Week of June 28, 2009 - July 4, 2009
July 4, 2009, 1:10PM
And I thought it was just the party of homophobes, xenophobes, sexists and racists. Add liars, cheaters and quitters and you just about covered the whole lot. The New Whig Party.
Watch for the indictment. It will give False News a new round of "nothing more than a political prosecution" and "here come the internment camp" memes. Poor Sarah. Another victim of the Fascist Obama Dictatorship.
Here's to praying she decides to run for Prez in 2012.
July 1, 2009, 9:32AM
How about President Obama inviting every member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate to the White House and getting a public commitment, televised, from each of them:
"I hereby solemnly swear that I will vote for cloture on every bill presented by our caucus whether or not I wholeheartedly endorse its aims. I reserve the right to vote against the bill on final passage, but under no circumstances will I vote to uphold a filibuster of a bill sponsored by our caucus. If I break this pledge I fully understand that I will be labeled a Republican swine and will forgo all privileges given to me including committee chairs and assignments. So help me ..."
Why isn't this doable?
June 30, 2009, 5:47PM
Norman: If the mission was to be as big an asshole for as long as politically possible, you accomplished your mission. The party of NO got most of what they wanted here. It would have been nice for them if they could have kept Al out of the Senate for another 3-4 months (one less vote for healthcare, cap and trade and EFCA) but Norm can leave now with his fat Republican head held high, knowing he fought the bad fight for his rapidly evaporating party.
Goodbye, good riddance, and please let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
June 30, 2009, 12:03PM
It seemed like all the talk a few months back when the EPA finally did what the Supreme Court ordered it to do years ago, i.e. make a declaration on carbon as a pollutant, was "What a breakthrough for carbon emission regulation".
Can someone explain to me why the administration isn't just saying: "If you don't like the climate bill (and I'm talking to you, Claire McCaskill) fine. We'll just let the good folks at EPA determine the proper amount of carbon emissions over the next 4 years."
I had thought that this climate bill was a compromise to the big polluters to ensure that EPA couldn't destroy their current business models. If the Senate decides to gut or filibuster this bill, I say fine. Let Lisa Jackson and her crew issue tough carbon emission restrictions and get it done that way.
Besides the ephemeral and ad nauseam desire for bipartisanship, what's the downside to effective carbon control if this bill just doesn't pass? Might that in the end be a better result?
