Obama, DeBlasio, Clinton & Bloomberg Bask in Grievance

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by trident60

MY perception is that the current left leaning body politic has a disproportionate bent toward maligning those with differing views, and abusing power to suppress those views. There are too many noteworthy examples to list, but a few stick out; 1. Suppressing conservative groups with IRS harassment, 2. Stonewalling Congressional inquiries into (long list here) Benghazi, Fast & Furious, VA neglect, 3. Suppression of Senate debate by dis-allowing amendments embarrassing to Democrats. All normal politics, but not seen to this degree since Watergate.

I don't think using the IRS to harass your political enemies is "normal politics" under any circumstances. To me it is completely unacceptable - whether it occurs under Nixon or Obama. Nixon didn't get very far, just far enough to have it brought up as an impeachment count. Under Obama, the IRS has been deeply corrupted by the left in an attempt to nullify the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.


Re. the suppression of debate in Harry Reid's Senate, this has become obvious yet the MSM ignores the story because it prefers to parrot the libtard claims of "Republican obstructionism". For those who haven't been paying attention, here is how the WSJ summed up the current sorry state of what used to be called the "world's greatest deliberative body":




Harry Reid's Senate Blockade

A case study in the world's greatest dysfunctional body.

May 13, 2014


The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy.

The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.

The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them.

In the case of Portman-Shaheen, Republicans had prepared amendments to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas; to object to a new national carbon tax; to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal plants; and to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline. A majority of the public supports these positions and many Democrats from right-leaning or energy-producing states claim to do the same. The bill against the EPA's coal-plant rules is co-sponsored by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin.

Yet the White House and Mr. Reid's dominant liberal wing won't take the chance that a bipartisan coalition might pass these amendments, most of which the House has passed or soon would. President Obama would thus face a veto decision that would expose internal Democratic divisions. So Mr. Reid shut down the amendment process. Republicans then responded by refusing to provide the 60 votes necessary to clear a filibuster and vote on the underlying bill.

It's important to understand how much Mr. Reid's tactics have changed the Senate. Not too long ago it was understood that any Senator could get a floor vote if he wanted it. The minority party, often Democrats, used this right of amendment to sponsor votes that would sometimes put the majority on the spot. It's called politics, rightly understood. This meant the Senate debated national priorities and worked its bipartisan will. Harry Reid's Senate has become a deliberate obstacle to democratic accountability.

And speaking of accountability, every supposedly pro-energy Democrat supported Mr. Reid in his amendment blockade. That includes Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who is running TV ads back home attacking the Obama Administration energy policies that Mr. Reid is protecting from bipartisan majority rejection. She still claims to support a vote on the Keystone XL pipeline, and she blamed Republicans for not going along with Mr. Reid's vague assurance that he would allow a stand-alone vote on Keystone later this month.

But why not force the vote now? If Ms. Landrieu really had Keystone as a top priority, as she claims, she'd have joined Republicans in demanding an immediate amendment to a bill that she knows the White House is reluctant to veto. And she'd have insisted that Mr. Reid allow a 50-vote threshold for passage, rather than Mr. Reid's 60-vote supermajority.

Ms. Landrieu instead is playing Mr. Reid's double game, demanding a Keystone vote even as she undermines its passage. She is running for election by boasting about her clout as the new Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, but she is so ineffectual that she can't get her own party to allow a vote on what she claims is one of her top priorities.

The lesson for voters is simple: If they want anything meaningful done in the last two years of the Obama Administration, they will have to elect a Republican Senate.

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by trident60

Who gets invited to speak on dedication day? Not Dubya.

Here in Pennsylvania, we made sure GWB was one of the speakers at the dedication of the Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, PA on 9/11/11.

But then, we're not New York.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. .

Why would he when the repubs have forced the need for 60 votes for years? The "tricks" you decry are used by both parties. DUH.
What the fuck do you think a filibuster is? Someone gets up and talks for as long as they can. Not talking to solve problems. Talking to make sure the senate is tied in knots.

The wsj is sure fair and unbiased since Rupert bought it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Why would he when the repubs have forced the need for 60 votes for years? The "tricks" you decry are used by both parties. DUH.
What the fuck do you think a filibuster is? Someone gets up and talks for as long as they can. Not talking to solve problems. Talking to make sure the senate is tied in knots.

The wsj is sure fair and unbiased since Rupert bought it.

No dickmuncher, this is not politics as usual. You ask why would he allow amendments? Are you really that stupid? To get things done, that's why. A bill is more likely to pass if both sides have input. You throw a bone to a few members of the other party to make the bill filibuster-proof, you idiot.

You have a problem with the WSJ, moron? How about the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us...cans.html?_r=0


“I’m just kind of fed up,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a moderate Republican who has increasingly become a key vote for Democratic legislation. “He’s a leader. Why is he not leading this Senate? Why is he choosing to ignore the fact that he has a minority party that he needs to work with, that actually has some decent ideas? Why is he bringing down the institution of the Senate?”


...Senate votes are trending downward. Exempting nonbinding budget amendments, total amendment votes reached 218 in 2007, Mr. Reid’s first year in control, to 175 in 2009, to 123 in 2012, to 67 last year, by Reid staff calculations. Since mid-July, Republicans have gotten four amendment votes.


Those are real numbers, dickmuncher, from Reid's own staff, and they prove this is NOT politics as usual. Perhaps your libtard hero Harry Reid would feel more at home in the Russian Duma than the US Senate?

.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't recall reading many of your posts before, but if this sewage and revisionist history is typical of your posts you will fit right in this cesspool. Hard to pack in more lies per word than IB or IIFFy, but you are sure trying.

Good to know all that about intelligence sharing. Too bad it isn't true. The non-sharing problems go back much, much farther than that, at least into the '50s. It's also good to know we successfully ran al quida out of Afghanistan--then why do I know so many people who have been spending time getting wounded over there in the last 10 years? Yep, you look to be yet another RWW who has no interest in truth or intelligent comments, just spewing hate to anyone left of you (which is about 99.99 percent of the world, and 30 percent of this board). You'll fit right in!

Not quite right. The Church Committee of the 1970s instituted the separation between the intelligence agencies. They felt that the FBI, NSA, and CIA had too much information about Americans. Later Jamie Gorelick of the Clinton White House erected the so-called "Wall of Separation" between civilian intelligence gathering and military intelligence gathering. This "wall" prevented our intelligence agencies from comparing notes for fear of breaking the law. Some agencies knew about Mohammed Atta and his intent but they did not know what he was doing once inside the United States. Others knew what he was up to inside this country (no income, flight school, contacts) but did not know his overseas connections.

Has the Patriot Act which was designed to reverse this gone too far? It seems that they spend more time, money, and effort watching us than they do watching for the bad guys. When returning veterans (but not CAIR or Occupy) are considered a possible terrorist group then something is wrong.

[Old-T]

I agree with much of what you say, but the inability and/or unwillingness to exchange information has existed--as you point out--for decades, with the big push as part of the Nixon fall out.

Policies, egos, communications networks, clearances, ignorance, decades of stove pipe thinking, unmanageable volumes of data, piecemeal funding and decision making, and lack of an integrated data structure all contribute. The distrust between law enforcement and Intel is deeply ingrained on both sides. At the working levels and up through the low-level "seniors" there are a lot of people who mean well but do not know how to cut through the gov't bureaucracy to institute systemic change.

[trident60]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree with much of what you say, but the inability and/or unwillingness to exchange information has existed--as you point out--for decades, with the big push as part of the Nixon fall out.

Policies, egos, communications networks, clearances, ignorance, decades of stove pipe thinking, unmanageable volumes of data, piecemeal funding and decision making, and lack of an integrated data structure all contribute. The distrust between law enforcement and Intel is deeply ingrained on both sides. At the working levels and up through the low-level "seniors" there are a lot of people who mean well but do not know how to cut through the gov't bureaucracy to institute systemic change.

Well said, Old-T, but you left off the simplest and most pervasive obstacle to reform, simple corruption. There are a lot of complacent bureaucrats, mindlessly holding down a place to get to retirement who don't profit from the enormous economic power wielded by government. Sadly, there are many who are in a position to sway regulation and policy, and are all too amenable to political influences, especially when a cushy private sector job beckons as a reward. There are a lot of big money interests hanging around government that grease the gears of corruption.

Here is exemplary incident. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were major enablers to the 2008 financial meltdown, ending up in government conservatorship. Their nominal government regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Administration under the direction of Edward DeMarco, tightened reserve requirements and clawed back most of Fannie and Freddie's ill gotten gains for the taxpayer. Five years into this sensible retrenchment the real estate and banking interests want to bring back the good old days and loosen lending and reserve requirements. How to do this? Call the White House and get a new FHFA administrator with more "understanding", a good man like Mel Watt. Of course he is well qualified, despite his famous uttering in open committee meeting that he doesn't understand CDO's. His real qualification is that he will harmoniously play ball with both liberal/progressive interests and the banking industry. How can this be? Easy. He is a long standing member of the Congressional Black Caucus and represents Charlotte, N.C., home to major banking interests. He has enjoyed the seventh largest campaign contributions from banking interests of any congressman. So BHO happily nominates him. Those evil, obstructionist Republicans, perhaps those who don't enjoy campaign support from Bank of America, immediately object and begin slow walking his Senate confirmation. What looks like obstructionist, even racist, opposition is in reality pragmatic governance to avoid another meltdown, facilitated by the same corrupt gang. Harry Reid invokes the nuclear option to suspend Senate rules and one of the first un-qualified, corrupt nominees sails through. Now ensconced in FHFA, the obliging Mel wants to undo DeMarco's rules requiring banks to hold higher reserves for borrowers who don't put down at least 20% on a loan. This looks like compassionate regulation, appeasing the CBC, Elizabeth Warren, et al, but in reality is tilting the playing field towards Wall Street again.

Who cares about this stuff? It's too arcane and wonky for anybody to understand and media, both print and broadcast, won't dare go near it because it hurts ratings. They can sell a lot more ads for broadcasts that focus on Donald Sterling and Solange Knowles. Networks have to compete with TMZ and Entertainment Tonight. Nobody's going to go after Mel, his ethics problems notwithstanding, for fear of being labelled a racist or mindless partisan.

[Old-T]

I certainly accept that corruption plays a roll in politics. To deny it would be stupid. But I have spent over 25 years in and near the intelligence community and I believe corruption and self interest is less of an issue there than in many parts of the gov't. Ideology, stovepipe syndrome, and ego more so. AMONG CAREER INTEL PEOPLE. Appointees who did not grow up in the culture are a very different matter.