I’m not convinced its genetic, more research is needed. Might just be an evil life-style choice.
My understanding from certain quarters is the Dems will cede large portions of the U.S. to “the terrorists.”
My prediction is that government bloat and ethical violations will either get worse or, at the least, stay on the current level. Prove me wrong, Dems! Make me want to vote for you and not agaist the Republicans…
I just find it amusing that Republican Congresscritters are now squealing about bipartisanship and minority party’s rights after totally blowing off the issues for the previous ten years. 
I’m sure the Democrats will extend the olive branch of bipartisanship… later. But first they have to drain the swamp.
I know why you think they did it, I’m just curious if Der Trihs thinks they lied about it.
Well, if the Democrats were to be as bipartisan in 2007 as the Administration was in 2001, they would say, “We’ll ratify one Cabinet-level appointment, but not to one of the major jobs (State, Defense, Justice). Let us know which one. After that one all bets are off.”
I suspect that they will be somewhat more generous than Mr. Bush was, though, and consider his nominees on a combination of their personal merits and the degree of ideological doctrinaireness they represent.
Quite possibly. I’m not at all fond of the Democrats, and have no difficulty believing ill of them. As I’ve said elsewhere, I regard the Democrats as scum and the Republicans as monsters; since that’s my choice, I vote for the scum. That doesn’t mean I like them.
How does that constitute the Dems shooting themselves in the foot?
Cites for the specifics of these compromises?
“Much of the credit for the passage of NCLB goes to Senator Kennedy, who, as the President noted in Boston last month, was instrumental in bringing about bipartisan agreement on the basic tenets of the new law.” (http://www.doemass.org/nclb/news02/0222memo.html)
This site (http://aclu.org/safefree/general/23197prs20051221.html) mentions the Patriot Act compromise.
As far as the Deficit Reduction Act, it was part of my job to follow the progress of this bill and the GOP wanted much deeper cuts than were eventually agreed to. The Act in its final draft did very little to reduce the rate of spending for the government.
There are a variety of other areas in which the GOP showed bipartisanship. The general public, however, does not really follow what Congress is doing. How many people know about, for instance, the completely bipartisan reauthorization of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act? Or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Or pay attention to the appropriations process, which is a bipartisan orgy of spending? Most people hear about one or two things Congress does each year, and most often the media portrays that as the GOP running roughshod over the poor minority party. In reality, however, most of the legislation passed by Congress is done with strong support from both parties.
Pity Bush didn’t actually follow through:
That’s a crock. For one, Bush doesn’t set education funding; Congress does. Bush only signs the appropriations bill into law. Two, federal education funding has gone up dramatically under Bush. Kennedy is merely playing politics and trying to distance himself from his signature education plan now that it’s unpopular.
How much popularity did NCLB lose between January 2002 and March 2003?
It was pretty unpopular the moment Bush signed it, at least among professional educators.
Don’t you think its possible, that for the first 100 hours they will be giving pubs a taste of their own medicine, ramming through the general ‘well duh’ laws they’ve already mentioned as quickly as possible, then switching to “ok now that that’s out of the way, lets try and get the more complicated things sorted together”?
While your points here are valid, take into consideration that it’s the Executive Branch who drafts the Federal Budget, with the President having a rather large say in whose requests for increases get added and to what degree. Kennedy might more accurately say, “The Bureau of the Budget did not include enough money to cover what the law we agreed on calls for. So I’m making a hairy nuisance of myself to make sure it gets the money needed to do what we agreed on, in the Budget as passed by Congress.”
No, the President drafts a budget outline that is routinely ignored by Congress. Congress then (usually) passes a budget resolution that outlines how the appropriations committees can spend money. Then the appropriations committees actually pass the bills that allocate X amount of dollars to Y program. Congress then passes these bills and the President signs them. Presidents may have influence on this process by threatening to veto a certain appropriations bill, but on the whole the allocation for various departments is with the legislative branch.
That would have been inaccurate. The NCLB Act includes authorized funding levels for elementary and secondary education programs. Authorized funding is not promised funding; it is merely an amount of money up to which Congress can appropriate money.
As mentioned above, the President’s budget outline has no force in law and Bush does not allocate any money for any department. To say that Bush broke the funding promises of the NCLB Act, which is essentially what Kennedy is saying, is inaccurate on so many levels that it’s clear Kennedy is simply playing politics.
Could it possibly have been any more popular while being drafted?
It’s possible, and that sceanario wouldn’t be precluded by what I posted. I just answered the question about why the promised bipartisanship during the campaign.
I think the days of bipartisanship in the House are long gone. The House isn’t really set up that way anyway. We’ll see plenty of bipartisanship in the Senate, so it won’t really matter so much what the House does. If they pass their 6 for '06 and the Senate doesn’t go along, then what did they accomplish (other than internal House rules reforms, which don’t require the Senate involvement).
At any rate, here’s a list of ten things they should do. (Just to begin to try to counteract the dismal effects of the Bush years; this list does not include any new constructive initiatives.)
I’ll concede NCLB, but I remember how the Patriot Act was rammed through in 2001. Congress had gotten pretty far along with their own bill in a brief time, then one morning, everyone found that the GOP leadership had submitted an entirely new bill sent over from the White House, which went from introduction in the House to Presidential signature in three days. (October 23-26, 2001, if you’re keeping score at home.)
And the Deficit Reduction Act? What ‘Deficit Reduction Act’?? You mean that pack of foma where the GOP did all those nickel-and-dime cuts, a few hundred million here, a billion or two there, to pretend to be fiscally responsible after trillions in tax cuts and a half-trillion (and counting) dollar war?
Who the Sam Hill cares if they compromised on that?! ‘OK, we’ll let you have some purple smoke, it doesn’t have to be all blue smoke. But the mirrors have to stay.’