls the repubs "the party of NO!" Why doesn't he ever mention the cooperation he got on Dodd Frank?

Is he lying to the folks, sally? or it just slips his memory

Why don't you enlighten us as to how many voted for it because they all want to repeal it now. And only three republicans voted for the stimulus bill.

All the republicans voted against the Jobs Bill in the Senate -except for the one for veterans the day before veteran's day.

So, now it hasn't slipped Pres. Obama's mind nor is he lying - the party of NO is an accurate description.

Kelly, Re: your simple minded, childlike 1% vs 99% talk.

Go get a book and study any people's revolution from the last 100 years.
Look under "Stalin's great purge"

The wealthy 1% was long ago dead and buried in russia so the purge's fury was next directed at the top 30%, then 50%, then anyone who owned a small business like a restaurant. The "enemy" changes. As one class is annihilated, a new class is targeted. Until there's a new privileged class at the top whose stolen everything.

If you doubt this tale, How did south florida end up with a million cuban americans if the wealthy 1% of cuba (pre-revolution) comprised only a few thousand people?

I have a question about saying "no".

When Democrats held the Senate during the Bush years and said "no" by using pro forma sessions to deny Bush the ability to make recess appointments, was that a justified? Were you cheering Democrats on when that happened?

When Republicans went into pro forma session to deny President Obama the ability to make a recess appointment, and then he made them anyways, was that justified? Where you cheering the President on when that happened?

Or is it that pro forma only means a Republican President can't make appointments, but Democrats have a different rulebook?

Or is it that pro forma only means a Republican President can't make appointments, but Democrats have a different rulebook?

Johnny -- If the GOP would allow Senate confirmations to proceed at a normal pace there wouldn't be any need for recess appointments. During the last two years of the Bush Administration, the Democratically controlled Senate approved 75% of Bush's appointments. During teh Obama Administration, the GOP minority has only allowed 57% of Obama's appointees to be confirmed.

Sorry, I forgot to add the link to my last post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/us/politics/experts-say-obamas-recess-appointments-could-signify-end-to-a-senate-role.html

graywolf,

I just took a moment to check out your little allegory on Specter and the swim club.

I googled this (+kids +pool +discrimination +specter) and there were plenty of reports.

Turns out you're quite the Tall Tale Teller, a real Lilly Gilder if you will.

Yes there was a dispute between Creative Steps, the inner-city group and the Valley Swim Club but that's were your narrative parts company with reality.

The club never extended an invitation for the kids to come swim at the club. They had a signed contract to accommodate 65 kids from Creative Steps who had already paid the swim club $1,950 to use the pool once a week.

None of the articles said exactly how many kids showed up at the pool but NONE claimed it was more than the agreed upon number of 65 let alone 125+.

True, Specter ordered an investigation but not before urging the swim club to restate the groups pool privileges, which they refused to do.

I could find no evidence that he used the phrase "hate crime" in any way in connection with this circumstance.

I can't recall having heard anything about this story but you knew enough about it to bring it up here today but since the facts themselves didn't adequately make your point you just made up your own facts.

This reminds me of the Obama bashing emails I get all the time. Many claim to be quotes from Andy Rooney or some other universally loved curmudgeon. Then when you check with Snopes or Fact Check it turns out to be more lying, republican bu11sh!t.

written by Ironman, February 13, 2012 - 05:02 PM
Wolfie - I haven't voted D since Clinton moved the section 8 folk out to the burbs, right on my street. There went the neighborhood along with the skool district. I packed up and moved out. Likewise, if the hood or pol didn't want to play along, the DOJ threatened them with a lawsuit.

You are mistaken Mr. Ironpan. The Allgheny County Housing Authority was sued in Federal Court for discrimination and lost. The result was the Section 8 and other public housing was spread out throughout the county. President Clinton had nothing to do with that. You have a tendency towards political fabrication among other things.

Ya know Ksimmy, I don't know what rock you were living under in summer 2009. But this was ALL that was news on All the networks-ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN- for a whole week.

If they didn't get their facts straight then-which is a complete possibility-given how loose they play with the facts, don't pin it on me for my recollections based on their reporting.

This newspaper's Tony Norman wrote a column about this racial incident- about which you have no recollection.

And It is burned in my mind, Arlen spector's "hate crime" charge, but given how the liberal media behaves, they probably went back and censored it because it was so insane, ksimmy

I REPEAT- major news outlets reported the details of the story AT THE TIME as I posted above. Now, where ksimm the investigative reporter chose to cherry pick the censored version from, I cannot say.

"GOP moderates, please step forward for your nation"

To the Democrats, the only "good" Republican is one who is "moderate", or "bipartisan" (Democrats, btw, are never, ever bipartisan), that is to say, Republicans who vote with the Democrats.

Moderation and bipartisanship is strictly a one-way Democrat street which leads to bigger government, unsustainable entitlement programs, welfare expansion... The list grows and expands daily.

So why don't *you* conservative Democrats (Yeah, yeah; I know, I know...) step forward for your nation?

There goes Bunda....he's always right and never wrong. Duh.

written by Deke, February 13, 2012 - 07:52 PM You have a tendency towards political fabrication among other things.

Since you have a rather limited understanding of the concept of irony, I will, as a small public service, point out to you this is analagous the the pot calling the kettle black.

written by Deke, February 13, 2012 - 08:04 PM There goes Bunda....he's always right and never wrong.

See what I mean? Q.E.D.

Here Ksimmy,

"The actions of the white pool owners has cause so much controversy that US sen Arlen Spector plans to
launch an investigation into the discrimination claim"

What part of INVESTIGATION don't you understand ksimmy?
And if it was a reporter who added "hate crime"-this detail alters the content how?

Spector-" The allegations against the swim club as they are reported are extremely disturbing, I am reaching out to the parties involved to ascertain the facts, racial discrimination has no place in america today"

Racial discrimination- the reporter adds "hate crime" possibly. So split hairs clown!
try this link

http://www.racismreview.com/bl...ol-racism/

So what you're saying gorilla, is that yes, there are two different sets of rules, because you've arbitrarily decided that President Obama's circumstances require it, but Bush's didn't.

Trivia Question: How many times in history has a recess appointment been made during a pro forma session?

Bonus Round: If the Republican nominee wins the election and the Democrats hold the Senate, will you accept the Republican President making pro forma appointments for his nominees?


All this talk of the Senate reminds me... Joe Lieberman. Here's a guy that went from being the Vice Presidential candidate in 2008 for the entire party to being shunned out of his own party during a primary race for Senate - a race he won as an Independent.


So did Joe leave the party, or did the party leave him, as the saying goes?

My guess is that answer will conform to the one I got about pro forma, different standards for different parties.

I mean 2000, what am I thinking... it all starts to blend together.

Johnny B, that gorilla post about recess appointments and the accompanying liberal art math 75%/57% = dem bush era confirmations vs repub obama confirmations.

So the 18% differential is supposed to show us dems are more cooperative? Depending on the numbers, it may show us the dems approved 1/2 person more of bush's nominees that repubs did obama's.

This tells us what?

I'm hesitant to jump into the great swimming pool debate, but I have to agree with Ksimm. Wolfie's description of the whole brouhaha was completely different from every account I was able to find.

Here's ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8043735&page=1#.Tzm79rQ0OSo

Here's NBC:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/archive/Swim-Club-Members-Nothing-to-Do-With-Race.html

Here's CNN:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-09/us/philly.pool_1_president-john-duesler-club-property-valley-swim-club?_s=PM:US

Here's the Tony Norman column he cited:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09198/984509-153.stm

Not one of these transcripts mentions the phrase "hate crime" that Wolfie says was all over the news. None of them mention the 125+ kids that supposedly showed up. As Tony Norman states, the $1950 fee the camp paid was based on an exact head count of kids that would come, so it's surprising the country club would suddenly say the 65 kids they contractually agreed to host constituted a safety hazard.

Well if there's a magic percentage number that then allows a President to tell the Senate whether or not its in session, then lets hear what that number is and why.

I just used that as an example to illustrate that much to the dismay of people in both parties on this blog, both parties in Congress play the roll of obstructionist when in the minority - that's what a minority does.

They can be effective or ineffective depending on the size of the majority, the leadership involved, and the national circumstances. But I'm not going to be led to believe some false memory that minority or majority Democrats during the Bush years were happy to hold hands and play nice.

It's like the charge that no other President in history has been criticized like our current one. Has he been heavily criticized? Yes. Was his predecessor demonized religiously as well? Yes.

This "party of no" and "where have all the moderates gone" stuff floating around is a bunch of BS, I don't care where its coming from or who its directed at. Its childish.

JohnnyB -- Once again you ignore the substance of my argument and push forth with your preferred talking points. I'm to the point where I think this is a 'feature not a bug' of your debate style. You want to condemn Obama for ignoring Senate rules on what constitutes a Senate session but you yourself ignore the GOP's constant refusal to even give Obama's appointments an up or down vote.

So the essence of this whole debate boils down to Republican Senators creating a crisis because a minority refuses to allow Senate confirmations to proceed in a timely manner. Obama responds to this unprecedented crisis by using an unprecedented legal interpretation of what constitutes the Senate being in session. You and other Republicans are outraged by Obama's "power grab" while completely ignoring the GOP's strong arm tactics that provoked it. Perhaps if you simply acknowledged your side's complicity in this sordid mess I'd seriously consider what you have to say on the matter. You only seem concerned with half the story though.

So the 18% differential is supposed to show us dems are more cooperative? Depending on the numbers, it may show us the dems approved 1/2 person more of bush's nominees that repubs did obama's.

Wolfie -- If you'd have read the link I'd provided you'd have seen this:

In the two years that Mr. Bush had to contend with a Democratic Senate, 740 of his 981 nominees for civilian positions were confirmed, a rate of 75 percent. During the 112th Congress, 285 of Mr. Obama’s 503 civilian nominees have been confirmed, or 57 percent, according to Senate statistics.

So in two years Bush made almost twice as many appointments than Obama has made in over three years. Democrats approved 740 appointments in two years while Republicans have approved 285 in three. That's a staggering disparity.

You and other Republicans are outraged by Obama's "power grab" while completely ignoring the GOP's strong arm tactics that provoked it. Perhaps if you simply acknowledged your side's complicity in this sordid mess I'd seriously consider what you have to say on the matter. You only seem concerned with half the story though.

The GOP's use of "strong arm tactics" is the way that our system of government is supposed to work. There are checks and balances for a reason. I realize that in today's fast-paced, "I want it now" society, no one wants to wait for anything. Instant gratification is the norm. But, things that happen in government happen slowly so that issues and appointments and such can be discussed, debated, and compromised on. And, in the end, if the opposing party still opposes the nominee, tough, that's how it goes, no matter who is in charge. It's happened to Dems, it's happened to Rep's. It's how the government keeps itself balanced, so one party doesn't rule the roost. Choose a different candidate and move on.

Now, what the President did is a power grab. It's one branch of government, in essence one man, being mad that he can't immediately have his way, so so he circumvents the precedent in place for the situation and does what he pleases. This is wrong, especially since his party is the one that set the precedent.

Arguing that it's A-OK for him to have done this because the prior president had less appointments blocked is ludicrous. It's the equivilent of two siblings whining that one got more candy or cake than the other. In one instance the party is following the set protocol for dealing with appts, filibustering (which both parties have done),or voting no or whatnot. In the other instance the "party" is setting his own protocol as he goes, one that is directly opposite what their party did when they were in the minority.

So, no, I won't acknowledge that the GOP wouldn't give in, roll over, and pass a candidate that they didn't think should be in the position. They didn't get voted into office to agree with everything Obama and the Dems want. If there is not allowed to be opposition, then what is the point of having a two party system in the first place?

To whom it may concern-

Googleaycare center to sue swim club over civil rights- CNN

which contains this: "Specifically, the lawsuit will be based on violations of title II of the civil rights act of 1964 which relates to the denial of access and use and advantages of a public accommodation" attorney said.

So, split hairs all you like. Is a federal civil rights lawsuit synonymous with "hate crime" in our modern language? A reporter I saw thought so. You can decide for yourself.

That's Google: Daycare center to sue swim club over civil rights-CNN

Don't know how the smiley face got there

No gorilla, you've got a clear double-standard on is one. We can both complain about a minority party road-blocking nominees and being the party of 'no'. We can both complain about the filibuster, something the majority always hates and the minority always loves, regardless of party.

But you cannot deny that the Senate is the judge of whether or not it is itself in session, not an outside entity. It has that authority as per the Constitution to establish its own rules and proceedings.

Pro forma was used by both parties. Only one party saw fit to say the Senate is no longer the judge of its own proceedings, and only you stand here to make excuses for it, which is why I roll my eyes at complaints of stubborn Republicans. No body is perfect, but on this one you've got a double-standard, my friend.

I remember the Bush years. 10 judicial nominees filibustered by Harry Ried. Our current President was a Senator that year. Senate Republicans threatened to change the filibuster rule, well within their power since the Senate is the judge of its own rules. Democrats went nuts at that idea. Both sides said they were willing to see their side throw to the end. Republicans were vilified as tyrants trampling on the rights of the minority. I agree they were short-sighted, but hardly tyrannical by threatening to change a procedural rule pushed for by none other than Woodrow Wilson.

Compromise came from both parties in the gang of 14, 7 from each party. One side wouldn't vote on filibuster, the other wouldn't vote on the 'nuclear option'. That allowed appointees to come to the floor for a vote.

You can point to numbers, but you can't tell me where the authority for a President to do that comes from. You can say extraordinary, but you can't pick a magic number based on any kind of substantive value. I wonder what the magical number will be for the next Republican President, I assume much different than for the current occupant. But that cat will already be out of the bag, won't it?

I'm just trying to highlight that this bickering over who is more stubborn and who is more of a roadblock is really pointless, and those who pretend like be party s holding some kind of moral high ground is living in a fairy tale.

Well said t.s

And what's particularly galling about this one particular recess appt- to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is that the director will answer to no one due to the structure the dems put in place when they controlled the show and created it.

Even the super secret CIA has to brief congress and ask for its budget. Not this CFPB, it draws it's budget as it pleases.

And the director has no obligation to appear before congress and explain his activities, unlike all other posts.

The bureau can write its own rules, and enforce them, bypassing the lawmaking process.

There was a good reason congress wouldn't appoint someone as director. The repubs wanted a more democratic commission/panel instead of a all powerful czar.

It was very much a Power Grab.

No gorilla, you've got a clear double-standard on is one. We can both complain about a minority party road-blocking nominees and being the party of 'no'. We can both complain about the filibuster, something the majority always hates and the minority always loves, regardless of party.

But the fact is that the Republicans are using these tactics far more -- particularly in the Senate -- than any prior Congress.

Then pick a number, Spock. What's the magic number?

But the fact is that the Republicans are using these tactics far more -- particularly in the Senate -- than any prior Congress.

If every President had the same values and stood for the same things, and if every congress was identical and stood for the same things, then this would be a valid arguement. But, things change. Issues change. The makeup of the administration and congress changes. So, of course there will be variation.

Unfortunately for that statement, there is no reason that the Republicans can't employ those tactics far more than they did prior. The only problem is that the Democrats don't like it, which is not a very convincing reason not to do it.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I told conservatives that it was a bad idea to concentrate power in the executive branch, but they didn't listen. Now they are stuck with it.