Dem led Congress gets a win...

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks.
Click to expand...

In answer to this:

The bill "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He broke with several former allies on ethics matters, including Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

"By any measure," Feingold said in the debate, the bill "must be considered landmark legislation."

Lawmakers seeking earmarks would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before a Senate vote. They would have to certify they have no direct financial interest in the items.

McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to be less impressed with the legislation already.
 
Darla said:
I wonder why McCain and the "other republicans" quoted here didn't get a tougher bill passed when they held the majority?
Click to expand...
Don't know, but he wasn't the only one talking about it and the "Those in my position don't lie and cheat" quote just made me laugh.
 
Darla said:
I wonder why McCain and the "other republicans" quoted here didn't get a tougher bill passed when they held the majority?
Click to expand...

Baically they got their asses kicked in the election for not doing so. Now they're finally doing what they should have tried to do long ago.
 
Darla said:
I wonder why McCain and the "other republicans" quoted here didn't get a tougher bill passed when they held the majority?
Click to expand...

Because no one listened to McCain back then whenever he was protesting earmarks in the past, like he is now. McCain is not the Republican party, Darla, you seem to be confused.
 
cawacko said:
Baically they got their asses kicked in the election for not doing so. Now they're finally doing what they should have tried to do long ago.
Click to expand...

McCain has always protested earmarks, Caw. I don't think the other Republicans even now are against them. McCain is just an individual within the Republican party, and may very well hold views contrary to the other Republicans, surprising as that may seem to you guys.
 
Watermark said:
McCain has always protested earmarks, Caw. I don't think the other Republicans even now are against them. McCain is just an individual within the Republican party, and may very well hold views contrary to the other Republicans, surprising as that may seem to you guys.
Click to expand...

I know McCain has. Darla said other Republicans so I made the assumption other Republicans were supporting this with him.
 
"I'm starting to be less impressed with the legislation already."

At this point, I am happy they are at least starting down the path. They definitely have a long way to go.

As for Reid... my sides hurt from laughing at that quote.
 
But several Republicans said it fell short of requiring full disclosure of earmarks

McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.

Yeah, I just pulled it out of the air for kicks. Or, I actually went to the link, and read the article.
 
cawacko said:
I know McCain has. Darla said other Republicans so I made the assumption other Republicans were supporting this with him.
Click to expand...

I really hate it whenever people do what Darla just did.

Someone was talking about McCain, and then she used a fallacious grammatical trick and switched the subject from "McCain" to the Republicans (which is not McCain, although it may be a group he's part of, he doesn't have to share their opinions), and then, also, fallaciously insulted the Republicans for being hypocritical. If there's one thing the republican party leaders aren't, it's hypocritical. They loved earmarks before and still love them.

It's just a silly little by-product of the stupid two-party system. People aren't considered as individuals, and it's really bad for the nation.
 
Watermark said:
I really hate it whenever people do what Darla just did.

Someone was talking about McCain, and then she used a fallacious grammatical trick and switched the subject from "McCain" to the Republicans (which is not McCain, although it may be a group he's part of, he doesn't have to share their opinions), and then, also, fallaciously insulted the Republicans for being hypocritical. If there's one thing the republican party leaders aren't, it's hypocritical. They loved earmarks before and still love them.

It's just a silly little by-product of the stupid two-party system. People aren't considered as individuals, and it's really bad for the nation.
Click to expand...

Water, when you read the article, I will accept your apology.
 
Darla said:
But several Republicans said it fell short of requiring full disclosure of earmarks

McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.

Yeah, I just pulled it out of the air for kicks. Or, I actually went to the link, and read the article.
Click to expand...

McCain and others? That's really unspecific, though, Darla. They may very well have been the Republicans who have pretty much always opposed earmarks, and it may only be like 5 or so people. They've never really been the majority at all. I'm not trying to compliment the Republican party leaders, here ;).
 
Watermark said:
McCain and others? That's really unspecific, though, Darla. They may very well have been the Republicans who have pretty much always opposed earmarks, and it may only be like 5 or so people. They've never really been the majority at all. I'm not trying to compliment the Republican party leaders, here ;).
Click to expand...

Gee, that doesn't sound like an apology, which you owe me for what you just falsely accused me of.
 
I don't think many of the Republicans who voted against it voted against it because they hate earmarks, though. But I don't know. The bill passed by a quite tremendous majority. I really think that if it hadn't have been so obviously going to pass McCain would've voted for it, instead of voting against it because of a provision in a certain part.

But giving the majority party leader of the time such sweeping authority in deciding whether or not a bill is "earmark free" does seem to be rather partisan, as that persons obviously going to be biased towards their party, whatever party that may be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top